Supachewy Reviews

Black Swan (2010)

Aronofsky Shows Psychoticness in his Finest Film

[9/10 · 12 December 2010]

The dark psychological thriller Black Swan is directed by Darren Aronofsky and stars Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel, Barbara Hershey, and Winona Ryder. The film takes place in modern day New York City.

Nina Sayers (Portman) is a ballerina who performs in a New York City ballet company and her life centers around dance. Her mother, Erica (Hershey), was a ballerina and the two live together in an apartment and she has much control over Nina's life making sure that dance is her number one priority. When the production of Swan Lake begins at the opening of the season the director Thomas Leroy (Cassel) chooses Nina to be the lead of the Swan Queen instead of the veteran ballerina Beth (Ryder). Also Nina believes that a new dancer at the company Lily (Kunis) is trying to steal the lead role away from her so she has to stop her. But I didn't even talk about all the crazy hallucinations and rashes and stuff...

The screenplay was written by Mark Heyman, and Andres Heinz, and John J. McLaughlin and it was absolutely brilliant. All the five leads were as developed as they needed to be so the viewer could live in Nina's insane world. The hallucinations were great and the parts that weren't hallucinations were great. From the very start of the film it was enthralling and and it absorbed you into its complex plot. The only problem I had with the screenplay was the ending, it was just not as great as the rest of the film. If it was more crazily dramatic and there are some things specifically I could say about the ending but I will not because it is a spoiler.

Darren Aronofsky's direction was brilliant, and I have to say this is my favorite film of his so far. I am a big fan of Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler but the two did not contain the beauty that this film contained. Speaking of The Wrestler I felt a lot of that film in this one, both are sports films but really not about sports, and both have the same sort of tracking shot which I really loved where the camera follows around either Rourke or Portman as they're just walking someplace. There is not one shot in this film that didn't feel appropriate, and the ballet scenes were absolutely beautiful. I loved a specific scene with Portman and Ryder in the hospital but I can't go into any details because it is a spoiler, but just know it was fantastic. People who think Inception is a mind bender haven't seen Black Swan.

Natalie Portman gives an Oscar worthy performance in this film and if she doesn't win the trophy on February 27 I'm going to be very angry. Because Annette Bening in The Kids Are All Right can't even compete with her and if they just give it to Bening because she is older and never won before that is just a cheap shot. Portman is brilliant as a very shy, fragile, childish woman who just wants to live her dream as being the Swan Queen. In the final scene she confirmed to me that she gave the best performance of the year and also whenever she is interacting with another of the female leads in the film she is magnificent. She is fine with Cassel also, but there is no crazy parts with Cassel.

Mila Kunis is known for her comedic roles in the TV shows "Family Guy" and "That 70's Show" or in the comedy Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and in this film she turned her back on comedy and decided to go to crazy psychological thriller. She was absolutely electric in this film and was perfect for the role. When she and Portman were on the screen together so many emotions were portrayed and it was just magnificent. I really hope that Kunis will stay in serious films like this one because she can truly be a star.

Vincent Cassel is the director of Swan Lake and he is the only character that doesn't get involved in Nina's craziness really. He plays the part of a stage director brilliantly and it is exactly how I imagine that stressful world to be. He is attracted to Nina's character and tries to seduce her. Cassel is a very interesting actor and the only other movie I've seen him in was Ocean's 13 and I can't really judge his abilities by that. But in this film he shows much promise and I hope that he too stays around in American films because I know earlier this year he was in a couple of foreign ones.

The classical score for this film by Clint Mansell was perfect. It added another layer of drama, and psychological horror to the film and I was in love with it the whole time. It worked great with the stage work and even better when Nina was going crazy.

Overall I give this film a 9/10, it was fantastic and my only problem with it was the ending. If you are preparing for Oscar season this is a must see and it is the second best film of the year, the first being The Social Network. The whole entire cast delivers wonderful performances in this thrilling film. I recommend this to anyone who likes dark psychological thrillers or really the films of David Lynch. Aronofsky has his best film with this one and he will finally get an Oscar nomination. This film is absolutely crazy and I love it.

The Game (1997)

The Game is Fun but it Isn't Fincher's Best

[6/10 · 12 December 2010]

The psychological thriller The Game is directed by David Fincher and stars Michael Douglas, Sean Penn, and Deborah Kara Unger. The film takes place in modern day San Francisco.

Nicholas Van Orten (Douglas) is a very successful business man who lives alone and is very depressed. He used to be married and does not have a very close relationship with his brother, Conrad (Penn). On Nicholas's birthday he remembers how his father killed himself when he turned forty eight. But on Nicholas's birthday his brother gives him a gift that is from a company known as Consumer Recreation Services (CRS). What this company provides is a game that will control your life and promises a thrilling experience that you've never felt before. But it gets a little bit too thrilling...

John D. Brancato and Michael Ferris wrote the screenplay for this psychological thriller, and it was a little bit too outrageous. It still is a very fun and entertaining ride but it requires you to not think too deeply about what the company needs to be doing for all of this to be happening. I will not go over all the ridiculous things that happen that make this film illogical because there are too many to count, but like I said if you forget about them it is a fun film. Also, this film is purely plot driven, the characters are very one dimensional. In all psychological thrillers there is some sort of twist and in this one there are many as well and they are satisfying, especially the final one.

David Fincher is one of the biggest directors of today but this film was only his third feature and it did not have as much intensity and grittiness as his previous film Se7en. None of the shots in this film were all that impressive, but the sequencing of the shots kept me fascinated the whole way through the film. Fincher grew much as a director since this film and I would even claim that he is one of the best of his generation. But this film is not the reason why he is considered that at all, he became a cult favorite from Se7en and Fight Club then went on to start making more wide spread audience films like Zodiac, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and the recent The Social Network. His film repertoire is very impressive and it is enjoyable to see one of his early works such as this film and see how he has grown from it.

Michael Douglas plays the lead of Nicholas Van Orten and even though the character is one dimensional he embodies the role quite well. He sort of plays a sad Gordon Gekko but does not have the great lines that Gekko had. He was very believable in the role but again this is not something that he will be remembered for when talking about why Michael Douglas is a very successful actor.

Sean Penn does not have a major part in this film but he is still in it for a little bit as Nicholas's brother Conrad. When Nicholas and Conrad are running from the CRS and Conrad has sort of a paranoid nervous breakdown Penn is quite good, even though it is nothing compared to the many brilliant performances of his career. When I think Sean Penn I think Milk, Mystic River, and his comedic performance in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, not this film even though he is good, like Douglas.

Deborah Kara Unger plays a waitress named Christine that Nicholas drags into his game. As the film goes on it is hard to determine if she is trying to help Nicholas or if she is working with the CRS. Her performance is alright, but nothing really memorable. I can't even cite a scene in the movie where she was good, it was just her character that was interesting.

Overall I give this film a 6/10, because it is a thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat until the dramatic finale. None of the qualities of the film are great, but they are all decent. I would recommend this to fans of Fincher, psychological thrillers, or I guess dark films with a twist.

Paths of Glory (1957)

Kubrick's Genius at Work

[9/10 · 11 December 2010]

The war drama Paths of Glory is directed by Stanley Kubrick and stars Kirk Douglas and George Macready. The film takes place in 1916 France.

General Paul Mireau (Macready) is ordered by a superior general to take an area known as the Anthill in his sector which is currently under German control. At first Mireau declines because the mission is impossible but when the superior general says how he may be considered for a promotion Mireau goes through with the action. Mireau personally supervises Colonel Dax's (Douglas) attack on the German controlled territory but when Dax's troops do not even make it out of the French trenches Mireau orders that the French artillery fire on their own men to motivate them. When the battery Captain refuses to do so without a written order the general does not pursue the option but instead decides to try three men from under Dax's command for cowardice which is punishable by death.

The screenplay by Stanley Kubrick, Calder Willingham, and Jim Thompson is superb. The characterization of General Mireau and Colonel Dax are both great and by the end of the film you know the two for exactly who they are. Also you get quite attached to the men that are tried for cowardice and hope for them all the way to the end. What makes this film different from most other war films is that there is no action in it after the attack on Anthill. It is part courtroom drama as well and this film is much more than it appears. Also I absolutely loved the ending which featured Stanley Kubrick's future wife, the only female in the entire film and his wife until he died in 1999.

Stanley Kubrick is often called one of the greatest directors of all time and this film shows why he is. The shot that I absolutely loved was a long shot of General Mireau travelling the trenches and greeting several soldiers on his path before the attack on Anthill. Nothing makes me happier than seeing a beautiful long shot like that, and by long I mean that it lasts for a long time not that it is far away. Also when Colonel Dax is on the battlefield the shots of him are absolutely mesmerizing, the fact that this film was completely ignored by the Academy Awards is just a shame on their part. Throughout the film there are plenty of more wonderful shots, one is towards the end with a bunch of soldiers in front of a large building, I won't describe what is happening because it is a spoiler. I personally believe that Kubrick is the greatest director of all time and obviously that is arguable but I believe everyone who respects film understands that Kubrick is a genius and this film is just one of the many examples why.

Kirk Douglas gives a very powerful performance in this film. He is very strong and military like and deserves much praise for his performance. When he gives his strongest performance is when he confronts General Mireau or General Broulard at the end of the film. Also, when Douglas is leading his men on the battlefield he does a very good job. The only problem with Douglas's character is that he is kind of one dimensional. He is a man who believes in justice and truth, not in politics. Truly a man that a person can look up to. But that is basically it, but that is all he needs to be because even though he is the lead the supporting characters take up a large part of the eighty seven minute film. This is the first of two films that Douglas works with Kubrick, the other being Spartacus, and the two are a great team.

George Macready also gives a great performance except his character is the exact opposite of Douglas's, he is a selfish, despicable man. But Macready plays the part extremely well. Whenever him, Colonel Dax, General Broulard, or all of them together all three of them give their best performances. The look of Macready's eyes is what really makes his performance so powerful, his stare can break a person's will. Also, when Macready was at the battle of Anthill ordering the artillery to fire on his own men his devious performance was fantastic as well.

