516. PATTON (1970)

Running Time: 170 minutes
Directed By: Franklin J. Schaffner
Written By: Francis Ford Coppola, Edmund H. North
Main Cast: George C. Scott, Karl Malden, Stephen Young, Michael Strong, Michael Bates

"...NO BASTARD EVER WON A WAR BY DYING FOR HIS COUNTRY..."

Seeing as how "Patton" will be leaving the instant stream portion of Netflix this Saturday, I figured I'd catch it before it left and get it knocked out for the book. While I thought George C. Scott certainly transformed himself into a cutthroat army General, I'm all in all glad that I got this one done and over with.

The movie begins with a famous speech given by Gen. George Patton himself, in what I thought was a great way to introduce us to the character and giving us quite a bit of insight into who Gen. Patton really was and what he was all about. From there we're plummeted into World War II and the Americans have suffered a great defeat at the Battle of the Kasserine Pass. Gen. Patton is called in to whip the soldiers into shape and teach them how to win a war, which is to make the opposition die for their country. He gets them ready and leads them to victory at the Battle of El Guettar and it's on to Sicily, where we learn that George is a bit of a glory hog. He makes it known that he wants to be the one to secure the port of Messina, and not Gen. Montgomery, the General of the British Army. He's given his orders, which state that Montgomery will be the first to land in Messina and defies those orders when he arrives first, capturing Messina and stealing the glory from Montgomery.

Later, while visiting the Army hospital, Patton slaps a shell-shocked soldier and accuses him of cowardice, an act that would get him relieved of his duties, something that eats Patton alive. After he commits a second act of defiance, by insulting Russia, when failing to mention them as an ally at a press conference, he is even further demoted and is used for nothing more than a decoy during the infamous D-Day landings at Normandy. In a last ditch effort to catapult himself back into the thick of the war before it's all over, he makes a plea to his former subordinate Omar Bradly (Malden) to let him take command of the Third U.S. Army. Bradley reveals that those very plans have already been put into motion by Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower. The film winds down with Patton leading his Third Army to great victory, killing and wounding hundreds of thousands of German soldiers.

As always, I never give away the endings to movies, but suffice it to say that this one doesn't end with the bang that would be only fitting for a man who was full of bang. But lets start at the beginning and lets first start with the good. I shouldn't even have to mention George C. Scott, as I think all film fans agree that his performance is legendary and as cliche as it may sound, he truly brought the character of Patton to life. I also really enjoyed Malden, who held his own on the same screen with Scott and provided a great level-headed character in the form of Gen. Omar Bradley. Some scenes ARE really engaging, but for the most part I found this film to be really quite boring. The running time of three hours is much to much when you really think about the big events of "Patton". The only real events that take place are the introduction of Patton, the Battle of El Guettar, the soldier slapping at the Army hospital and Patton's reinstatement as head of the Third Army. That's it! Sure, there's the invasion of Sicily at Messina and the events surrounding the Battle of the Bulge, but all in all the few events that I mentioned are plenty to fill a standard two-hour film, and in my opinion three-hours just sends this one into a very stale state.I'm not one for war films in the first place, but USUALLY well choreographed battle scenes dull the sting for me, and "Patton" doesn't even have those.

But why would it, because this isn't your typical war film, this is a biopic and while we are talking about World War II, we're more so talking about Gen. George Patton, who I will agree was a prime candidate for a biopic, but in the end, it's a biopic that just isn't for me.

RATING: 4.5/10 That's just about as high as I can go, as the good elements were inferior to the bad and giving it a '5' would be calling it average, which in my opinion, it isn't even that.

MOVIES WATCHED: 138
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 863

September 8, 2010 4:40pm

Read More

COMING SOON TO A BLOG NEAR YOU!

I might try to keep this up on a weekly basis, but we'll see how faithful I can be to it. Basically I have a few ideas for movies that I'm going to watch this week and just so everyone knows what's coming up, I figured I'd share them. Know that some of these have reasoning behind them and some are just totally random.

