Downfall (Der Untergang) Review

Nobody likes Hitler. We all want to see him dead. This movie depicts the last days of Hitler, hunkered down inside his Berlin bunker. And I have to say it was one of the most gut wrenching cinema experiences I've had in quite some time.

Let me be straight, I felt no pity for Hitler, no pity for that monstrosity of a man. Rather I feel extraordinary sympathy with the people caught in his terrible wake. The General who doesn't want his family captured, so he blows them up at dinner with two grenades. The young secretary who was there for every important moment, yet doesn't realize the implications. The lovers who only have a few more hours, and when the end is near, they commit suicide.

This powerful film shows you what happened to the closest friends and Military leaders caught with Hitler in his Führerbunker. Told primarily from the perspective of Hitler's personal Secretary, the film vividly portrays the final excruciating hours of the Third Reich. Hitler is at the forefront of the story, going from calm, collected, military tactician, to a screaming and maniacal lunatic in the next.

It's a very difficult film to watch. There are countless scenes towards the final act that just had me torn up. Children put to sleep with medicine only to have their mother systematically go around and pop cyanide capsules in their mouths. When one daughter doesn't want to take the medicine, the Mother must force her to. The anguish experienced watching this becomes amplified when you realize these people are completely misled into the Nazi agenda.

This is a difficult thing to come to grips with; it is one thing to be sympathetic to a Holocaust Jew, it is another to feel the same sympathy for the supposed bad guys. But you realize that they aren't evil. Misguided and lost, but not evil. Hitler's the evil one, and they give him more than a few moments to make you realize it. The others are doing what they think is the right thing. Everybody was so enraptured by Hitler's promise, they found themselves following his every word. To see them caught in an inescapable situation, and then forced to suicide, the sadness is compounded by their ignorance.

I cannot recommend this film enough. I love historical pieces, and even more so when they are told from an unconventional perspective. This film encapsulates this horrific moment in history so effectively, I feel it should be shown in every 20th century history lesson. Not only does it encompass the final days of Hitler so well, and serve as an excellent example of history, but it makes you conscious of the horror of undue fanaticism, and its deadly consequences on both the innocent and guilty.

A

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: Vanishing Point

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Vanishing Point
Released: January 15, 1971
Directed by: Richard C. Sarafian
Starring: Barry Newman

Plot in a Nutshell:
Kowalski (Newman) makes a bet to deliver a 1970 Dodge California from Colorado to San Francisco in 15 hours. However his excessive speeding draws the attention of every police precinct on his way, and a film-length chase ensues across the desert landscape.

What I thought:
When I say this a film-length chase, I mean it. From virtually the opening frame to the final explosive conclusion, Kowalski is running from cops across four states. It makes for a hell of a car flick, but is it a good film otherwise? I have to say that while I enjoyed the chase, the surrounding elements never fully gelled into anything spectacular, or even coherent.

You already know the basics: a man has to deliver car under a deadline, cops pursue him. And that's about it. This simplicity, I found to be refreshing to see in a film. The thing I gripe about, is everything else that has nothing to do with that basic setup and plot.

Threaded throughout the story is a Blind DJ character named Super Soul. He begins as a simple blind black man doing his DJ day job, but when he picks up on the chase through police scanners, he begins to communicate with Kowalski through the radio. And not just talking to Kowalski, but actually have dialogue through the AM/M radio. Yes, I know, it is crazy. The film gives a bit of mystery to this character; he is somehow able to communicate through other means. Some of the things I have read about this flick say it is a mystical element to the character; he is a special blind DJ. I however felt it was a simple stylistic choice, and shouldn't be taken as mysticism (however odd it may be).

As Kowalski goes along on his journey, he runs into several people that help to enrich the story and his character. The snake-catching desert wanderer, an over enthusiastic chopper rider, two flamboyant robbers, and a nude female motorcyclist. Yes, it is an odd assortment of kooky characters. But they help to paint a better picture of Kowalski.

The chase stuff is fantastic. When the Challenger is zipping up and down the median, crossing lanes of oncoming traffic, with the hotly pursuing cops right behind, it does create some exhilarating moments. Apparently to achieve some of the speed in the film they under cranked the camera by 50%, basically enabling the cars to look as though they are going twice the speed they really are. It works very well as the car action is some of the best I have ever seen.

My only grip is that the story seemed to meander to the DJ character way too often. When the film began, I latched onto the simple premise. I didn't need any explanation of why this guy is delivering vehicles, I didn't need to know details, I was perfectly happy with it being a chase movie designed to make gear-heads giddy. But adding in the strange DJ character did nothing and slowed what I think could have been a fantastic piece of cult cinema. Unfortunately I think it gets weighed down by its unnecessary last reel artsyness.

Bottom Line:
A fantastic chase movie that tries to reach beyond its simple premise, and fails.

C+

And here's the film-ruining DJ:

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: All Quiet on the Western Front

Note: Yes I know this is late. My Bad. I am allowed to slip every now and again. But get ready, you're in for a long one...