Overall I give this film a 9/10, it is another Kubrick classic. Everything about it was great, and what I love about Kubrick's films is that he never uses music to tell the audience how to react to what is happening on the screen. He lets them feel how they want to feel. I would recommend this film to anyone who enjoys war or courtroom dramas. It definitely is a must see just for Kubrick's direction.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

Absolutely Hilarious

[9/10 · 11 December 2010]

The war comedy Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is directed by Stanley Kubrick and stars Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, and Sterling Hayden. The film takes place in planes over Russia, the war room, and in an American base.

Brigadier General Jack Ripper (Hayden) made the insane notion of dropping a nuclear weapon onto Russia during the Cold War. President Muffley (Sellers) must try and calm down the Russian President and make him understand that this attack was not planned by America just one crazy general. General Turgidson (Scott) tries to convince the President that maybe the attack isn't a terrible idea while spewing anti communist insults to the Russian Ambassador that is present in the war room. But the Russian Ambassador reveals that if Russia is attacked by a nuclear weapon a doomsday device will automatically go off destroying the entire world...

The screenplay by Peter George, Terry Southern, and Stanley Kubrick is one of the greatest comedic screenplays of all time. Probably my favorite scene of the film is when the President is on the phone with the Russian President for the first time. The back and forth between the two is comedic genius and is humor that everyone can enjoy. Another comedic part I thought was quite hilarious was the classic line when the President told General Turgidson when he was attacking the Russian Ambassador that there is no fighting in the war room. My only problem with the screenplay was that it took a while to get into the film, by that I mean the introduction to the film was not as strong as the middle and end of it. But besides that this film is absolutely hilarious.

Stanley Kubrick directed this classic comedy and he did so brilliantly. His last film was the controversial Lolita and he goes to what could have been an extremely controversial film about the cold war if it wasn't comedic gold. There are many iconic shots in this film, the first that comes to mind is the shot of the entire board room. It is a simple shot but it is beautifully composed. I have to say it is hard to find a shot in this film, or any Kubrick film really, that is not masterfully done. Besides the great shots he got great performances from his entire cast.

Peter Sellers played three roles in this film, the president, Dr. Strangelove, and Group Captain Lionel Mandrake. In all three of those roles he used his comedic talents to make this film as great as it is. Sellers worked with Kubrick previously in Lolita and in both films he was absolutely wonderful. Above I mentioned the president and the Russian president's phone conversation, well that could not have been so hilarious without Sellers's great voice and facial expressions. Then when he is Dr. Strangelove he again uses his voice talents to win over many laughs. Sellers proves with this film that he is one of the greatest comedic forces of all time.

George C. Scott was also fantastic as General Turgidson, delivering plenty of laughs as well. My favorite scene with Scott was when he was explaining what was happening to the president. How he tried to make himself look like he could save the situation was just uproariously funny. He is an extraordinary actor overall, one of my favorite films features him in the Best Picture winner Patton where he also wins an Oscar for Best Actor. I would say that in this film Scott does an equally well done job as Sellers, which is saying a lot for the both of them.

Sterling Hayden has worked with Kubrick before in The Killing and in this film he delivers a fine performance as the insane General Jack Ripper. He delivers many great lines about fluids that guarantees a couple of chuckles from the audience. Hayden works quite well off of Sellers as Group Captain Lionel Mandrake. I loved it when Hayden takes the machine gun and shoots it out the window out his fellow Americans.

Overall I give this film a 9/10, due to its great script, direction, and performances. I recommend this film to absolutely everyone, even those people that don't have an interest in film and just want to have a good time. This film features a great ending that is extremely hilarious as well. If you haven't seen this classic, go get it. Right now.

127 Hours (2010)

James Franco Vs. Nature

[7/10 · 11 December 2010]

The drama 127 Hours is directed by Danny Boyle and starring James Franco, Kate Mara, and Amber Tamblyn. The film takes place in 2003 in Moab, Utah.

Aron Ralston (Franco) is a mountain climber who decides to go to the place in Moab, Utah where he has the whole course memorized for his daily thrill. While bike riding, walking, and running around he meets up with two girls Kristi (Mara) and Megan (Tamblyn) and for a short while the three of them go climbing and swimming and all that crazy stuff. Well after the girls leave he gets himself into quite a predicament. While jumping onto a branch he slips and knocks a rock down which crushes his right arm. Oops. The rest of the film is about hallucinations he is having and flashbacks to his family and an old girlfriend. That's why I don't mountain climb, I just write film reviews so I can't my arm crushed.

The screenplay by Simon Beaufoy and Danny Boyle was pretty good. This film could have been equally torturous for the viewer as it was for Aron Ralston but it didn't really drag on for the full length of the film, it flowed nicely. The problem with a true story is that the second you go in there you know how it's going to end so the whole time I was like none of this matters I know what's going to happen. I did not see the need to put the flashbacks of his girlfriend in there because it never led up to anything, it didn't even really help with characterization it just showed that Ralston once had a girlfriend but now he's trapped in a canyon. The dialogue for the whole of the film was very believable, usually when one person is talking to themselves it doesn't work out very well but here it works very nicely.

Danny Boyle had some pretty stylized direction on this one, and it helped keep the film entertaining throughout. Is this film as good as his previous, Slumdog Millionaire? No. Personally I believe Boyle's best film to be Trainspotting which also had a lot of style and I think Boyle is much more comfortable with stylistic films than something which cannot have a stylistic influence upon it. I like how Boyle does films in multiple genres: Slumdog Millionaire-fantasy, Trainspotting-crime, 28 Days Later-horror, Sunshine-science fiction, and 127 Hours-real life drama. All of Boyles directing decisions I think were fine with this film, the only reason I couldn't give it a higher score is because the story is very limited to a guy trapped in a rock and he couldn't really put in any crazy mind games to add another layer of interest.

James Franco easily gave the best performance of his career so far and it would be shocking if he did not receive an Oscar nomination for Best Actor at this year's Academy Awards. Will he win it? I highly doubt it. In the film Aron Ralston is fun, carefree kind of guy who climbs mountains to just to have a good time. When he gets trapped he starts to lose hope and his mind a bit. The part where Franco delivers his best in the film is when he is pretending to interview himself because it just shows how low he has gotten. This is the first time Franco has ever really been in a lead role, I know him mostly for his supporting roles in Spiderman and Pineapple Express, but as a lead man he is very impressive and has a bright career in front of him.

The only real supporting cast in this film was Kate Mara and Amber Tamblyn as the two girls Ralston meets before he gets trapped. Both girls did a fine job but nothing really noteworthy. They were basically just average girls who are just following a path for fun. There wasn't really enough acting in the flashbacks to criticize but none of them were bad enough to notice.

Overall I give this film a 7/10, the only reason I couldn't give it higher was because the script was very limiting and I already knew how it would end since it is a famous story. If you like films like Into the Wild or other man vs. nature type films then you would like this one as well. Franco and Boyle both have very bright careers for the future even though they both had very successful careers before this Franco will make his way as a leading man and Boyle will still be one of the best directors of today.

Thelma & Louise (1991)

A Great Original Crime Drama

[8/10 · 8 December 2010]

The crime drama Thelma & Louise is directed by Ridley Scott and stars Susan Sarandon, Geena Davis, Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsen, and Brad Pitt. The film takes place in modern day Arkansas.

Thelma (Davis) and Louise (Sarandon) are best friends and really need to go on a trip to escape the pressures of everyday life. Thelma's husband is extremely controlling and does not value her at all, so she is reluctant at first to go on the trip but eventually accepts. Louise's boyfriend Jimmy (Madsen) is a cool guy that really loves Louise and it is safe to say that if Louise doesn't love him she definitely feels quite strongly about him. While the two are at a bar Thelma gets quite drunk and a man tries to take advantage of her in the parking lot. Well when everything comes to an end Louise shoots the man to protect Thelma but they must go on the run. Can a police detective, Hal (Keitel), solve the murder and put the women in prison? Or will they escape the grasp of the law and make it to Mexico? The screenplay for this film by Callie Khouri is very original and a great twist to the crime genre. While watching the film you really get a sense for the characters and their personalities, and they never do anything outside of their character. On the surface it is just a basic do a crime and run type of film but with the added characterization and the relationships the characters have with their husband/boyfriend it adds another layer to the film. One thing that bothered me about this was its resemblance to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid in the plot loosely and the finale loosely as well.

Ridley Scott is one of the best directors Hollywood has to offer and this is a film that shows his range as a director. At the time he is really known for great science fiction films like Alien and Blade Runner but he decided to mix it up with this one and I love it when directors spice it up. Like usual he has many great shots which develop the characters of the film allowing the audience to really know and become attached to Thelma and Louise. Now is this one of Scott's best films? Certainly not. But it is definitely worth noting when talking about his impressive career.

Susan Sarandon really shines in this film as the role of Louise, and the film put her on the map. Before this film she was known but after she became a superstar who went on to win an Oscar. With this film she showed her talent and earned an Oscar nomination as well as a woman who wants to just take a break and have some fun, but obviously that isn't what she gets. Her facial and voice expressions in this film were absolutely remarkable and this is definitely my favorite film I've seen her in even though I have not seen much of her repertoire.

Geena Davis delivers a superb performance also earning an Oscar nomination for her role as Thelma. She was fun, cute girl escaping from her husband and having a good time even after she almost got raped. Her accent was great and the chemistry between her and Sarandon was absolutely wonderful. It is a shame that her career never became anything more than this, the only film I can remember her in after this is with Michael J. Fox in Stuart Little. She is definitely a great talent and I would love to see her come back into the spotlight.