*The Heiress (1949 - William Wyler)
*Patton (1970 - Franklin J. Schaffner)
*The African Queen (1951 - John Huston)
*Independence Day (1996 - Roland Emmerich)

I'll almost assuredly watch more stuff between now and this coming Sunday, but those are a few of the ones you'll see in the week to follow. Feel free to comment the choices, leave opinions, but I beg of thee...please refrain from spoilage. Thank you

September 7, 2010 12:47am

Read More

967. The Pianist (2002)

Running Time: 148 minutes
Directed By: Roman Polanski
Written By: Ronald Harwood, from book by Wladyslaw Szpilman
Main Cast: Adrien Brody, Thomas Kretschmann, Ed Stoppard, Emilia Fox

A MOVIE THAT WILL BREAK YOUR HEART OVER AND OVER AGAIN

Opting yet again for the Netflix instant queue, I chose a relatively newer movie from the pages of the "1001" and went with Roman Polanski's "The Pianist". Now before I start showering a bit of praise toward a Roman Polanski film, I'll ask that anyone who has shunned Polanski and his work, due to his recent newsworthy tidbits, please refrain from battering me with verbal insults, as I'm merely separating the artist from the man.

The film chronicles the journey of Wladyslaw Szpilman as he tries to survive in a Nazi occupied Warsaw, Poland. We start out by establishing the fact the Szpilman was a classically trained pianist, but Polanski doesn't waste a second of his film and we're quickly into the thick of things as the Germans take over Warsaw. Several decrees are made, the first stating that all of the Jewish population must wear armbands with the Star of David to identify themselves. The following decree has all Jews being forced to repopulate in the Warsaw Ghetto. Once there, they are blocked in by a wall of brick and must face hunger, as Wladyslaw and his family try to fight for their survival and witness the hideous acts of the Nazi regime. One particularly brutal scene shows a troop of Nazi's storming into an apartment building in the Warsaw Ghetto, going to the top floor and forcing a Jewish family to stand. When an elderly man in a wheelchair is unable to comply, they dump him over the balcony to the streets below. They march the rest downstairs, shoot them all and then drive off, running over bodies as their vehicles depart.

Eventually the family is taken away from the Warsaw Ghetto, as the Nazi's prepare to take them to an extermination facility in Treblinka. At the last minute, Wladyslaw is saved by a member of the Jewish police, who also happens to be a family member. At first he is taken back inside the ghetto to become a slave labourer. It is there where he begins to talk with some of the other Jews and learns of plans for a Jewish uprising, where other Jews plan to bring in guns to fight back against the oppression of the Germans. Later, prior to the start of the uprising, Wladyslaw decides to go into hiding outside the ghetto, relying on the help of some friends he had prior to being imprisoned. They set him up in an apartment building, keeping him locked inside and bringing him food whenever the coast is clear. At this point of the film it becomes a tale of survival, and it feels like one man against the world as we follow Wladyslaw.

I'm not real big on history movies, as I'm not a real big history buff and therefore not all that interested. The holocaust, however, does hold some interest for me, if only for the fact that it's unbelievable the amount of horror that was inflicted on the Jewish population during this time. I haven't seen a whole lot of holocaust movies, but I can definitely say that this is the most harrowing one that I've seen and it really makes you stop and think: "My God this stuff actually happened", in fact you can't help but think that. As far as the movie itself goes though, I thought it was excellent and really only have two bad pieces of criticism. The first is that the film does kind of drag, but only very minor and only in a couple spots, nothing major. The other thing that I didn't like and something that actually removed me slightly from the film, was the fact that there wasn't more subtitling. We have a movie that takes place entirely in Warsaw, Poland, as it's being invaded by Germans, and the primary language that the characters are speaking is English. You'd really expect Roman Polanski to be a little more risky and go for the subtitling, I think I would've really been able to let myself be captivated by the environment, had that been the case.

RATING: 8.5/10 Other than my minor quibbles at the end there, you'll get nothing but a big thumbs up from me on "The Pianist" and I'm glad I chose it.

MOVIES WATCHED: 137
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 864

September 6, 2010 2:56pm

Read More

603. Cria cuervos (1975)

Running Time: 107 minutes
Directed By: Carlos Saura
Written By: Carlos Saura
Main Cast: Ana Torrent, Geraldine Chaplin, Monica Randall, Florinda Chico, Conchi Perez

RAISE RAVENS AND THEY'LL PLUCK OUT YOUR EYES!

It felt (and has been feeling) so good to be able to just pick out a movie, by reading synopsis' and just going with what sounds good, instead of already having my movie picked out for me. Tonight, as I made the decision to knock yet another film off of my list of 1001, I chose "Cria cuervos" from the Netflix instant queue and while it wasn't quite what I expected, ultimately I had an enjoyable time with it.