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

All Quiet on the Western Front
Released: April 21, 1930
Directed by: Lewis Milestone
Starring: Louis Wolheim, Lew Ayres, & William Bakewell

Plot in a Nutshell:
A group of young Germans enlist in the Army to fight for the Fatherland during WWI Europe. What they thought was going to be a heroic and fun adventure, turns into a hard battle for both their country and for their very sanity.

What I thought:
What a strong, powerful, film this turned out to be. I walked into this not knowing quite what to expect. It is the earliest war film I have ever seen. It has the very interesting distinction of being made at a fragile time before WWII, so I find its themes to be incredibly fascinating.

The story is very simple. It is like a hundred other "boys go to war and become men on the battlefield." It is so effective, because it begins with a group of 20 or so young men, but throughout the film, not all of them make it. The impact on the survivors is just as real as it is on the dead and dying. War scars the hell out of you. This film is an attempt to show people the damage war can reek on the young men who fight them. I think it succeeds admirably as an anti war film. I can't imagine anybody watching this and thinking, "Man, that looks like fun!" Obviously people didn't get that out of this movie at the time, because shortly after it's release WWII began to churn up. An interesting note is that it was banned in Germany during the rise of the Nazis. And the book it was based on was one of the many that were burned during those awful years.

The absolute first thing I discovered about this film was that it is very unlike the traditional war films I am familiar with from the 50s and on. This film was made with the intent to show the gritty awfulness of combat. Every battle scene plays like a real battle could. Endless shells detonating across the battle field, men getting shot left and right, chaos erupting in the trenches when the enemy charges. It is done so well, and so effectively, that I wonder what the hell happened over the course of the next 30 years after this film's release.

Thankfully missing from All Quiet on the Western Front, are the selfless single entities of heroism The John Waynes; the character that is so above the real story that it ceases to become reality and becomes Hollywood fakery. The sugar-coated digestibility that many war films seemed to be about in the 50s and 60s, is completely gone here. I think a large part of that is that after WWII, people were more sensitive to violence. People wanted to see "Heroes." They wanted to see combat, but not be appalled, but be excited. This film is brave in that it doesn't hold your hand. Doesn't cover up the atrocities of war. It puts them out there. And it is made all the more impressive considering the film was made in 1930. Absolutely incredible filmmaking.

I want to single out the cinematography (I know I love to). Black and White films are a big bag of mix for me. Sometimes they are done so poorly. I think of the many dozen I have seen, very few have been what I would call impressive in cinematography. The lighting and the sets never seem to gel together, and instead you get a washy blended mess.

I love high contrast black and white imagery. I love it even more when a film captures Black and white the way I feel it should be done. All Quiet on the Western Front's black and white photography is astounding. But more than just the look, it is equally impressive in the camera placements and moves. Throughout the course of the film I saw many amazing shots and sequences that simply took my breath away.

Some shots were incredibly simple, a shot looking up to see the oncoming enemy silhouetted and jumping into the trench, bayonet at the ready. Others were more complex, a camera move through the battle field, following soldiers as they try to dodge incoming shells. The amazing thing about that shot was the shear amount of stuff going on in frame. It's the kind of stuff that inspired Spielberg to make his battle sequences in Saving Private Ryan so relentless, All Quiet on the Western Front did it 70 years prior.

At one point in the film, one of the characters gets pinned down in a shelled out hole. The enemy advances and dozens of troops jump over him not realizing he is there. One French man sees him, jumps down and attacks. The frightened German does what he can and manages to stab him with a bayonet. Unfortunately for the German the wound isn't enough to kill the Frenchman. What occurs over the next few minutes of screen time, was one of the most painful experiences I can imagine someone having during battle. The enemy is there, dying, incapacitated, only a few feet away. You feel absolute empathy for him. After all it is kill or be killed, as the German tries to explain to the dying man. He struggles to keep his grip, but can't. He begins to weep for the Frenchman, and he slowly dies. Afterward, the German is looking in his pockets for a note, and discovers a portrait of the man's family.

This moment I have just described has been done in countless movies since this, but never have I felt so intensely for this poor man's morality. Scenes like this elevate a film to a much higher plane than simply entertainment. The little moments of extraordinary simplicity but unimaginable depth of complexity are why I love film more than any other medium in existence.

This is an absolute tour de force of filmmaking mastery. Everything about it exudes grandeur. I was astonished at the techniques on display. And not only is it an achievement of filmmaking, but the themes it presents of futility in war, and death of innocence are incredibly powerful. This is an absolute must see film. Don't let the age fool you, this is one intense, grand, masterpiece of cinema that has to be seen.

Bottom Line:
An immensely impressive war film that stops at nothing to get the point across; War is hell.

A

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: Gallipoli

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Gallipoli
Released: August 13, 1981
Directed by: Peter Weir
Starring: Mel Gibson & Mark Lee

Plot in a Nutshell:
Two naive young Australian men decide to leave Australia and go to fight in the Great War. After being sent to Gallipoli in Turkey, they face the grim reality of battle.