The supporting cast did a decent job as well, but nowhere near as good as the leads. I was kind of disappointed by Harvey Keitel as a nice guy detective. It didn't feel like he gave much of a performance, just put on a sympathetic voice when talking to the women. Michael Madsen is always good and he was in this as well, though he was not magnificent or anything. I always respect Michael Madsen because he is a working man actor whose name isn't big but still gets around. He is still kind of a tough guy in this and he is not as good as he is in Reservoir Dogs or Donnie Brasco but this was earlier in his career and he grew as an actor. The film features Brad Pitt's first major role as a cute guy thief and he does a decent job. Nothing good really but for a first major film definitely not bad.

Overall I give this film an 8/10 and I recommend it to anyone who likes crime films, films with female leads, and original films. It is fun at parts and the ending is a classic, and you kind of have to see it if you have any liking for Ridley Scott.

The Last Picture Show (1971)

An Extremely Powerful Story About the Loss of Innocence

[10/10 · 6 December 2010]

The drama The Last Picture Show is directed by Peter Bogdanovich and starred by Timothy Bottoms, Jeff Bridges, and Cybill Shepherd. The film takes place the small town of Anarene, Texas during the 1950s.

Sonny Crawford (Bottoms) and Duane Jackson (Bridges) live in the small Texas town of Anarene and are typical teenage boys. The film starts during their senior year of high school and both have girlfriends. The boys spend time at the local pool hall or going to the picture show with their girlfriends until Sonny loses his after the two basically got bored with each other. Duane's girlfriend Jacy (Shepherd) is the prettiest girl in town and at the start of the film she is a good girl but her mother (Burstyn) really wants her to break loose of Duane and explore the other men of the town. The film revolves around Sonny, Duane, and Jacy and how they experience sexuality in many ways from many suitors.

Larry McMurtry and Peter Bogdanovich wrote one of the most spectacular screenplays of all time for this film. Never have I seen a film flow so brilliantly throughout and it does not have an ordinary structure of a film, it just continues through the characters' experiences. I find that the majority of great screenplays throughout history are character driven rather than plot driven because if you don't know and care about the character why should you care about the plot? The three lead roles in the film were so comprehensively built it was absolutely wonderful. I loved seeing when Sonny and his father had about a ten second conversation, in those ten seconds I was able to understand Sonny's entire family life. The theme of loss of innocence in this film was also absolutely wonderful, the screenplay was just terrific.

Peter Bogdanovich's direction matched the brilliance of the screenplay that he co-wrote. There were hundreds of shots in this film that were so simply beautiful and were able to get me inside the characters mind and into a deeper level of the film. The scene with Jacy going to the naked pool party was wonderfully shot and will ironically be remembered. It just showed the curiosity of a young person trying to become an adult. Also I really loved the final scene of the film, but I will go into no detail in order to not spoil it for those who have not seen it. Sadly Bogdanovich has not directed another film as wonderful as this one.

Not only did Bogdanovich write and direct a great film, he got two Oscar winning performances from his actors. One is not from Timothy Bottoms, but I thought he gave an amazing performance as an innocent young boy trying to become a man. Some of this best acting would have to be with Cloris Leachman when they are having an affair. His simple expressions are just magnificent in showing his confusion about the world that surrounds him. Jeff Bridges was nominated for an Oscar for playing a simple teenager on the outside but a boy longing for love on the inside. Definitely one of the best performances of his very successful career. Cybill Shepherd's character Jacy was definitely one of the most interesting characters in this film in how she wanted to experience pure lovemaking and bliss, and not end up like her mother. She was absolutely stunning, like the rest of the cast. Ben Johnson won the Oscar for his role as Sam the Lion. The scene in which he showed why he deserved to win was when his son came home with a bloody nose and he told the other boys to leave him alone as a tired old man who was done fighting. That was one of the most effective scenes in the film and will also always remain in my memory. Cloris Leachman won an Oscar as well for her performance as a woman who is depressed with her marriage and has an affair with the young Sonny Crawford. The weakness in her face while performing was just enchanting, everything about her was so real. This film definitely has one of the greatest ensemble performances of all time.

The editing by Donn Cambern was spectacularly done, I really liked how the film was in black and white making the simple town even simpler. If this was in color I could not really see myself liking it as much and that is why this decision was extremely well executed. The film flowed seamlessly going from character to character. I was completely engaged the whole entire film and never was the rhythm broken. Many films with multiple stories don't work out well because the editing makes it like a break in the film and that takes you out of the film experience.

I really loved the country music that was used throughout the film. It added another layer of simplicity to small town and the black and white appearance. Music is key to making a film flow like the editing and this film did it wonderfully letting the songs express the language of the film.

Overall I give this film a 10/10. It is one of the greatest films of all time and is wonderful in every aspect of it. There is nothing I could say that is wrong with this film, I absolutely loved it. I recommend this film to anyone who enjoys extremely powerful dramas about the loss of innocence because this is one of the greatest ever. Ever. Go see it right now.

Titanic (1953)

James Cameron Did It Better

[6/10 · 29 November 2010]

The drama Titanic is directed by Jean Negulesco and stars Clifton Webb, Barbara Stanwyck, and Audrey Dalton. The film takes place in 1912 on the famous Titanic.

We all know the story of the great ship the Titanic and how it was the biggest ship ever built and then of course it sadly sank to the bottom of the ocean. But we do not all know the stories of the passengers of the Titanic and what it was like to be there as the Titanic was making it's voyage to the endless depths of the massive ocean. There wasn't enough lifeboats for everyone, only enough for the women and children. This film centers around a family on the ship, the Sturges family, and the battle in the family between the mother, Julia (Stanwyck), and the father, Richard (Webb). The family is extremely well to do and Richard wants their children to live a life like royalty while Julia wants them to be kind, humble people. Well they do not know yet that those problems will sink to the bottom of the list after they spend a few days on their trip to America.

The screenplay for this film was decent but it would have been much better with more characterization. By the time the film ended I really did not know who the characters were at all, and that could have been improved if the film was lengthened in order for more dialogue and plot could happen. I do like it when films have a small plot within a much larger plot, I always find that interesting. Other films that do the same type of thing is In Old Chicago with the great Chicago fire and Apocalypto with the Europeans discovering the Americas. The main flaw with the screenplay was the fact that all the characters weren't well developed and also the ending should have had much more drama to it.

The direction of this film was poor and this film could have been much better if it wasn't so. This is a majorly dramatic event and yet the film never makes it feel like it is. Negulesco never does any camera movements to make me feel like a ship in sinking and many people will die. She films it the same exact way she films the beginning of the film which is much more lighthearted. It could have been monumentally better but unfortunately not.

Even though Negulesco wasn't the greatest behind the camera at least she was able to get decent performances from the actors in their single dimensional roles. Clifton Webb played the part of a gentleman fine and he really did not need to do much more than that because even as the boat was sinking he was still a gentleman. Barbara Stanwyck is one of the great actresses but this film is not the reason why even though she also did a good job, just nothing extraordinary due to the limitation of her character by the writing. She did everything in her role very well though. The same is to be said about Audrey Dalton and all the other actors in this film, most of it centered on Webb and Stanwyck's characters though.

Now I would like to compare this film to James Cameron's Titanic which is far superior. The reason why the more recent Titanic is so much better is because it is a three hour film instead of only an hour and a half. For the first two hours we learn about Jack and Rose and grow to know them while we are not able to do it in this film. Then for the final hour is all the drama of the ship sinking, instead of a mere twenty minutes. I felt for Jack and Rose while I did not really at all care for anyone in the family in this film. Sometimes it is better for a film to be longer so the audience can grow into it.

Overall I give this film a 6/10 because even though I've said mainly negative things about the film it isn't bad. I would recommend James Cameron's Titanic to you much sooner than this though. It is very interesting to see an older film do something of such large proportions though and I would recommend it to anyone who likes classic films and also drama about true events.

The Three Faces of Eve (1957)

One of the Greatest Performances of All Time

[7/10 · 28 November 2010]

The drama The Three Faces of Eve is directed by Nunnally Johnson and stars Joanne Woodward, David Wayne, and Lee J. Cobb. The film is a true story and takes place between 1951 and 1953 in a small town not too far from New York City.

Eve White (Woodward) is a woman who suffers from severe headaches and spells of amnesia. She thinks it is only spells that she goes through so goes to a doctor, Dr. Curtis Luther (Cobb), to see if he can do anything to help her overcome her illness. After some time Dr. Luther comes to the conclusion that Eve has multiple personality disorder when he met with Eve's other personality, Eve Black. While Eve White is a very quiet, somewhat depressed woman Eve Black is the exact opposite, a woman who is very loose and does anything for a thrill. Eve's husband (Wayne) does not believe that Eve has an illness and blames her for everything that Eve Black has done. He's really mad at her before he even knows that there is a third face of Eve.

The screenplay by Nunnally Johnson is very entertaining, and for the time very daring and unconventional. Sadly by today's standards it is nothing new and somewhat a cliché since multiple personality is an overly used illness. I really enjoyed this film the whole way through thinking as if I saw this for the first time in theatres and not seeing all the multiple personality films and television programs of today. It was very intense and I had no idea how it was going to end at all. The three characters that Joanne Woodward played were all interesting and kept me wondering. Unfortunately, the end of the film did not satisfy because it did not match the rest of the film in its mood. Johnson had a very successful career as a writer and this film is definitely one that will be remembered that she wrote.

Nunnally Johnson's direction for this film was also good, except the ending still bothers me and brought the film down a point. He had some very powerful shots during this film, the first one that comes to mind was when Eve's husband pulled Eve off their child as she was trying to strangle the child. When I saw that I was thought I didn't know they could do that in the 1950s. There were many great shots throughout the film many of them were for when Eve changed into a different personality. Of course Johnson has to be complimented for his great job getting wonderful performances from his actors.

