689. GANDHI (1982)

Running Time: 188 minutes
Directed By: Richard Attenborough
Written By: John Briley
Main Cast: Ben Kingsley, Rohini Hattangadi, Roshan Seth, Saeed Jaffrey, Candice Bergen

"AND THE OSCAR GOES TO...": 1982

Next up in our week dedicated to Best Picture winners is "Gandhi", a film that my wife has been raving about ever since she saw it over a year ago. The bottom line in this train of thought is that, my wife and I don't always have the same taste in films.

The film is obviously a biopic telling the life of Mohandas K. Gandhi (Kingsley), so I'll try to keep this plot summary short and sweet, as I don't feel the need to outline Gandhi's life. The film opens with the assassination of Gandhi, followed by his funeral procession, which looks spectacular on film and boasts around 400,000 extras. From there we travel backwards to Mohandas' work in South Africa in the late 1800s, at a time when a man of color couldn't walk down the street without a pass. Gandhi's philosophy was peace and he always stuck to that policy and in South Africa he changed the way the government treated Indians by holding non-violent protests and campaigns. Gandhi then traveled back to his native India, where he would become aware of the problems that his fellow Indian people faced, most notably being repressed by the rule of the British Government. Ghandi would go on to fight for years for the freedom of Indians and urged (once again through peaceful, always non-violent ways) the British to leave India. Once that hurdle is tackled, the film turns it's attentions to the fighting between the Muslims and Hindus and the separation of India and Pakistan. In the end, we make our way back to Gandhi's assassination.

Obviously this is a biopic which deals with a lot of important events in the history of our world, so I'll spare the "Spoiler Alert" headline, as I think most of us know what happened to Gandhi and what he accomplished.

Actually, maybe I shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions, as I was one of the probable few who actually didn't know much of what Gandhi accomplished or that he was even assassinated. I hate to make that admission, but it is true and I mean, come on, even the film was released prior to my birth. In that respect, I will give this movie some credit for being a good history lesson for me, as it obviously taught me a lot about who Gandhi was and what he stood for. This is certainly an inspirational film. Gandhi triumphed with the ideals of peace and non-violence and was always prepared to die for whatever cause it was that he was fighting for. Whether it was getting freedom in South Africa or India or fasting until the Muslims and Hindus halted their war, Gandhi was a passionate man when it came to peace, love and unity. Kingsley does one hell of a job transforming himself into Gandhi and there are facts to prove it, like that he dropped an enormous amount of weight, taking up yoga and learning to spin cotton. If only he had learned Indian, his portrayal would have been spot on. The movie exudes power and importance, as the whole thing just feels big and you know you're watching something that had a lot of hard work put into it.

Now lets talk about the negatives, in my opinion. I'm no history buff, so please forgive me for assuming, but I would be willing to bet that Gandhi didn't speak English, nor did the hundreds of other Indian characters in the film. This is something that really took me out of the film. This is a big pet peeve with me, as far as movies go. I hate watching a film set in a foreign land, in a land where I'm certain the people didn't speak English and seeing the actors do just that. "The Pianist" was another blaring example of this, but that film was so good, it was easier for me to overlook. I read in the book where it took Attenborough some twenty years to get Ghandi made and read quotes that said "I never wanted to direct. I just wanted to direct this movie". I read stories about Kingsley going through all the things I mentioned above to become Gandhi. I watched the movie and saw the film maker's obviously strive to make sure the historical accuracies were dead on and that the sets and music and everything was just right, but then they make the movie in English? I realize it's probably not as easy as all that to learn Indian, but maybe if they had at least had his big speeches in Gandhi's native tongue. At least then it would've been a little wink to the audience that "Yeah, we realize he didn't speak English, but here's, at least, a little something to make our film a little more authentic."

I don't know, maybe it wouldn't have mattered, but it just seems really lame when a film set in India has it's actors speaking English. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In the end, this film really just seemed to drag on and get a little bit like doing homework. I was grateful for what this film taught me, as far as world history and about the Mahatma, but the film itself was a bit of a hard watch. I'm not saying it was entirely boring, because it wasn't, it just had it's dull moments and in the end, I wouldn't call it a favorite or anything like that.

RATING: 5/10 We'll slice it down the middle. If you're interested in your history or just want to know who Gandhi was, it's brilliant. If you want a good movie, it might not be the one you seek.