What I thought:
Gallipoli is war film not centered on battles, tactics, victories, or defeats. It is at its center, about the loss of innocence. It seems a lot of war films try to explore this change of boy to man through warfare, Gallipoli pulls it off very well.


Told in several distinct acts, the film builds from one to the next very easily. It begins very intimately, focusing on a runner named Archy (Lee), training for cross country glory. He ends up meeting with Frank (Gibson) and they both join the Australian Army. Once they get into the War theater, they sit around and participate in training exercises, until at last they are sent to the trenches on the shores of Gallipoli. It is here that a tragedy in combat occurs, changing their lives.

The thing that is done so well is the buildup of these two fellas. How they are both eager to a degree, and wanting to go off and have an adventure. It is the same in a lot of films about the young getting old. Naive as they are, they make the transition into men very quickly when confronted with war.

This is a great story of coming of age for both the characters in the film, but also for the young nation of Australia. It had only been a mere decade and a half since they had become a country, before they were asked to send troops to a war n the other side of the globe. You get the sense that the Australians were very different than that of their British brethren.

I enjoyed this film. I kind of wish the score weren't dated 80s electric music. It does kind of pull me out of the film for the few scenes it is in. The film looks great. The scenes in the outback are incredibly harsh and well shot. The action towards the end is very light. Several sequences you only hear the explosions and charging. And while I enjoyed the flick, I have to say that it doesn't stray too far from being a simple loss-of-innocence story. That said, it is still a good one to watch. And you get to see Mel in his young, young days when he still spoke like an Australian.

Bottom Line:
A good coming-of-age tale, like almost every other that you've seen, told with interesting characters and featuring a little known point in history in WWI.

B

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: Moby Dick

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Moby Dick
Released: June 27, 1956
Directed by: John Huston
Starring: Gregory Peck

Plot in a Nutshell:
A Captain of a whaling ship stops at nothing in pursuit of the mythic white whale that took his leg.

What I thought:
There is one word to describe this film, stuffy. This is not so much an adaptation as it is a telling of the book. I know that sounds nearly identicle but let me explain. An adaptation will stretch and bend to fit a story to the medium it is trying to fill. An adaptation of a book will never contain everything. It has to be adapted to the screen. This film doen't feel as though it were changed to fit the medium of film, rather it is a strict telling of the tale of the obsessed captain and his crew in their relentless search for the whale Moby Dick.

Gregory Peck commands this role. With every word, every breath, you feel this captain's driven insanity, and that is largely due to his performance. It is simply magnificent when he is bellowing and thrusting his spear into the whale that haunts him. Tremendous.

The effects are not great, but that is to be expected (this is a 50 year old film after all). I don't dock it for trying. Utilizing models and scale replicas, the film manages to create a realistic illusion of terror at sea without becoming too hokey.

I really enjoyed this flick. I am discovering that I have a real affinity for classic sailing naval movies. I find it fascinating to look at the hundred of ropes in the rigging and realize that to somebody, that made sense. This film captures the look of a vessel at sea very well.

The thing I did not enjoy, or rather the thing I found distracting was the whole point I made about a telling of the tale. There are whole passages in the film that feel as though they were lifted straight out of the novel. It isn't a bad thing until the dialogue gets in the way of the story's comprehension. It is heavy. And it only gets heavier as the film wears on. But in the end I found it to be a small matter, and in some ways it helps elevate the piece out of being merely another monster movie.

Bottom Line:
With a fascinating central character, portrayed flawlessly by Peck, this classic story gets a just retelling in this fantastic if not heavy film.

A-

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: The Big Chill

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

The Big Chill
Released: September 28, 1983
Directed by: Lawrence Kasdan
Starring: Kevin Kline, Glenn Close, Tom Berenger, Jeff Goldblum, & William Hurt

Plot in a Nutshell:
A group of college chums who have drifted apart over the years, come together again to attend a funeral of one of their friends.

What I thought:
What happens after a group of not-so-close-anymore friends are thrust back into the same house for a weekend? Drugs, hookups, and many conversations about the good ole days when we were young. The catalyst for these characters reuniting is a friend's suicide, which is never explained, nor does it need to be. The point of this movie is not about grieving or death, but rather what happens when the young grow old and find the world a bit harsher than they thought it would be.

The first thing that struck me about this film was the characters and how well they have been crafted. In a matter of scenes you know who everyone is. By simply showing them unpack a bag, you get an impression of each person. It is this minimalist character development that I found fascinating, and it ultimately drew me further into the story.

However, there isn't much of that story to be had. Much like what happens when you try to catch up with an old friend; you get just enough to know what has happened, but rarely do you get every detail since you last parted. That is what this movie feels like. The people in it make you feel that sense of connection, a sense of home, and the good times shared with friends. But it doesn't do much beyond that.

It meanders across every character, dipping in and out of their pasts and where they'd like to be going. Everything is intersting, but aside from tlking, their is no real action on their part. It is a bit frustrating when you get invested in characters and discover nothing is going to come of them, at least not in the 100 minutes you will be with them. But there are far more things to like than dislike in this flick.