Joanne Woodward delivered one of the greatest performances of all time in this film. For all of those people who play a person with multiple personality I suggest you take a lesson from Woodward on how to do it. She won the Oscar for Best Actress and she deserved it more than most of the women who won it. The way she transformed into each of the separate personalities was amazing. She had a different voice, different facial expressions, different body movements, it was like she was actually different people. It was like watching a person switch characters without stopping the shot, well actually it was that. Magnificent. Now David Wayne played her husband and he did a fine job, I thought it would have been better if he acted more tough instead of like a coward pretending to be tough. I though Lee J. Cobb did a very good job as the doctor, he could have done nothing really to improve on his well done performance.

The score for this film was very well done. It added suspense when it was proper and kept me on the edge of my seat. When it was sad the music was appropriate and got me more engaged in the film and especially Woodward's performance. Like a good score should it adds another layer to the film that allows the viewer to get more entwined with the plot.

Overall I give this film a 7/10 due to the outstanding performance by Joanne Woodward and also the edginess for the film at the time. It would have been an 8/10 if it had a more satisfying conclusion. If you watch this film today thinking it was made today you will be disappointed by the writing though because of how overused multiple personality disorder is. See this film to see the wonderful performance and also if you like dramas that will keep you on the edge of your seat.

The Kids Are All Right (2010)

The Film is All Right

[7/10 · 28 November 2010]

The dramedy The Kids Are All Right is directed by Lisa Cholodenko and stars Julianne Moore, Annette Bening, and Mark Ruffalo. The film takes place in modern day California.

Joni and Laser are raised by their two mothers Jules (Moore) and Nic (Bening). Laser is curious to find out who his biological father is because his mother, Jules, used a sperm donor have him and Nic used the same sperm donor to have Joni. After calling up the agency which is in charge of that information they discover it is a man named Paul (Ruffalo) who owns a restaurant not too far away from them. The children meet with him and realize how he is a cool guy who laid back. When their moms find out that they have met with their biological father they insist on meeting him as well, and that is when the chaos starts...

The screenplay by Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg was very clever, fresh, and original. All the characters and characterization was great, especially for the two mothers. They were very corky and unique, and had many great lines. Yet I thought it was odd for the son and daughter's story lines. The son's ends halfway through the film and the daughter's never really becomes completed. I did find the way everything turned out with the parents and Paul very believable though, and I'm satisfied with that conclusion. I would not be surprised if this received an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay but it had no chance of winning the prize.

The direction by Lisa Cholodenko was satisfactory because in no way were the shots impressive and did not really add much to the comedic aspects of the film. It didn't really hurt the comedy of the film but with appropriate reaction shots this could have been a hilarious film. What Cholodenko did was just present the script in visual form, she did not make you look at it in a certain way. But I have to compliment her on getting the great performances from her leads.

The acting for this film was easily the strongest part, especially by Julianne Moore and Annette Bening. Julianne Moore played the more laid back parent that is kind of like a hippie. She was absolutely perfect for the role and played everything wonderfully being very funny at times and very dramatic at others. She may earn an Oscar nomination for her performance but the buzz is saying that it will go to Annette Bening more so than her if only one gets chosen. Bening plays the more strict parent that keeps order in the household who is very opposed to Paul. My favorite scene was when the whole family visits Paul and she is at dinner just singing and it was quite funny. She has her nomination locked in even though she won't get the award yet again because it just wasn't Best Actress status. Mark Ruffalo is the also laid back Paul and he gives a fine performance but nothing awards worthy. Personally I don't believe Ruffalo will ever get an Oscar, maybe someday a nomination. He's not a bad actor he just is not a good enough actor to compete for an award. The kids in the film are all right but nothing special either. Yes, the pun was intended.

Overall I give this film a 7/10 because the great performances by the lead actresses and the clever writing. With the ten best picture nominations I would not be surprised to see this as one of them along with best original screenplay and hopefully two best actress nominations. I doubt it will win anything because I believe it will turn out as The Social Network taking Best Picture, either Inception or Black Swan winning Best Original Screenplay, and Natalie Portman winning Best Actress. I haven't seen Black Swan yet but Darren Aronofsky can do no wrong. I recommend this film to anyone who enjoys clever comedies.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

One of the Weakest of the Series

[5/10 · 27 November 2010]

The fantasy film Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is directed by David Yates and stars Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint. The film takes place all over the wizarding world.

In the first part of the final chapter of the hit series Harry Potter (Radcliffe), Hermione Granger (Watson), and Ron Weasley (Grint) are trying to form a plan with the group known as the Order of the Phoenix to overcome Lord Voldemort (Fiennes) and the rest of the death eaters. When the group is attacked by the death eaters they find themselves on the run while trying to find the horcruxes which can be used to destroy Lord Voldemort. Tensions grow between the three teens while they are searching for the horcruxes. Will they find all the horcruxes and make the wizarding world safe? You won't find out in this one but you will in the next one.

The screenplay by Steve Kloves based on the world wide bestselling novels was poor because the film does not stand out on its own. I have not seen the last Harry Potter film since it was in theatres so I don't really remember all the details. But besides that it was a pretty basic film plot wise. Wizards attacked, on the run and in hiding, search for objects to destroy evil, get attacked along the way, and then get ready for the sequel. Now let me just say right now that I have not read the books and I'm not a die-hard fan of the series so don't hate me forever because I am writing a negative review about this film. Most great sequels or even decent sequels someone can go in and watch and enjoy without seeing the earlier films. If we look to this summer's Toy Story 3 it was a very good film that you did not really need to see the other films to enjoy it.

David Yates direction on the other hand was pretty good. He had some very nice shots the whole way through, I can see him in the future on a different project getting some Oscar attention. I really liked the way he opened the film with a close up on the minister of magic's eyes and then all the cameras flashing taking a picture of him. Also, when Hermione was telling the legend of the three brothers I liked how he switched a Corpse Bride like animation technique, it was very effective and interesting. It reminded me a little of how a character in Kill Bill: Vol. 1 was telling a story and Tarantino decided to make it animated. Yates didn't get the greatest performances from his actors though.

The acting in this film was mediocre, even though some supporting characters were able to give a nice performance. All three leads, Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint, did a decent job but nothing that will make me believe that they will remain stars after the series come to an end. The only one of the three that I think has a chance is Emma Watson because she gives the best performance of them in all the films and Radcliffe and Grint have a very unique look that will only work for a limited selection of films. Everyone in this film who established their career from other films such as Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, and Brendan Gleeson, did a fine job with their very unique and in Carter and Gleeson's cases corky characters. I would have mentioned Alan Rickman as well but in this film his part only lasts around five minutes.

The score by Alexandre Desplat was great as it is in all of the Harry Potter films. It added another layer to what was happening on the screen allowing the audience to get deeper into the film. The classical melodies are always great and I personally like a film better when they decide to make their musical classical rather than a non orchestrated score.

Overall I give this film a 5/10. If I was to watch the first six films before this one than walk into the theatre I would have probably have given this a 6 or maybe even a 7. The main problem of this film is that it does not stand on its own unlike many great sequels over history such as The Godfather Part II, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, The Dark Knight, Toy Story 3, or any of the Lord of the Rings or Star Wars (original) sequels. I still recommend this film to Harry Potter fans and I hope that you enjoy it.

Crank: High Voltage (2009)

It is Like Giving a 12 Year Old on Cocaine a Camera

[3/10 · 21 November 2010]

The action film Crank 2: High Voltage is directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor and stars Jason Statham and Amy Smart. The film takes place three months after Crank in the same city which I don't believe is identified.

Chev Chelios (Statham) is alive! After falling from a helicopter and surviving a group of men picks up his body and takes his heart replacing it with an artificial one. Chelios then must find his heart by racing through the city and coming into a countless amount of naked women while shooting everything that moves. To stay alive Chelios must electrify himself to keep his artificial heart going after he loses his little heart belt. Yeah, that's basically the plot.

Neveldine and Taylor are at it again but this time much worse than the first one. Instead of having characterization they put in more violence and nudity. Instead of putting in a plot they put in more violence and nudity. Instead of putting in a meaning to their film they put in more violence in nudity. Chev Chelios is a superman hit man out for revenge and all he does is run around the city shooting at people and having sex in the middle of a race track. For all of you who say you're supposed to ignore logic and just enjoy the film I'm sorry but this film is terrible and far too illogical for an illogical film to be.

The direction by Neveldine and Taylor is just as crazy as it was in the first, but added nothing new. I imagine that the two are video game addicts and that can easily be seen from watching this film and before every shot they both do a line of cocaine to make sure that the film is as crazy and illogical as it could possibly be. I will admit for the first thirty minutes it is slightly entertaining because of how illogical it is but then it just goes too far over the edge. It's a good thing that they follow this film with a slightly better bad film.

Marc Jakubowicz and Fernando Villena edited this film and I'm sure they got in on that line of cocaine. I'm not saying that the editing is bad it just matches the craziness of the direction which is a good thing because if the editing and direction didn't match this would have to be a 2/10. There is equally as much style in the editing as the direction and the editing is one of the strongest parts of this terrible film.

Jason Statham played the lead of Chev Chelios and I complimented him on his performance in Crank but in this one there was just not as much of a character. It was basically be really sleepy, be shocked awake, shoot up everyone in the room, be really sleepy, etc. In no way did he do a bad job all the blame goes to the writing and direction none to him. I guess he can be blamed for agreeing to do the film but a check is a check. Amy Smart played Eve Lydon and her character had no character to her at all. It is basically help Chev when he needed help and have sex with him on a race track. Again I don't blame her, I blame Neveldine and Taylor. The supporting cast were all pretty bad but they could not have possibly been good so no blame on them either.

Overall I give this film a 3/10, because it was absolutely terrible. Talk about style over substance. Actually just talk about style because there was no substance to this film it was just a hyped up shoot 'em up, naked woman festival, and not in a good way. If anyone really loves watching mindless films I recommend this to you. Jason Statham is a solid performer and I hope he does better than this garbage in the future.