The movie opens with sounds of passion and as eight-year old Ana (Torrent) descends the staircase, the following noises that she is exposed to, are noises that no young child should hear. She hears her recently widowed father making love to a woman, only to then declare that he cannot breathe. His mistress, a friend of the family named Amelia, runs from the room, locks eyes with Ana for a brief second and then departs the residence, as Ana's father Anselmo dies of a heart attack. By removing an emoty glass of milk, which we later realize the relevance of, Ana blames herself for the death of her father, and carries the guilt with her through the movie. Now Ana and her two sisters (one older, one younger) are left without their parents and are forced to be raised by their mother's sister, Aunt Paulina, with some help from the delightful character of Rosa, the maid.

The film is told in flashbacks, so at times, although I hate to admit, I found myself just a tad confused. In the end, however, I had everything sorted out well enough to piece everything together. Aunt Paulina, though she means well, is sometimes harsh with the children and dampens the already well damp spirits of the three youths. The children, however, are quite the resiliant ones, as they keep each other in good company, playing games and being children and trying not to think about all the tragedies that have recently plagued their lives. The film also envokes the use of an adult Ana (Page, in a dual role) popping in from time to time to talk about some of the things that were swirling through her head, during the time shortly after the death of her mother and father. Beyond that the plot is pretty cut and dry, as we follow the children as they adapt to their new lives.

During the first ten or so minutes of "Cria cuervos", I had a suspicion that I wasn't going to like this movie. I'm really not sure why I'm admitting that or even why I thought it, because the suspicion turned out to be false and actually I had a very pleasant time with this film, despite the fact that some of the subject matter isn't all that pleasant. When the film ended I did a few minutes worth of snooping on some of the films meanings and such and found that the film is meant to be about "a metaphor of life under a fascist regime" and is decalred a movie of "political triumph". I honestly didn't get that out of this movie and took the film as just a movie and nothing else. However, one thing that Carlos Saura himself said about the film is this:

"What I'm trying to say is that at that age you've no idea where it is you are going, only that people are taking you somewhere, leading you, pulling you and you are frightened."

Now that element comes out 100%, as we see the entire film through the eyes of Ana and as the film goes on I realized that there was probably a lot of things going on with the characters that weren't being shown, because Ana wasn't present for them. The film, in my opinion, gives the viewer the feeling of being a child, where we're left in the dark about certain things, such as infidelity and death and are therefore forced to draw our own opinions about the subjects, which is why the character of Ana is so obsessed with death. The movie is already growing on me and I like it more now than I did thirty minutes ago when I finished it. This is definitely one that I want to see again and I just finished it. I'll let that statement speak for itself.

RATING: 8/10 This is a really hard one to gauge, because it was very different than what I expected, but I still had a really good time with it. I'm not sure if an '8' is too generous or not generous enough. We'll stick with it though.

MOVIES WATCHED: 136
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 865

September 6, 2010 1:37am

Read More

651. Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)

Running Time: 105 minutes

Directed By: Robert Benton

Written By: Robert Benton, from novel by Avery Corman

Main Cast: Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep, Justin Henry, Jane Alexander

ON MY JOURNEY I MET A MAN NAMED 'DUSTIN'

Coincidentally I had french toast for breakfast this morning and in no way did that influence my decision to watch "Kramer vs. Kramer". Ever since I saw this movie many years ago, it has been a personal favorite of mine. It was the movie that really made me realize what a fantastic actor Dustin Hoffman was and it's a movie that can always draw tears from my eyes and usually in a different scene every time.

When Ted Kramer (Hoffman) arrives home from work one evening with the great news that he's been named top man on the new account at work, he soon realizes that more important things are happening and not good things either. Joanna Kramer's bags are packed and she is leaving Ted. She gives him the old "It's not you, it's me" routine, steps into the elevator and out of his life. At first Ted thinks that it's just a little phase she's going through and sooner or later she'll be back through the door of their New York City apartment and ready to step back into her role as wife to him and mother to their seven-year old son Billy. But as the weeks and months tick away, Ted must face the fact that Joanna isn't returning and that he must now step up to be a real father, instead of just the guy who "brings home the bacon". At first it's rocky, as Ted really doesn't know how to bring up a child, or do any of the things necessary in bringing up a child. In fact the morning after Joanna departs the residence, Ted has a rough time just rustling up some breakfast for the youngster and turns a scene in which he tries to make french toast into a classic.