One of the best things about the film is the music. Gathering together some great hits of the 60s, it incorporates incredibly well with the action onscreen as well as set a fantastic mood. "Joy to the World," "Heard it through the Grapevine," "My Girl," "Good Lovin'," and the list goes on and on. I have had the soundtrack on my iPod for years. My parents used to play it in the car and at home when i was a kid. I've listened to these songs over and over again. They fit into the film like a warm glove on a cold day.

I'm not disappointed, and I'm not elated. I find myself mildly satisfied. I enjoyed the film. It is a great example of how to do character right. But I don't think it is very strong in any aspect of explanation or purpose. But where else could it go? Sometimes an explanation is not needed. Simply to be, and to be with friends is enough. At its heart, it is a film about these relationships and how they impact each other.

Bottom Line:
A character-movie that serves them well. Getting bits and pieces of their torn stories, you are drawn into their lives, even if there isn't much of a plot.

B

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: West Side Story

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

West Side Story
Released: October 18, 1961
Directed by: Robert Wise & Jerome Robbins
Starring: Natalie Wood & Richard Beymer

Plot in a Nutshell:
The classic tale of Romeo and Juliet is retold in Broadway musical form with a New York slum setting.

What I thought:
I have decided that musicals based on Shakespeare aren't my thing. I tried to enjoy this flick, but I can't. Maybe it's my modern sensibilities of what makes a good musical, or it could simply be that I don't think hoodlums dancing and singing make for a good story. In either case I wasn't very thrilled with West Side Story.

I think the problem is that this is a carbon copy of the Broadway musical that preceded it. With few exceptions, the film feels like it was filmed as the play was performed on stage. The sets resemble a stage in nearly every scene. Very little was done to make it seem bigger or grander.

As you are aware, this is Romeo and Juliet with different clothes. The story doesn't deviate very much at all, The big exception here is the musical numbers and the setting. Like I said before, this seems like the musical was merely filmed and put on a movie screen. But that aside, I still don't find the numbers compelling, nor the acting credible. Frankly, It feels antiquated and tired.

Everything is done larger than life, slightly on the opposite side of normality. The characters are cutout stereotypes that jump and twirl around, propelling a tired, copied story. I didn't find it enjoyable at all. Sorry, I know it's a classic and has even won Oscars, but I just can't like it.

On the bright side of this, there are a couple of tunes that I found enjoyable. And if I am to take anything from this flick it would have to be that. But it also is a big problem for me. I simply can't buy the idea of a bunch of street thugs singing and dancing. They lose all credibility as anything dangerous or menacing the moment they start snapping their fingers in unison. The moment they start jumping and twirling in unison was the moment I lost interest. I have no problem with a good musical number, but to see these supposed "bad boys" zipping around as though they were floating on the clouds, it became something to laugh at

Oh, And Maria doesn't even die with her Tony as Juliet did to her Romeo. It becomes another reason why I don't like this adaptation of a classic story. Lame.

Bottom Line:
A story cut out of Shakespeare, starring cut-out characters, in front of Broadway cut out sets, at least some of the tunes were catchy. Meh.

C-

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Released: September 23, 1969
Directed by: George Roy Hill
Starring: Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Katharine Ross

Plot in a Nutshell:
Butch (Newman) and Sundance (Redford) are two robbers in old west America. The business of holding up banks and trains has been going well for the two, until the law comes after them.

What I thought:
Two stellar performers in their cinematic prime meet in this film that could be described as one of the best buddy pics ever made. I would have to agree. Newman and Redford make one of the best pairings in film that I have ever seen. This and the Sting have certainly cemented them among the legends of cinema history.

Even though their entire profession is made from robbing and stealing, the film makes light of the situations and their actions. This is a film where the heroes are thieves and the villains are the eyes and guns of the law. These kinds of films tend to be very entertaining, however as soon as you start applying logic and any sense of righteousness, the characters loose their luster swiftly.

I guess I was expecting the film to be a little heavier in tone. It does get there towards the end of the film, but even then they are still firing their buddy shtick on all cylinders. I'm not saying it was bad, but I was expecting it to be harder. But I guess coming from these two, I should have expected better.

Not enough can be said about Paul Newman and Robert Redford. These guys know how to work and act together as one cohesive unit. They play so much off of each other, that you find yourself wrapped up in their friendly chummy bantering far too often. These guys are awesome.

A big problem I had with the film was the music. Composed by Burt Bacharach, its jazzy nature detracts from the film on more than one occasion. I understand that the film was intended to be light, and the music certainly aids in this regard, however I found it to be very distracting when it shouldn't be. The film could have benefited from a more traditional and rousing score, but then it would be a different film, and I don't think that would be a good thing.

In the end I found that I really enjoyed the film. There was one sequence that I loved. It is the equivalent of a high speed chase in a western. A posse of lawmen are on the trail of Butch and Sundance after a failed robbery attempt. Taking place over several days and I don't know how many states/territories, they are slowly tracked and chased all the way up against a cliff drop off. It was the single best sequence I have seen put together in quite some time. Beginning with their confidence in an easy escape, they slowly realize they are in a run for their lives. I thought it was exhilarating to see unfold.