Broadcast News (1987)

Love and Network News Don't Mix

[7/10 · 21 November 2010]

The romantic comedy Broadcast News is directed by James L. Brooks and stars William Hurt, Albert Brooks, and Holly Hunter. The film takes place in a modern day Washington News Station.

Jane Craig (Hunter) is a news producer for a network television and despises the new trend of news stories being about entertainment rather than actual news. At the news station there are two reporters, Tom Grunick (Hurt) and Aaron Altman (Brooks), and both are very attracted to Jane Craig. Tom Grunick is an extremely handsome man but is all about style and Aaron Altman is an average looking guy but is very intelligent and funny. Jane Craig much determine which one she wants to date while the network is having a twenty-four million dollar budget cut where many jobs will be lost. Who will Jane choose, the style, or the substance? The screenplay by James L. Brooks was full of laughs and kept you wondering who Jane was going to be with until the very end. The characterization in this film was fantastic, I felt for all three of the leads and understood exactly what they were going through. Everyone hated Tom Grunick for being a stylish, entertaining guy but they all knew he was nice at heart. Everyone liked Aaron Altman but never gave him anything he ever wanted because he just didn't have the looks for the part. And everyone loved Jane Craig because she was organized, but crazy in her organization. Everything about this film was realistic. The only problem I had with this film was the ending, I disliked it so much I took a point off its rating.

James L. Brooks direction matched his writing in quality, making the film very entertaining and a fun watch. He succeeded in showing the stress of a network station's craziness during the filming of the news, and that is when all the best comedy came out. There was nothing too impressive shot wise with this film, even though Brooks knew how to get the audience attached to the characters through his shots as well, but that is hard to describe how he did that. Brooks got fantastic performances from all his leads, and that is the main reason this film is going to be remembered as one of the great comedies.

All three leads of this film received acting nominations at the Academy Awards. William Hurt received his for Best Actor and he deserved the nomination for the not too smart news caster with the good looks. Yet while being not too smart he was extremely likable and a character that I wanted to be happy at the end of the film. Some of Hurt's facial expressions were just great when they were extreme close ups on him, they just made him seem so sentimental and real. Albert Brooks received his nomination for Best Actor in a Supporting Role, and he provided many laughs the whole way through. But also he was a very deep, well constructed character that I also wanted to end up being happy. For both of them to be happy though they needed to be with Jane, and that just couldn't happen. Holly Hunter gave the strongest performance in the film and was nominated for Best Actress. She was perfect in being a frantic woman who just wanted some peace and a boyfriend that can make her happy when she got home. Her best acting was in the newsroom when she is screaming at people to get things done. The supporting cast of the film all gave good performances, especially a young Joan Cusack.

Overall I give this film a 7/10 because it is very entertaining and has a lot of funny moments in it. If the film had a better ending I would have given it an 8/10, but unfortunately it didn't. If you've never seen a good William Hurt or Holly Hunter film, this is one of the many to see. Both of them are fantastic and shine in this film. I recommend this also to anyone who likes romantic comedies, but not those corny stupid ones from today, this one is good.

The Elephant Man (1980)

Lynch Transforms a Great Book Into a Great Film

[9/10 · 20 November 2010]

The biographic drama The Elephant Man is directed by David Lynch and stars Anthony Hopkins, John Hurt, and Anne Bancroft. The film takes place in nineteenth century London.

When Dr. Frederick Treves (Hopkins) goes to a circus, or to better say it a freak show, he stumbles upon an act that is titled the Elephant Man. He discovers the most hideously fascinating human being he had ever come upon in his entire life and wanted to study the deformed human to discover why he is the way he is. The owner of the man, Mr. Bytes, claims that his mother was raped by an elephant and that is why the Elephant Man is so monstrously deformed. Treves makes an agreement with Bytes to take the Elephant Man back to the hospital to do research on him so he can make a presentation to build his medical career for the Pathological Society. But as time goes on Treves realize that the Elephant Man is not an animal, he is a human, a human named John Merrick (Hurt). Merrick can speak, and read, and do anything mentally that a normal person can do yet his deformities make him unable to function in society. Can John Merrick live a happy life where he isn't abused, or will society not let him? The screenplay by David Lynch, Christopher De Vore and Eric Bergren was superbly crafted and very loyal to the book by the same name. The film is just a fascinating biography about someone who suffered so much in their life and how I as an audience member just want John Merrick to experience just a shred of joy in his life. The characterization of both John Merrick and Frederick Treves were brilliant, by the time I was half way through the film I knew each character and that allowed me to feel for them. There is really nothing wrong with the screenplay at all, no complaints here.

David Lynch ploys his crazy directing style from the second the film starts with a flashing screen of a woman being raped and elephant sounds being heard. Personally I believe that Lynch is one of the greatest directors of all time and he definitely proves it yet again with this film. I love the way he takes simple shots of a street, it looks like a photograph that would be on a cover of a magazine. What is also great about Lynch's style is that if someone put a film in front of you within moments you could tell that he directed it because he is one of the few directors that have such a noticeable style. Alright, I sound like a little school girl. Besides the brilliance of all the shots in the film Lynch got great performances from his whole cast. Yet again, Lynch proves he is a directing force to be reckoned with.

The editing for this film by Anne V. Coates I have some likes and some dislikes. Let's start with the likes. I really like the sounds put over the film to add an effect of creepiness to it, they appear in many of Lynch's films and I always love them. I think the way all the shots are organized is great but there are too many fade to blacks in this film. It sort of segments it and makes it tiring to watch. After every scene about there is one and it just doesn't feel necessary, a simple dissolve or another technique could be used that does not push the viewer out of the film.

The acting in this film is very good, with a great performance from John Hurt. Hurt received an Oscar nomination for Best Actor which he very much deserved. If this movie came out in a different year he probably would have won it but he unfortunately was up against Robert De Niro in Raging Bull who delivered a masterful performance. Hurt played John Merrick brilliantly moving and sounding like he was deformed and while doing that he made it so he was a lovable character besides his hideous deformities. I love the scene where he meets Mrs. Treves, it is just so heartwarming and perfect. David Lynch does not make scenes like that anymore. Anthony Hopkins gave a strong performance as Dr. Frederick Treves who wants to be successful while not wanting to take advantage of Merrick. Treves struggle is not as major of an issue as it is in the book but still plays a significant part in the film and Hopkins could not really have done anything to improve it. Anne Bancroft played Mrs. Kendal, an actress of the theatre who visits Merrick in his hospital room. Bancroft plays the part fine but it is nothing too memorable, when thinking about the performances of this film the only person that will be remembered is John Hurt.

Overall I give this film a 9/10, it is definitely a great film and one of the best of the 1980's. I would recommend it to anyone who likes David Lynch, moving stories, biographies, the 1800s, never mind I recommend this to everyone. It is always fun watching Anthony Hopkins not be evil. I guarantee that if you enjoy films that are not pure entertainment you will enjoy this masterful piece of art.

A History of Violence (2005)

Not Cronenberg's Best, But Still Worth a Watch

[6/10 · 20 November 2010]

The crime thriller A History of Violence is directed by David Cronenberg and stars Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello, Ed Harris, and William Hurt. The film takes place in modern day Millbrook, Indiana.

Tom Stall (Mortensen) is the average man. He works long hours at his diner, he has a wife (Bello) and two kids, a son and a daughter. The family goes through all the usual problems such as how Tom's teenage son must face a bully at school which is actually somewhat a metaphor for the real story and Tom is friends with everyone in the small town because of his diner. But when one night two men attempt a robbery in his diner he uses amazing skills to kill the two men who threaten the lives of the customers and himself. Tom becomes a local hero and is on the news all over the country, even in Philadelphia where a man involved in organized crime believes that he knows Tom Stall as Joey Cusack. Can Tom protect his family from these men, or is he actually who they say he is? The script for this film was written by Josh Olson, and was based off the graphic novel. Even though it is critically acclaimed I was not a fan. I just never felt a connection to any of the characters of this film, I was only able to watch it and not able to absorb it. I understand the parallels between the son's problems and Tom's problems and that is clever but it did not make me enjoy the film. This film could have been much more exciting and not as corny because the whole thing felt fake, and I know that those of you who have seen it are saying well it's supposed to feel fake because of the way the film turns out but it felt too fake. It just wasn't a very enjoyable film for me even though the way everything played out was very logical. I know it was nominated for an Oscar, but it just didn't work for me.

David Cronenberg is considered one of the best directors and he shows his talent in this film. The opening shot of the film was very impressive and he immediately lets the viewer know that he knows what he's doing when he's behind the camera. The shot that I am talking about is the shot that lasts about a minute or more with the two men who will rob the diner later in the film and it follows them into their car and to the two people that are killed in a motel. The rawness that is used towards the middle of the film with Tom Stall and his wife getting into some intimate action on the stair case and then later when she walks into the bedroom completely naked shows the dramatic change that the story has taken. Cronenberg has had a great career so far and even though I'm not a big fan of this film I am a fan of his direction of it and I can't wait to see what his next film will be.

The acting in this is impressive for the most part but there were a couple of performances that bothered me. Viggo Mortensen plays the lead and he does a fine job, but not as great as he does in Cronenberg's Eastern Promises. He plays the part of the average man perfectly well, but he does not really bring me into the film. I don't really think he could have done much more with the role though it is really the way the writing was set up. Maria Bello did not give a great performance, she just kept on her angry face and yelled at Viggo the whole time. Her character was fake in the film in a way but her performance felt acted out, while a great actor does not seem like they are acting, they seem like they are themselves. Ed Harris did a great job in this film being the man with the organized crime connections who came to town. He was very creepy and memorable, and will definitely make you happy not to be in Tom Stall's shoes. William Hurt was nominated for an Oscar for his role, and he deserved the nomination due to his comedic style of playing a big mafia guy. Every single line he delivered perfectly and proves with this film that he is still a great actor. The performance by Ashton Holmes made it very hard for me to try and enjoy this film because of how poor an actor he is. He plays the part of the son and he is just terrible in every way, in how the delivers his lines, his facial expressions, just awful.