Ted does his best at juggling fatherhood and his work, which he vows to give his all at and be available 25 hours a day and eight days a week. But soon his life is brought into perspective and he soon goes from telling stories about buying burberry coats to telling cute stories about Billy and the most important part of his life is no longer the big account, but rather his son's Halloween play at school. A bond is formed, characters develop and over the course of the film, we really learn to adore the relationship that Ted and Billy share. But soon the title of the movie rears it's head and Kramer really does face off with Kramer, in court, as Joanna returns to reveal that she has found herself, realized her identity and now wants custody of Billy.

I'll say it again, this has always been a personal favorite of mine. Recently my brother watched this movie and declared that it's a movie that you don't want to end. I agree with that statement, but to me, it's really the bond of Ted and Billy that you don't want to end. When Joanna returns and says that she wants custody of Billy you really hate her for that and, for a second, she becomes the most hated villain in movie history for trying to put an end to a relationship that we've just invested this entire movie creating. What fantastic performances from the principle actors too, especially in the courtroom scenes where they really let the emotion flow out. Dustin Hoffman is one of the great actors and has been a favorite of mine for a long time. He really knows how to play the situations, whether to play them nonchalant or to really lay it on thick and let his emotions run rampant. I guess the ultimate lesson to be learned from "Kramer vs. Kramer" is that no matter what situations you're thrown into, you'll eventually learn to make a routine out of it and you'll adapt to whatever life throws at you, even though it may take a while and at first you may not want to.

RATING: 10/10 There was no question as to whether or not this one would garner a '10', there is nothing bad being put on display here.

MOVIES WATCHED: 135

MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 866

September 5, 2010 3:03pm

Read More

State of the Blog Address

You know it's really hard to believe that I'm the author of a blog that has lasted more than a few weeks. Prior to the blog which you're currently reading, any attempt that yours truly has made at an ongoing blog has been a failure. I'm proud of the writing that I've done for this blog and I think I've really developed a clear voice on a subject that I really love...films. As I've said many times in the past and will continue to say, to the people who have taken the time to read this blog and to the few who have taken a little more time to leave a comment or two, I thank you immensely and am honored that you'd spend your precious time reading words that have come from my mind.

Over a year ago I purchased a book entitled "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" and several days later took the advice of the title and set out on a cinematic journey to see those 1001 movies. It's been a lot of fun and next Saturday will mark one year since the first post of this blog. Over the past year I've had the pleasure to sit through some of the greatest films that I've seen and in some cases, films that I'll never ever forget. Movies like "La Roue", "Angels with Dirty Faces", "My Man Godfrey", "Modern Times" and "Steamboat Bill Jr." are movies that I'll always have tons of fun revisiting and some of those films have even become permanent fixtures of my DVD shelf. Prior to September 11, 2009, when I made my first blog post, I'm a little ashamed to admit that I wasn't all that big of a fan of old black & white films, not to mention silent cinema. I consider the last year of my life time well spent in getting to know the importance and significance of those types of movies and it was almost like a schooling in the appreciation of old movies.

For one full year I flipped through the pages of the "1001" book, taking in every movie that I could find, in chronological order and one year later I put an end to my chronological process.

When I toyed with that same idea earlier this year, I put it to rest fairly quickly, partly due to a few commentors saying that they wished I'd continue moving in chrono. order. I took the suggestions of my followers and mixed it with my own feelings and came to the conclusion that jumping around the book in random order would kind of be like cheating and that was something that I did not want to do. So I continued on, in chrono. order. I didn't make it very far before I hit another rut and although I still had immense appreciation and love for older cinema, was really ready to jump around and take in some different era films. After one year of watching nearly nothing but movies pre-1940s, I was ready for a change of pace. When weighing all the advantages and disadvantages of moving in random order, the only disadvantage was that the blog would no longer be in the neat and pristine orderly fashion that I had made sure that it stayed in for the past year. I didn't figure that was a good enough reason and realized that as long as every movie was watched and written about that the end result would still be the same...1001 movies worth of film knowledge entering my head.

With nearly 100 of the "1001" movies sitting on my DVD shelf, nearly 200 of them ready to be watched instantly on Netflix (of which I have a compatible device to stream those movies to my TV) and over a dozen of the harder to find "1001" taped off of Turner Classic Movies, I was armed with plenty of flicks to keep me and the blog occupied. It just gives the entire endeavor new life, because whereas before I had only one movie staring me in the face, now I have approximately 300 choices ready for me to choose from and that just sounds like a lot of fun to me. Instead of "You're next movie IS GOING TO BE "Sergeant York", now maybe I'll choose an old favorite like "Reservoir Dogs" or "12 Angry Men", or maybe I'll watch "Man of the West", because it looked pretty good when I was taping it off of TCM. Hell, maybe I'll fire up the Blu-Ray player and choose "Brief Encounter" or "Picnic at Hanging Rock" from my Netflix instant queue. The choices are many, but the end result stays the same and I hope you all agree with and understand my decision to move around the book in random order.