This is a must see film.

Bottom Line:
Strong performers in strong leads make strong movies, Newman and Redford make their characters and this film well worth a watch.

B+

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: The Evil Dead

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

The Evil Dead
Released: October 15, 1981
Directed by: Sam Raimi
Starring: Bruce Campbell

Plot in a Nutshell:
Five friends go together out into the country to spend a weekend in a cabin. When they discover a ominous book and recording, they inadvertently awaken some body-possessing demons.

What I thought:
I'm going to let you know, this film is chock filled with violence, blood, and carnage. You have been forewarned.

Should horror films filled with gore be so funny? I think they almost become so funny simply because of the ridiculous amounts of carnage. But more so than simply being filled with gratuitous violence, this film works on a different, creepy, and altogether zany level. It is actually a bit screwed up, which oddly enough, makes it all the more enjoyable.

I'm going to say right off the bat that this film was made with very little money, so as far as production values go; it has none. Zilch. The makeup is overdone, the camera work is jilted, and the acting is, frankly, amateur. But for some reason it doesn't matter. Told with no budget, the film stretches hard to bring you some great low budget effects and good old fashioned blood and gore.

It takes some time, but eventually Bruce Campbell's Ash character becomes the center of the movie. In the beginning when he is sharing scenes with the other members of the cast, he doesn't stand out at all. But when hell literally breaks loose, the campy Bruce Campbell that I have grown to love so much, shines through. The rest of the cast is uninteresting (that is until they become demonized). After their transformations into hideous demons, they become a little annoying. Endlessly screaming and wailing does tend to hurt the ears.

The fun in all this disgusting blood and guts comes in the execution of the gore (pun intended). It is done with just enough over the top craze that it ceases to become terrifying, and instead becomes plain silly. When it opens, the film works its atmosphere. Wallowing in its eeriness, the first half feels very much like a traditional horror film. But when the demons are set loose, it completely transitions into full blown bloody revelry. Yet, it is overdone to such an extreme that it begins to border on comedy.

Playing on some real fears, the film works exceptionally at exploiting the terrors of the dark shadowy basement, the foreboding woods, and the howl of the wind. If you like campy overdone horror films, look no further than this classic. I greatly enjoyed watching this. Though it may be disturbing to some, disgusting to others, this kind of over-the-top horror holds a little warm place in my film-loving heart.

Bottom Line:
Despite its low-budget inception and limited production, this campy classic does the horror genre proud. And if you're like me, it is worth a good laugh.

B

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: Dr. Strangelove

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Released: January 29, 1964
Directed by: Stanley Kubrick
Starring: Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, Slim Pickens

Plot in a Nutshell:
A US General, without any order to do so, initiates a nuclear attack on Russia. When the President finds out, he and his advisers try to keep the situation in control and begin an unprecedented communication with Russia, while one of the B52s armed with nukes gets nearer to its target.

What I thought:
I don't know where to begin with this one. It wears the clothes of a serious film, yet speaks with a comedic tongue. It isn't light in the least (we are talking about nuclear armageddon here). Funny at times, scary at others, this film seems to capture a brilliant sense of high-stakes satire. However, it is still a Kubrick film, so expect some oddities.

Firstly, let me point out that I have never seen a film like this. Normally when you watch a film that is a send-up of a particular topic, it will be a bit more farce and less gravity. Yet somehow, Dr. Strangelove manages to balance a perfect mixture of outrageous comedy, and a lot of heavy, within the severity of the situations.

"You can't fight in here, this is the War Room."

The performances are great. George C. Scott is hilarious as his over the top General (which was not his intent; Kubrick tricked him into playing it extreme by saying they were warm up takes, not to be used, well he used them). Peter Sellers works overtime in three roles, perfectly capturing each character's plight and still managing to keep things light and funny. And then there is the always funny Slim Pickins as the B52 pilot the story focuses on. I think everybody has heard of his memorable trip on a falling nuke.

For some reason I am having a difficult time writing about this film. I know I got everything. It isn't like its a difficult film to get. But there is something I feel I can't put into words. I can only recommend it if you haven't seen it. It puts cold war hysteria in quite a different light than you've ever seen before. And though it is a satire, the situations seem all too real, and this is almost what I would have expected to really go down.

It's a film that I will be revisiting.

Bottom Line:
A very strong film. Kubrick weaves his brilliant satire with little drag and a lot of funny.

B+

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: The Omega Man

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

The Omega Man
Released: August 1, 1971
Directed by: Boris Sagal
Starring: Charlton Heston, Anthony Zerbe, & Rosalind Cash

Plot in a Nutshell:
Dr. Robert Neville (Heston) is the last human on earth after a deadly outbreak of a strange plague that kills many and mutates some into vampiric creatures. Neville is bent on killing/curing the creatures who in turn are bent on getting rid of him.

What I thought:
This is a very interesting story, one that I fell in love with after seeing the recent I Am Legend. The idea that mutated creatures after an outbreak can think, plan, and could be construed as victims, turns every vampire/zombie premise on its head. I love it! But as much as I enjoy the idea, this adaption of Richard Matheson's I Am Legend, is not the best film, but maybe that doesn't matter.