Overall I give this film a 6/10. I know a lot of my review sounded very negative for this film but if anyone enjoys the crime drama I advise you to watch because of its critical acclaim. It was just not for me but you may love it, so give it a chance. I'm looking forward to Cronenberg's next film A Dangerous Method which will also have Viggo Mortensen as the lead.

Unstoppable (2010)

Unstoppable Guarantees Unstoppable Entertainment

[6/10 · 17 November 2010]

The action film Unstoppable is directed by Tony Scott and stars Denzel Washington, Chris Pine, and Rosario Dawson. The film takes place in modern day Pennsylvania.

The film centers around how a train yard worker named Dewey does not properly secure one of the trains. Because of this the train travels along the tracks at a hazardous speed and over on hundred thousand lives are on the line if it is not stopped because according to the physics it will derail on the Stanton curve and go into explosive materials that will likely destroy the town. A veteran engineer (Washington), Frank Barnes, and a first day conductor (Pine), Will Colson, decide to take the task to stop the train even if they lose their own lives in the process. No one thinks they are able to do it from the company that manages the trains except Connie Hooper (Dawson), the yard master. Can Frank Barnes and Will Colson stop the train before it reaches its tragic destination? Or is it unstoppable? The screenplay from Mark Bomback is quite entertaining, even though it is also quite corny. It is the basic action movie where the protagonist must stop the antagonist (in this case the train) before the antagonist accomplishes its deadly goal. And like all those films this one is equally as predictable. There is not much character development throughout the film, it is basically at the beginning of the film Frank and Will don't like each other and as it goes on they start to like each other. During the leisure time on their ride to catch the train they tell about their family lives to add another layer of drama to the script and make the climax even more sentimental. On a more positive note the whole way through the film is very entertaining and will keep you satisfied during it, but in the upcoming days you may forget that you have ever seen it.

Tony Scott is a veteran director and this is his fifth collaboration with actor Denzel Washington. I really like a lot of the shot choices Scott employed, such as the many shots underneath the train. Another shot thought was very well done was when the train collided with the tractor that was on the train track, basically all the shots involving the trains were good. the performances that Scott was able to get from his actors are appropriate to the level of the film, he didn't really get any bad ones. Tony Scott is always a director worth watching because almost all of his films are entertaining and great to watch when you aren't looking for something tiring.

The strongest aspect of the film was probably the high pace editing by Robert Duffy Chris Lebenzon. It kept the excitement way up in a film which could have been quite boring. If it wasn't for their editing it would just be two guys following a train, but Duffy and Lebenzon added the excitement and flare to the film. I really liked the sounds they put in when cutting the Connie Hooper in the train headquarters and how it just went to talking, no time to wait, just like in the actual film.

The acting was mediocre in this film, which is disappointing because there are three very talented actors in the film. The first being the two time Oscar winning Denzel Washington who seemed like he was just on cruise control for this movie. He played the part but didn't add himself into it, there was no passion. When you watch Washington in a film like Training Day you can feel that he is going all out to be spectacular, but in this he does not have that type of drive. Chris Pine who became a success for his role in the new Star Trek gave a fine performance but nothing too great. So far in his career he has not really proved that he is an acting force even though he does have a very likable charm to him, hopefully in the future he will give a strong performance that shows how he deserves to be the lead in films. Rosario Dawson played her part as Connie Hooper just right as well, but it did not have much character in it so she could not really show off her acting ability. The supporting cast all did fine, no one really to complain about.

Overall I give this film a 6/10, it is a fun ride but is forgetful when you get home from the theatre. It does look like at the next family dinner Tony Scott can go to his brother Ridley and laugh how people like his latest movie unlike Ridley's latest Robin Hood. If you are looking for something not too serious head to the theatre now to give this a watch, especially if you are as big of a Denzel Washington fan as I am.

The Descent (2005)

One of the Best Horror Films of the Past Decade That Will Make You Never Want To Go in a Cave Again

[7/10 · 14 November 2010]

The horror film The Descent is written and directed by Neil Marshall and stars Shauna Macdonald, Natalie Jackson Mendoza, and Alex Reid. The film takes place in modern day and mostly in a cavern.

Sarah's (Macdonald) husband and daughter died tragically in a car accident on the way home from a river kayaking trip with some other friends. A year later when Sarah is more stable her group of friends decide to go on an adventure like they used to so she could feel better and pretend things are back to normal. The group decides to go on a caving decision and Juno (Mendoza) does not tell anyone that the cave that they are going to had never been explored. Juno did this so that they can name the cave after Sarah. While exploring the cave it begins to fall in and the group becomes trapped inside. If that isn't scary enough they are being tracked by murderous monsters...

Neil Marshall's screenplay is solid even though I have a few problems with it. What makes most horror movies great is the characterization in them. In this though all the characters are one dimensional, even Sarah. All I really know about Sarah is that her family was killed in a car accident and that makes her sad. But that is more than I know about the other characters. I did like though the idea of being isolated in a cave, that can be a horror movie on its own. But to be followed by monsters who try to kill you? That is just another layer of horror. The end of this film is brilliant as well and Neil Marshall should be proud of writing one of the best horror films of the past decade. Make sure if you watch this you watch the original uncut version though not the American one.

The direction of this film by Neil Marshall was perfect for a horror film as well. Those shots in the cave where Holly was squeezing through the walls were just perfect to let the viewer know just how isolated they were. Marshall I guess got good performances out of his actors even though I never really knew them. The scares in the film were all basically jump scares nothing to keep you unable to sleep that night, even though there is a lot of psychological things you could be scared of during this film.

The acting in this film was mediocre, nothing to write home about. It wasn't really that any of the actors gave bad performances it was just that there was not enough character for them to act off of. No one was by any means bad and everyone was believable when they were scared it was just no sense of character, so I cannot really judge it.

Overall I give this film a 7/10 because it is a very effective horror film. If there was thirty minutes of the girls all in the cabin talking so the audience could get more of a sense of who they are I would probably have given this an 8/10. But my major complaint with this film is the lack of characterization so that is why I give it what I give it. If you like horror films you should definitely see this, especially ones when people are trapped in dark places with monsters lurching around all over the place.

The Pursuit of Happyness (2006)

An Inspirational Film That Will Leave You Clapping

[7/10 · 14 November 2010]

The drama The Pursuit of Happiness is directed by Gabriele Muccino and stars Will Smith, Jaden Smith, and Thandie Newton. The film takes place in 1980 San Francisco.

Chris Gardner (Will Smith) is a middle aged man who sells bone density scanners for a living, which does not serve his life style very well. He is smarter than most, and is very good with people. That is why when he sees a man parking his sports car he asks him what his job is. The man just happens to be a stock broker so Gardner decides to apply for an internship program which gives out no pay. When Chris's financial situation gets so bad his girlfriend (Newton) goes to New York to get a better paying job leaving Chris and his son (Jaden Smith) alone and broke. Chris must get the stock broker job to give his son an appropriate lifestyle to grow up in or they will end up homeless and starving...

The screenplay for this film by Steve Conrad is very traditional. It is just the usual uplifting story with all its highs and lows. Yes, the characters of Chris Gardner and Chris Jr. are very likable and the type of protagonists an audience loves to root for. But I thought it was cruel how characters such as Chris's girlfriend Linda are portrayed as a villain. She is going through the same situation as Chris and offers to take their son with her to New York but still the writing makes her appear as a villain. The main focus of the film is money and it seems like Chris Gardner will not be satisfied until he lives a luxurious life like those that he works for. On the plus side there are several very funny and enjoyable moments in the film, I will not spoil them for those of you who have not seen it. This is a very predictable film though, but is still enjoyable.

Gabriele Muccino's direction was not anything really noteworthy. Again I would have to blame the way Linda is portrayed also on him but compliment him for all the great segments of comedy. In no way did any of the shots make me impressed at any point, like Conrad's screenplay the shot selection is very traditional. Muccino did get very good performances from basically the whole cast of the film, never at one point did I think to myself I can't enjoy this film because of how bad that actor is doing.

Speaking of the acting I will start with Will Smith's Oscar nominated performance. I have yet to see the film Ali which he was also nominated for but this is the best that I have ever seen him do. He is extremely likable, as he is in all of his films, but he almost forces the audience to want him to succeed. This film was Jaden Smith's first performance and he made an outstanding debut. Young Smith played the role of an extremely cute kid who just wants a normal life perfectly and supplied much of the comedic relief. Thandie Newton plays the part of the evil girlfriend Linda and plays it very well since she is very unlikable during the film even though she should be very relatable. The rest of the supporting cast does a fine job and keep this uplifting drama going.

The score for this film is very good and appropriate. It added another layer to the stress going on in the film or added light heartedness when it was an enjoyable part. Andrea Guerra's score was definitely one of the strongest parts of the film and is another addition to his impressive resume.

Overall I give this film a 7/10, it is very traditional and predictable but features some fine performances. This is a good movie and I'm sure that anyone who watches this will enjoy it even though they will think it is corny. This was probably Will Smith's last good movie and hopefully in the future he will be the Will Smith we all know in love instead of trying to get an Oscar so much. Definitely see this if you want to watch and inspirational feel good film, don't see this if you are looking for something original and thought provoking.

RED (2010)

A Fluffy Action Comedy

[5/10 · 6 November 2010]

The action comedy Red is directed by Robert Schewentke and stars Bruce Willis, Mary Louise Parker, John Malkovich, Morgan Freeman, Helen Mirren, Karl Urban and Brian Cox. The film takes place all over the country and is set in modern day.