In closing I guess I just want to say thanks again for reading and commenting and giving me the confidence to keep writing reviews. Here's to another year of classic films that I can't wait to tear into.

EDIT: You may notice a list of directors on the right side of your screen. I got the idea from a fellow Blogger member who is a follower of mine. By clicking on the names of a particular director on the side, it will take you to all of the reviews that I've written for that director's movies.

September 5, 2010 12:56am

Read More

343. Les yeux sans visage/Eyes Without a Face (1959)

Running Time: 88 minutes
Directed By: Georges Franju
Written By: Pierre Boileau. Claude Sautet, Pierre Gascar, Thomas Narcejac, from novel by Jean Redon
Main Cast: Pierre Brasseur, Edith Scob, Alida Valli, Francois Guerin

HOCKEY FANS REJOICE...THIS ONE'S A REAL FACE-OFF

When I made the decision to start moving through the "1001" book in random order, I knew that it would be the movies that I'd been chomping at the bit to see that I'd watch first. So when I discovered "Eyes Without a Face" streaming instantly on Netflix, I fired up my compatible Blu-Ray player and buckled up for a French horror flick. While I wouldn't say that the film completely lived up to my expectations, it wasn't an entire loss and Georges Franju's 1959 picture kept me well occupied.

The movie starts out presenting us, the viewer, with some puzzle piece-like scenes that we eventually piece together as we're given more information within the first fifteen or so minutes of the film. We eventually learn that Dr. Genessier will be one of our main characters, along with his daughter, Christiane. As the film opens, Dr. Genessier's assistant, Louise, dumps a body in the Seine river, a woman who's face we never see and can only assume, that it's because of the lack of one. A little later Dr. Genessier identifies the body that was dumped by Louise to be that of Christiane. Upon arriving back at his palatial palace, we learn that Christiane is alive, although she isn't all that well. Christiane seems to be missing a very important and critical part of her epidermis...her face. Where her skin once lay, now is home to only an open wound and although Franju never allows the viewer to see the obviously gruesome sight, it makes it worse, because we only imagine the worst.

We're eventually fed more information, like the fact that Dr. Genessier himself is responsible for the disfigurement of Christiane's face, as he was driving like a "lunatic" and caused a car crash. The body that was dumped into the Seine at the beginning of the film, was that of a human guinea pig, who's face Dr. Genessier tried to remove and graft onto Christiane's, despite the fact that her body rejected it. The doctor tries and tries, leading to one of the sickest scenes, not only of this film, but one of the most gruesome scenes I've been privy too and one that I immediately described as "squirmy". As Edna Gruber, the latest victim of Dr. Genessier and Louise, lay on a table sedated, the doctor draws lines around the outline of her face and carefully removes the face, in a scene that Franju allows to develop and doesn't rush, which makes it all the more creepier. Will Christiane's body accept the new face of Edna Gruber or will the good intentions of Dr. Genessier go unrealized?

It really seems that the movies that I really anticipate watching, always seem to let me down and although I certainly didn't hate "Eyes Without a Face", I really expected to like it more than I did. The film is a real creep-out fest, which is intensified by the carnival-esque music that erupts through the television speakers every time Louise is on the prowl for a new female victim. It's funny because when you hear the term "French cinema" this isn't the type of movie that immediately pops to mind, however the cinematography really captures the French countryside and I really enjoyed some of the imagery that was captured, from the opening shot of the dark road with the headlights shining on it, to a seemingly throw away shot of an airplane in the sky, as Dr. Genessier digs up Christiane's "grave". I also liked the fact that the silence of the main character, Dr. Genessier, really fleshed him out more. While he's a man of very few words, it only makes him more mysterious and scary and makes his persona capable of committing any act, no matter how horrible.

RATING: 6.5/10 That rating could definitely grow as time goes by and there's really nothing wrong with the film, other than the fact that I expected a little more than I got.

MOVIES WATCHED: 134
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 867

September 4, 2010 1:48am

Read More