As I said, I love this story. The idea that a mindless monster (i.e. zombies, vampires, etc.) can actually be the victim of genocide is very interesting. I am continuously fascinated by stories that take what everyone deems to be hideous or dangerous, and turns that cliched stereotype on itself by victimizing what should be the enemy. Unfortunately this film doesn't explore that idea fully. Like the Will Smith I Am Legend, this is a missed opportunity to tell a far more interesting story.

In the film, the creatures are monsters, and very little is done to tell their side of things. Rather than explaining where they come from, and how much they hate and fear Neville for killing them off, they are merely reduced to "the bad guys." While I do feel that to some degree, that is ok, I wish they would explore their motives a bit more. Imagine how much more interesting it would be if you root for who you think is the hero, killing monsters and such, then only to discover he is committing mass murder of a new civilization. Granted the new civilization is a deformed and grotesque mirror of human life. But it still would provide a much more interesting film.

This movie was made in the early 70s, and you can tell. Everything from the beep bopping soundtrack to the insane camera zips and zooms exudes cheesy 70s cinema. And believe me, it is incredibly over the top cheesy. The villains looks like they were doused with baby powder and shoved in a hooded robe and wallah; BAD GUYS! It is so hard to take their plight seriously when they look so ridiculous and behave like a pack of buffoons. The main chicky (Cash) has a fro twice the size of her head, and I found myself laughing when they framed a close up of her, and the fro was taking up the majority of frame. It was a bit ridiculous.

About the only thing I love about this film is Charlton Heston. He's always portraying a character slightly larger than life, exaggerated, yet somehow still managing to create real human empathy for Neville. It is not difficult to create sympathy with the last man on earth; that story will always be ripe with sadness and tragedy, regardless of how you tell it. But Heston brings a weight to the material as only he could. Sure and defiant, full of vigor and spite, he commands the character in his most triumphant of moments. Even when he is captured and nearly killed, he never loses his swagger, and it is great fun to watch him play here.

I can allow for the fact that it is a 70s movie and there were certain limitations as to how good the effects can be, but at the end of the day, it has to be the story that stands the test of time, and I think it does. Even in all its corny, goofy, and outright silliest of moments, the film still tells an interesting story, that's what's important. I just wish they would have gone further with the creatures than merely making them the cardboard cut out bad guys.

Bottom Line:
A cheesy adaptation of great material still makes an interesting film, even though it is a missed opportunity to tell a much more interesting side of the story.

C+

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: Chinatown

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Chinatown
Released: June 20, 1974
Directed by: Roman Polanski
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway, John Huston

Plot in a Nutshell:
When private investigator, J.J. "Jake" Gittes (Nicholson), is asked to look into a supposedly philandering water tycoon, he begins to unravel a plot far more sinister and twisted than a simple case of infidelity.

What I thought:
I thought this was going to be a "heavy" film. The past few movies I've looked at have been pretty light (if not downright silly), it was time to look at something with a bit more weight, and I have to say that while my fear was substantiated, the film seemed to zip through its twists and surprises with very little weight indeed.

I'm not even going to try to dissect the plot here, it was a bit convoluted, however confusing it may have been, the pieces eventually fit, and the puzzle showed its face. It takes quite some time before you know it all, and even after it is over, some questions still linger (not a bad thing here). In this film, I think it is simply filled with an enormous amount of detail and life. When the lights come up you can imagine these characters existing. The back stories and history that is displayed is more than enough to get a sense of the characters and their situations.

I think at first glance, the film seems ominous and dark in nature, at least that's what I was thinking, having seen the poster and those iconic stills of a young Nicholson with that ridiculous bandage on his nose. Even though the ending may say otherwise, I didn't think it was nearly as depressing as I thought it would be. It does end on a sad note, and after so much time and effort that Jake has put into in the investigation, it may seem like it's a let down, but not in Chinatown. It has a staying power, and rather than depressing or saddening the viewer, it has a bit more of tragic feeling. You know the path the characters are on, with their actions and motivations, it isn't going to lead down a happy trail. It is clear that it won't end well, but what is important is that you share their journey.

Jack performs his character of a private eye without flaw, an the film never leaves his character (every scene has him in it). It is this point of view on the story and other characters that really shines throughout the film. As he uncovers clues and unravels plot, you see it with him. Even though things have been set up well before hand, you don't quite grab it until he does. This method of revealing the story bit by bit can be a tedious a slow process, but here, it never holds back the progression of the story. In fact with every revelation I was drawn further and further into the world.

I can't leave without pointing to the stylistic approach and the direction of Roman Polanski. This is a 35-year-old film, but I found myself marveling at it on more than one occasion. Some of the ways Roman chose to tell the story seem very unconventional to a 70s era film. His method of reveal, of surprise, and his way of telling the story bluntly, is simply fantastic. The scene where his nose is cut (by director Polanski in a cameo no less) comes at you so hard and so visceral, it doesn't seem like a movie at all.