Frank Moses (Willis) is retired and extremely dangerous. He calls up the pension office frequently just so he talk to Sarah Ross (Parker) because he admires her. When a group of assassins tries to kill Moses he goes to Kansas City and kidnaps Ross because he fears that she may also be in danger. William Cooper (Urban) is a CIA agent who is assigned to track to Moses and take him down. Moses must find out why he is being hunted and he goes to his old friends Marvin Boggs (Malkovich), Joe Matheson (Freeman), and Victoria (Mirren) to help uncover the wide spread conspiracy. Nothing is more dangerous than the retired and extremely dangerous.

The screenplay by Jon and Erich Hoeber was weak and conventional. Every twist and turn was easily foreseen and I felt no attachment to any of the characters. Let's just start with something that annoyed me at the very beginning of the film. When the assassins enter Moses' home they would not be all grouped together because they could easily be shot down, they would separate and cover the whole house. Then after that the group of assassins outside of the house just shoot at the house in the middle of a neighborhood. Ridiculous! It would be so much easier to just do a search and destroy, not just a shoot a lot and hope you kill the guy. Now onto the characters. There was no need for Frank Moses to have a love interest, it just makes the film more corny. Secondly I never got to know either Moses or Ross. The character description for Moses would be retired CIA agent and Ross would be normal woman. That is all that you know about those characters. On a positive note there were some funny lines in the screenplay, most of them were from Marvin Boggs. Still though it is not a good comedy, and as you can see from my above comments it is not a good action film.

Robert Schwentke's direction was not terrible, even if it was great I could not give this film higher than a 7/10. He had some cool special effects going on, such as when Moses gets out of the police car and just starts shooting like it is nothing. But Schewentke is also to blame for the way the assassins at the beginning were choreographed so there goes the director points for cool special effects. Besides the special effects though there was nothing amazing about the shot choices. I can't imagine him giving much direction to the actors since they are all veterans. Willis, Freeman, Malkovich, and Mirren probably said to Schwentke during rehearsal how he isn't necessary to be there, we all know how to not really act in a movie that will hopefully win the opening weekend.

There were a lot of stylistic choices in the editing by Thom Noble. All the transitions with the post cards were an interesting touch to the film, it definitely didn't hurt it at all. I felt at times though that Red was trying to imitate Kick Ass with all of the special effects and stylistic editing. That isn't a bad thing but if it was it did not really compete with Kick Ass in that category.

The acting overall I would have to say is pretty poor, with one exception. Bruce Willis basically just read the lines and looked all suave, and he was a poor lead. He in no way brought me into the film the whole time I just kept thinking this movie is made for people to feel like they are watching a movie. The same goes for Mary Louise Parker, in how she just played a conventional normal woman put under extreme circumstances. Now the only person in this film that I can actually say is good is John Malkovich. He is great as being a paranoid, insane, ex spy who just wants to kill everyone and thinks everyone is trying to kill him. Almost all the laughs in the film comes from him, he steals the show away. Morgan Freeman is like Bruce Willis who plays a suave guy with a couple of one liners, nothing too special. Helen Mirren has a small part but she also brings in a few good one liners. Karl Urban plays the CIA agent trying to kill Frank Moses and he is decent nothing special. He in no way does a bad job, he just doesn't do a good job. I just have to say that the woman that Urban's character takes orders from in the film is probably one of the worst actresses I have ever seen. All she does is say lines with an evil voice. I'm not going to look up her name because then she wins. Lastly Brian Cox is kind of decent as a Russian spy guy, he gives a few laughs out.

If you were really hoping to see a movie that is extremely thin then this is the one for you. I'm giving this a 5/10 just because Malkovich did some strong work in here. If you want to know some better action comedies than this off the top of my head there is Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Live Free or Die Hard, and True Lies. This is just a light hearted movie, so if that's what you're into then watch this.

Frankenstein (1931)

One of the Best Monster Films Ever

[9/10 · 6 November 2010]

The science fiction horror film Frankenstein is directed by James Whale and stars Colin Clive, Mae Clarke, and Boris Karloff. The setting is an unidentified city and it takes place in modern day which is 1931 at the time of the film's release.

The film starts out with Dr. Frankenstein (Clive) and his hunchback assistant Fritz at a cemetery. The two of them dig up a recently deceased corpse for Dr. Frankenstein's experiment, which is to create a man in the image of himself. If Frankenstein does this then he will be able to feel like God himself. Frankenstein and his assistant realize that the brain and the head of the stolen body are badly damaged so they are forced to steal a brain from Frankenstein's old teacher. When Fritz goes to steal the brain he breaks the jar containing normal brain so he takes the one that says abnormal instead. Then Dr. Frankenstein uses a machine he built that utilized a mysterious ray he discovered so the monster (Karloff) became alive...

The screenplay for this film is one of the best of the horror genre. With a running time just short of seventy minutes I was doubtful the story would be strong enough for me to enjoy the film. I was pleasantly surprised though. Garrett Fort and Francis Edward Faragoh wrote the screenplay adapted from Mary Shelley's novel. Dr. Frankenstein and the monster were both very strong characters, I liked how savage and animal like the monster was and Frankenstein's obsession. All the supporting cast were pretty one dimensional though, but it did not stop the film from being great. The quote from Dr. Frankenstein "It's alive" will always be embedded in my brain now.

James Whale's direction was superb which really surprised me. I find for most older films that the direction is always rather simple, but this had many complex shots. The one that comes to my mind first is the father entering town holding his daughter. The camera dollies with him and the audience is able to see everyone in the city looking at him. It was just a beautiful shot. The whole entire scene where the monster comes alive is excellent as well. As the unborn corpse rises to the sky and stays at the top for a few seconds then slowly comes down just kept me on the edge of my seat. And then when the monster's hand twitches slightly, just wonderful. The final scene that I loved was when the monster is playing with the little girl. It was so simple, and that is what made the scene so effective because the monster was so simple.

Whale got a couple of great performances from his actors as well. Colin Clive gave a very effective performance as the obsessed Dr. Frankenstein. I could feel his passion and desire to create something so he too could feel like God. He absolutely shined in the scene where the monster came alive, if he did a poor job there the film may not be as legendarily well known as it is today. Mae Clarke did not do anything spectacular in her role as Dr. Frankenstein's fiancé. She basically just kept on telling Frankenstein to stop being crazy and come back home, she had a one layered character which is not her part. The thing with her performance though is I do not even remember her in the film that well because unlike Clive she did not put any passion into her performance. Now Boris Karloff made the film and character iconic. He played the role as the monster and played it perfectly, there was no way he or anyone else could have done it. The scene where he acts the best is the scene with the little girl, because he is trying to play with her, not be a monster and kill her. Just magnificent performance. The rest of the supporting cast did a fine job, but no one really stood out or added much to the film.

This film is a classic and will always be remembered as one of the greatest monster films ever. You won't scream or jump in your seat while watching this because even though it is horror it is more like an intriguing story about a killer monster which has to go in the genre of horror. It is just a fantastic film of obsession that leads to a new creature, that does not know right from wrong. The monster is just like a wild animal, it is just trying to protect itself. Overall I give this film a 9/10 and recommend it to anyone who likes classic films, science fiction, and monster movies.

Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)

A Decent Sequel

[6/10 · 4 November 2010]

The horror film Paranormal Activity 2 is directed by Tod Williams and stars Brian Boland, Sprague Grayden, and Molly Ephraim. The film takes place in a house near San Diego, California.

The horror sequel starts off with the Rey family coming home and finding that their house was broken into. After doing some investigation they discover that nothing had been taken except one of Kristi's (Grayden) necklaces that was given to her by her sister. Dan (Boland) makes the decision to insert surveillance cameras into their household for future protection. In the family there is also Dan's daughter from before the marriage, Ali (Ephraim), and an infant one year old son Hunter. As the film goes on the members of the family believe that their house is possibly haunted by a demon due to all the strange events happening to the house and themselves during the night...

The screenplay for this horror box office record breaker was by Michael R. Perry, Christopher B. Landon, and Tom Pabst. The group of screenwriters made a successful sequel when by looking to the past we can see how sequels to films like The Blair Witch Project were absolutely terrible because they did not follow the same filming format as the original. Most of the scares were basically just long pause and loud sound to get a jump out of the audience but unlike the first one the fear does not come home with you. The characters in the screenplay were all very realistic except I thought it was strange how Dan Rey installed surveillance cameras in his house and was always so reluctant to look at them. Personally I did not like the ending because of how abruptly it came to a conclusion. It all makes sense in everything but I prefer more than two minutes for a film to wrap itself up.

Tod Williams directed the film and he did a solid job following up the original because like the writers he kept it low budget and just in a normal house. All the little jump scares he pulled off very well by keeping up the suspense and picking the right camera angles for the shot to come from. Williams got solid performances from his actors since everyone was very realistic and no one really sounded like they were acting. Did he do as good of a job as Oren Peli did with the original? I'm going to have to answer no to that because the original was just so much more suspenseful and I thought about the original for days after leaving the theatre while this one I barely think about.

I thought the editing by Gregory Plotkin was a bit strange. It was fine during all the suspenseful horror sequences and I liked what he did with the surveillance cameras going from the pool to the front of the house to the kitchen but I did not like what he did with the everyday conversations. He just cut in the middle of a conversation to a more important part in the conversation that seems to have taken place about three seconds later. It is partly Tod Williams' fault for not correcting this problem but the two of them should of decided to show a flowing conversation instead of awkwardly skipping through it to get to the main points.

The acting for the film was pretty good since most of these actors have not been in many lead roles. Brian Boland probably gave the worst performance of the family members because all he did was basically yell at the other family members to not believe in demons. Now I can see where he is coming from but I think he should have laid his lines down in a more sentimental way instead of constantly yelling at his family. I'm sure many people would act like he did if a situation like this occurred and he in no way was bad he was just not as good as he could have possibly been. He also probably had the least screen time out of all the leads. Sprague Grayden played Kristi Rey, the mother of the family. She gave a fine performance because she was very good at screaming at the right parts and I don't see how a normal person would not react the same way in her situation. I'm sure she studied Katie Featherson's performance in the first one so she could act similarly since their roles are basically identical. Molly Ephraim gave the best performance in the film due to as all the other actors she was very believable. She was probably there during the most scary parts of the film and like Grayden I don't see how she could have acted any differently. Her facial expressions and just the tone of her voice were just spot on.