It may wear the clothes of a classic film noir story, however I would argue that it is a more than dark alleys and moving shadows. It has those elements, and it is definitely a throwback to older crime stories, but I think to dismiss Chinatown as a simple black and white crime story would be to rob it of it's true colors.

Bottom Line:
Skillfully crafted by director Roman Polanski, and performed with near perfection by Nicholson, Chinatown is a great mystery that is a great experience to watch unfold.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: House of Wax

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

House of Wax
Released: April 25, 1953
Directed by: André de Toth
Starring: Vincent Price, Frank Lovejoy, & Phyllis Kirk

Plot in a Nutshell:
A devoted sculptor of wax figures, Professor Jarrod, owns a museum with a businessman, who after failing to find an offer decides to destroy the collection and claim the insurance money. Jarrod refuses to go along and is attacked unexpectedly by his partner, who burns the museum and leaves the sculptor for dead. After he survives he begins a new wax museum, only now, rather than historical figures, the figures represent death and murder. Then suspicions arise when people begin noticing similarities between the new figures and the recently deceased.

What I thought:
I think I saw this when I was younger but I don't remember it very well, and after the disappointment of last week's House on Haunted Hill, I was left craving for more Vincent Price, and a little more horror. Did House of Wax fulfill my hope? Absolutely.

Unlike last week's House on Hunted Hill, this film actually delivered on the creep factor. Of course I don't think you could not make a movie about wax figures and have it NOT be creepy. The ick factor for just the realistic wax sculptures was enough to give you the chills. It certainly helped that they ended up being REAL people covered in wax. How gruesome! (I always knew wax figures looked too real, now I know why.)

Vincent Price is the creepiest gentleman I think that has ever been put on screen. He exudes a sinister thinking through his character of the insane sculptor. It was fascinating to see the transformation of his character. In the beginning he is a humble artist, who likes to sculpt beautiful things. He doesn't revel in death or the macabre like his competitors in the wax circuit. However, when he is turned on by his partner and horribly burned in the fire, his obsessive insanity begins to take him over. Vincent Price has no problem portraying this tormented man.

It was still a little bit silly. The characters are one note, and the scares aren't tremendous, but it still manages to draw you in with its mystery and horror. And in the end, it manages to provide a creep factor that still holds up today. This is what a great B-movie from the 50s should be.

Bottom Line:
Vincent Price delivers a perfect blend of cordial insanity in this utterly creepy film, that somehow still manages to be quite an entertaining and thrilling film.

B

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: House on Haunted Hill

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

House on Haunted Hill

Released: February 17, 1959

Directed by: William Castle

Starring: Vincent Price, Carol Ohmart, & Richard Long

Plot in a Nutshell:

This 1950s horror B-movie starts when an eccentric millionaire (Price) invites 5 guests to stay at a haunted house as part of a contest. Whoever stays the night will win a prize of $10,000. As the night progresses, tensions mount and the guests end up trapped in the house with the ghosts and each other.

What I thought:

What a disappointment this film ended up being. With the promise of a great actor as Vincent Price, and the thrilling showman talent of William Castle at the helm, this film seemed destined for great entertainment and horror. Oh how wrong was I.

OK to be fair, I am looking at this flick from a modern day perspective. And to approach this now 50-year-old picture with today's eyes is a bit preposterous. There is no fathomable way that you could even be remotely scared or thrilled by this picture today. It just won't happen. You have to put on your 50s glasses and view it as an audience would back in the day. But even after watching it in my handy dandy 1959 glasses, it is still a disappointment.

There were a few genuine scares here and there, but I think the emphasis of this film is the relationship between the millionaire, Mr. Loren, and his wife. Throughout the picture you understand that they hate each other, both want each other dead (and one ends up so by the film's conclusion). It is how it unfolds that is ultimately the film's strength. With a few twist, turns and unexpected surprises, the finale wraps it up nicely, if leaving the audience a little unsatisfied.

It seems that the focus is not on the house, nor the umpteen ghosts residing in it, or even the characters brought in to stay just one night in the spooky abode. No, the film is really only concerned with Mr. Loren and his wife, the other characters, and indeed the house's ghosts themselves are merely there to support the Mr. and Mrs. Loren squabble. Which for a movie like this, with this much promise, it becomes very frustrating.

I much prefer the 1999 remake, simply because there are some genuine ghosts that cause mayhem. In this original, not so much real ghosting going on. All the spookings and creepy things are easily explained away within the story, leaving me hungry for some real ghost horror action.

Sad to say, that even Vincent Price's normal gooey, slimy, and yet altogether regal self, barely makes an appearance. He seems to be gliding through the scenes, playing a very one dimensional impression of himself, that eventually becomes so tired. This film makes me want to watch a good Vincent Price flick, so, so bad. I have to wash the taste of this flick outta my mouth.

I think the only cool thing about this film, is something that you can't reproduce easily today. The director, William Castle, was such a showman, that for this film's release he actually rigged many theaters with a pulley system that would swing a skeleton over the audience at the appropriate time. Now if you weren't expecting that, it could have a real impact on you in a crowded audience. However, since it is now only a story in filmmaking history, it adds very little to the film aside from an amusing anecdote.