Compared to the original this one is definitely worse. But what is good about this film compared to most sequels is that someone can watch this and would be able to understand everything that has happened. The scares are much weaker than the original as well as the comedic relief was much weaker than the original. Again I am glad that the director and writers stayed so loyal to the original though because this film could have been absolutely awful. Overall I give this film a 6/10. I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys horror films, has seen the original, or likes low budget documentary like films. See the original though because it is one of the best horror films of the past decade.

A Fish Called Wanda (1988)

A Very Smart Comedy That Will Keep You Entertained

[7/10 · 31 October 2010]

The heist comedy A Fish Called Wanda is directed by John Cleese and Charles Crichton and stars John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Kevin Kline. The film takes place in modern day England.

The film starts off with a four person armed bank heist. When the four of them escape the police they keep the money in a safe in a hide out. Wanda and Otto (Curtis and Kline) turn in one of their co-robbers to be able to take the money for themselves. But it turns out the money is not there. Wanda tries to gain the trust of her co-robber's attorney, Archie (Cleese), to find out where the money is. The whole film is about how Wanda and Otto try and get off with the money without being caught by the others.

The screenplay was by John Cleese and it was pretty well written. There was a lot of witty dialogue and good jokes. What the script lacked really was character development, because most of the characters were one dimensional, such as Otto and pretty much Wanda even though that could be argued. There were some coincidences in the film such as towards the end involving Otto and some cement. Personally I don't find animal cruelty that funny, just cruel.

The direction by Cleese and Crichton was solid. One shot in particular I liked was when Archie was hanging upside down outside the building by Otto and the camera flipped to show how he was hanging. The two of them got very good performances from the whole cast. There were really no glaring things that I was against because of the direction.

The editing for this film was very smooth and flowed very well. Yet nothing made me think during the film wow, great editing choices.

The acting was very good, definitely kept the strongest part of the film. Curtis was very charming as Wanda and delivered all her lines very well. It seemed that everyone gave their best acting when they were around Kevin Kline though. He deserved to get nominated but I guess it was a bad year since he won the award. He was great as the foul mouth, stupid American. John Cleese played the part of the uptight British gentleman very well also. The whole cast gave great performances.

Overall I give this film a 7/10 due to the great acting. I would recommend this to anyone who likes smart comedies.

The Seven Year Itch (1955)

A Light, Enjoyable Film That Shows Why Marilyn Monroe is an Icon

[6/10 · 31 October 2010]

The romantic comedy The Seven Year Itch is directed by Billy Wilder and stars Tom Ewell and Marilyn Monroe. The film takes place in New York City.

The film starts off with Richard Sherman's (Ewell) family going north to main for the summer because it is extremely hot in New York City. Sherman is always disgusted by the fact that the second other married men's wives leave for the summer they always start drinking, getting tattoos, and chasing other women. Richard works at a publishing company and promises himself he won't be like those other husbands and just focus on his work and not do anything that could later be frowned upon. But then the beautiful blonde girl (Monroe) moves in upstairs and Richard must resists his temptations...

The screenplay for this film by Billy Wilder and George Axelrod based off of George Axelrod's play was decent. The dialogue was very witty and the character of Richard Sherman was very well developed, but it just bothered me how much Sherman talked to himself. It is just so unnatural for a person to talk to themselves giving away so much information about what he is thinking. I felt all his dialogue could have been displayed just with actions and it would just be like a silent film.

Wilder's direction was fine, but not the reason he is known as the legendary director he is today. Since there was only really the set of his apartment and work place the film was not really that pleasing to look at, plus he never really used any complex shots that were memorable. He got good performances from the limited cast, but this is certainly not The Apartment.

The editing in this film was very strong. The film flowed smoothly throughout and never made me actually think about the editing, which is what an editor's goal should be. I did like how during the beginning of the film Sherman's wife and later the goal were layered over the film, I thought that was done very well, especially for the time period.

The acting in this film was overall very good. Tom Ewell I thought gave a great performance as Richard Sherman. He was witty and made me really feel like I knew his character. Even though I disliked all the monologue he had he performed it very well. One part where he was absolutely hilarious was when he was hallucinating himself talking to the girl, I just loved the voice he was using when talking to her. Monroe did fine in her role, all she basically had to do was act cute and look pretty so it was not that hard for her. I do feel though that this movie really displayed how iconic she is very well with all the subway shots and air-conditioning shot where her dress is blown up.

Overall I give this film a 6/10 because it is enjoyable, but not very memorable. I would recommend this film to anyone who is a fan of romantic comedies or Marilyn Monroe.

In Old Chicago (1938)

Well It's the Best Film I've Ever Seen About the Great Chicago Fire

[7/10 · 27 October 2010]

The historical drama In Old Chicago is directed by Henry King and stars Tyrone Power, Alice Faye, and Don Ameche. The film takes place in 1870s Chicago.

The film starts out with a family heading to Chicago in 1854. On the way to Chicago the father decides to race a train after his children ask him to do so and he loses control of the cart and ends up badly injuring himself, so much so it leads to his death. When the remainder of the family enter Chicago two of the children accidentally dirty a woman's dress and the mother offers to clean it for her. The mother is so good as cleaning she starts a business and then it is cut to 1870. All the boys are grown up one is a lawyer, one is involved with gambling and other frowned on affairs, and the final one does not really have that much of a part so it doesn't matter. The son that is a lawyer, Jack (Ameche), is convinced to run for mayor and Dion (Power) is one of the heads of a somewhat crime organization. The two are rivals, but then the great fire starts burning...

The writing for this film is decent. It is an interesting concept having the two brothers pitted against each other, I like that part a lot. But every relationship involving a woman of romance just seemed so unnatural and forced. It was just like if anyone talked to a woman in a few minutes they would be in love. I liked towards the end everything that had to do with the fire, I thought that was very interesting and kept my attention. After the film ended though not much was very memorable.

Henry King's direction for this film was quite good. One shot in particular I liked was when it was in the bar and the camera dollied backwards and I saw all the bartenders serving beer to the large crowd of people. This shot was so much more efficient than just an overhead shot displaying the large amount of people because it felt like I was actually there. Also King directed everything with the fire brilliantly as well. He got solid performances from all his leads as well.

The editing for this film was equally as good as the direction. One thing I liked in particular was when the mother was washing the clothes and all the years passed by over her washing. I thought that was much smarter than just going to the next shot and putting 1870 on the bottom of the screen. Again with the fire scenes everything was edited perfectly, especially involving the special effects.

The acting was solid by most of the cast. I thought Tyrone Power played his part very well, he was likable even though his character was devious. I did think the parts where he was with any woman besides his mother were ridiculous, but that wasn't his fault it was the writers and director. Alice Faye did not give that great of a performance but I thought her role was somewhat useless so it was hard for her to be good. Don Ameche basically just read his lines and furrowed his brow during the whole film so nothing remarkable. Alice Brady won an Oscar for her role as the mother and she deserved it. She was basically a caring mother that did not want her sons to be running around and being with women who were not of class. She played the part perfectly and really could not have improved.

Overall I give this film a very weak 7/10. My main issue is that after the film I almost immediately forgot it but during the film it was quite an experience. I would recommend this film to anyone who enjoys historical dramas.

To Be or Not to Be (1942)

Nothing is Better Than Nazi Comedy

[7/10 · 27 October 2010]

The comedy To Be or Not to Be is directed by Ernst Lubitsch and stars Carole Lombard and Jack Benny. The film takes place between 1939 and 1941 in Poland.

The film starts off with a man believed to be Adolf Hitler standing in the middle of the streets of 1939 Warsaw. It is then discovered that he is only in a play and proving a point to the director that he does look like Hitler when the director said that the man does not. Maria and Joseph Tura (Lombard and Benny) are both actors for a theatre. Maria has a secret admirer in the audience who always comes to see her when her husband reads the line "to be or not to be" and Joseph gets extremely offended by this. Then the war has started between Poland and Germany and the Turas have a part in helping their country...

The screenplay for this film is one of the strongest aspects of the film. It has many classic one liners and is one of the best satires of the time period. The plot stays interesting the whole way through and the characters are all likable even though most of them do not have any depth. One of my favorite parts of the film is any scene with the Nazi Colonel in it who always blames his Captain for the mistakes he made.

Lubitsch's direction for this film was mediocre. It was very straight forward direction, there was no risks in the shots he took, no complexity, just him deciding to put his camera right in front of the action. Lubitsch was able to get solid performances out of his whole cast, so that is a plus one for him as a director. I thought the film was lacking in the reaction shot close up department because that only makes a funny line funnier when I see the reaction another character has to it.

Along with the direction the editing was very plain and simple. There were a lot of fade to blacks which made it seem like it was a play and that a scene had just finished. The shots were all very long, there was never any editing for any stylistic use. Now I know what many of you readers are saying now, it's 1942 not the 90s where every movie has stylistic editing. Well I agree with you but it is nice to sometimes see some variation.

The acting for the film was another strong aspect. Lombard was excellent as Maria Tura. She acted like an actress and did so brilliantly and delivered her many witty lines just as brilliantly. Benny was fantastic as the great Polish actor Joseph Tura. Every line he said he delivered with such force that the comedy was great since he had the majority of the jokes. The rest of the supporting cast were all equally wonderful and had many memorable moments.

The score for this film was exactly what it needed to be to add another layer to the humor. Deservingly so it was nominated for an Oscar. With all the slapstick humor in this film a good score is needed or else nothing will really be that funny and this score delivers the laughs.

Overall I give this film a 7/10. I would recommend this film to anyone who enjoys classic comedies, especially satires. This one is much different than the comedies from today, and that's a good thing.