Bottom Line:
If you were born in the 50s, or earlier, and you saw this flick in the theater upon its release, it could have shocked the pants off of you (I don't know how). However if you are of this generation, it isn't even worth it for its filmmaking, characters, or story. Sadly this 50s B-movie, aside from nostalgia, simply doesn't hold up anymore.

C
(Sadly, not even worth a B)

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: The Adventures of Robin Hood

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

The Adventures of Robin Hood

Released: April 25, 1938

Directed by: Michael Curtiz & William Keighley

Starring: Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, & Claude Rains

Plot in a Nutshell:

When King Richard leaves his land to fight in the crusades, his brother, Prince John jumps at the chance to seize control of the kingdom and begins oppressing the citizens with hefty taxes and harsh punishments. Then a local nobleman stands up for the people, setting off a resistance that inspires the people to fight against the oppressive ruler.

What I thought:

The classic tale comes to vivid life in this near pitch perfect telling of the classic fable of the man who robbed the rich and gave to the poor.

I think the first thing I must point out is the look of the film. For being filmed in the early days of color film, this film shines with striking color that you don't see too often anymore. It's almost as if the filmmakers purposefully exploited the capabilities of the technicolor simply because they could. Back in a day when color and black and white films existed equally together, I can imagine that you almost had to make your colors shine as brightly and vividly as you could simply to distinguish yourself from the black and white pictures. It is a shame we don't see colorful movies like this anymore (although I think last year's Speed Racer used color brilliantly).


Errol Flynn's performance of Robin Hood, perfectly blending an infectious charisma and charm, makes this movie so enjoyable to watch. Once you get past the somewhat cartoony aspect of the character (which doesn't take long) you begin to find yourself enjoying the simpleness of it all. The whole story is told straightforward, there really is no depth of character or motivation in the plot (besides the obvious oppression of the people), but it doesn't matter. It's just too much fun. Near the end of the film when the big battle breaks out in the castle, I couldn't keep myself from smiling. It was pure joy to watch this film unfold.


Which brings me to the ultimate strength of this film; it is absolute cartoon fluff, brought to life through fun characters, fantastic visuals, and breathtaking action and spectacle. This is old Hollywood picture-making at it's pinnacle. The Adventures of Robin Hood is well worth a watch if you've never seen it. I can't recommend this entertaining film enough, go see it.

Bottom Line:
A light and endlessly fun film, with a perfect blend of action, humor, and swashbuckling adventure, the Adventures of Robin Hood sits perfectly on the mantle of masterpieces.

A

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: The Longest Day

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado....

The Longest Day

Released: Oct 4, 1962

Directed by: Ken Annakin, Andrew Martin, & Bernhard Wicki
Starring: John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Robert Mitchum, Sean Connery

Plot in a Nutshell:

A recreation of the invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944, told on a massive scale from both German and Ally perspectives.

What I thought:

This film is flat out immense. Thousands of extras, grand action, enormous and complicated shots; this is the definition of epic filmmaking. Requiring three directors to tell the tale, and an international cast of hundreds, this film is BIG. Sitting at just under 3 hours in length, it takes its time relaying the events of D-Day. And I think that is what could be a problem with this by-the-facts historical epic.

The events surrounding and leading up to Normandy are all present here. The film is told with such care as to get historical facts right, that it becomes a detriment to the picture. I'm not saying it isn't enjoyable, it is just that at times it's scope gets weighted in its portrayal of small events that aren't important to the whole.

An example is that one of the troops gets caught hanging by his chute. Suspended from a church, he hangs for hours, as he goes unnoticed by the Germans in the courtyard. He watches as his buddies are mowed down and rounded up. It is a curious fact, but it feels like it was thrown in just because it really happened. Another example is the Chaplin who must find his case before he moves on. Or the paratrooper's clickers getting mistaken with a German's gun being cocked. The whole movie is this way, a series of happenstances that slowly build and then encompass the invasion itself, the story seems to be told by the events occurring and not through any thought or motivation of the characters.

My point is that they shouldn't feel as forced as they seem. Events should flow, not simply thrown in because it really happened. It makes for a nice historical film, but fails to illustrate the thoughts behind the actions. People act because that is what they did. There doesn't seem to be any exploration into why things were done. Ultimately, it is a minor complaint as the whole of the film is just too damn impressive to be knocked down by a little historical accuracy.

The scope that is on display, is grand. Told from both perspectives, you see every gamut of emotion that happened on the day, through every rank. From General to Private, everybody's story is represented here. That is one thing I love about this film, and one of its war-film brethren, Tora Tora Tora. It has the courage to humanize the enemy. Very rarely do you see this in a war film, rarer to see it in one that is nearing 50 years old.

Bottom Line:

Quite simply, it is an incredible look at one of the most important days in WWII, it just gets a little bogged down with too much fact, but is still a rousing war film from yesteryear.

A-

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content