MOVIES WATCHED: 219
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 782

February 24, 2011 3:51pm

Read More

256. From Here to Eternity (1953)

Running Time: 118 minutes
Directed By: Fred Zinnemann
Written By: James Jones, Daniel Taradash, from novel by James Jones
Main Cast: Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift, Deborah Kerr, Donna Reed, Frank Sinatra

"AND THE OSCAR GOES TO...": 1953

I was watching 60 Minutes last night and they did a piece on "The King's Speech" and kept going on about how it had twelve Academy Award nominations and how it was among the films that had been most nominated. Unknowingly, this afternoon I chose to check out a film that had thirteen Oscar nominations and I'm not arguing any of them.

"From Here to Eternity" is actually two stories, both set on the island of Hawaii, days before the attacks on Pearl Harbor. The film revolves around Company G at Schofield Barracks, where Private Robert E. Lee Prewitt (Clift) has just transferred. Upon meeting with Captain Holmes, the commanding officer of Schofield Barracks, he is almost immediately pleaded with to join the Company Boxing team, as Holmes has heard of Prewitt's accolades in boxing and wants to bag the championships this year. Prewitt refuses to fight on the grounds that during his last fight he ended up blinding a man. Prewitt is immediately outcast in the Company, with his only solace coming from his new best friend Maggio (Sinatra). Prewitt is humiliated, day after day and forced to run extra laps, climb hills and clean floors due to his refusal to participate in the boxing program. Meanwhile, Captain Holmes and his wife Karen (Kerr) are on the rocks and they've pretty much agreed to give it all up, while still maintaining the facade that is their marriage. Sgt. Warden (Lancaster) has eyes for Karen Holmes, so he makes his move, even without the knowledge that she and Captain Holmes are heading to Splitsville. This, of course, sets up the famous scene on the beach where Kerr and Lancaster collapse into each others arms on the Hawaii beaches, while kissing and flaunting their new found love.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

Sometimes when I watch a movie that I enjoy, it's hard for me to put my finger on to just what I enjoyed about it. Sometimes I want to come on here and just say "I just liked it...end of story", but I wouldn't do that, because even I want to give myself more details than that for future reference. Probably like a lot of you, all I ever knew about "From Here to Eternity" was that beach scene, so automatically I thought this was going to be a sappy, romantic love story...not that there's anything wrong with that. I loaded it up on my Netflix streaming device and couldn't help but read the brief description, which mentioned the words "soldiers" and "Pearl Harbor"..."Ugh!" I thought. I wasn't in the mood for a war film, but I knew this was the film that I wanted to watch today, so I bit my lip and proceeded forward. While reading the description, I failed to see Monty Clift's name (because it wasn't there...Lancaster and Kerr were the only two mentioned) and I was pleasantly surprised to see him show up early on.

Over the next two hours I witnessed a fantastic film that I can now say I've seen in it's entirety and not just that beach scene, which was marvelous, if only for Kerr in her 1950s style bathing suit. I was laughing (mostly at Sinatra's character), being moved by the forbidden relations between Kerr and Lancaster, turned on by the lead actresses and shouting "COME ON!" during Prewitt's fight scene with Galovitch. Okay, I wasn't really shouting "COME ON!", but in my head I was. All signs pointed to me disliking this film, but in the end I was pleasantly surprised, further confirming my theory of "If you expect nothing, nine times out of ten, you're going to be very pleasantly surprised". I felt that this movie really showed the kind of brotherhood and camaraderie that soldiers have with one another and the type of shit they have to put up with to be accepted into that brotherhood. I'm going to stop now, because I can see this getting "rambly", but bottom line is...I liked "From Here to Eternity".

RATING: 8/10 You have the Lancaster/Kerr love story for the women and the Prewitt story for the guys...Definitely a great date night flick, if you're into classics and looking for one.

MOVIES WATCHED: 218
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 783

February 21, 2011 7:32pm

Read More

998. No Country for Old Men (2007)

Running Time: 122 minutes
Directed By: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
Written By: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
Main Cast: Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Kelly Macdonald, Woody Harrelson


"AND THE OSCAR GOES TO...": 2007

Continuing on with our Best Picture themed week, next up I took to my DVD shelf and plucked off "No Country for Old Men", a film that I saw in theatres approximately three years ago, when it was re-released due to it's Oscar nomination. I hadn't seen it since then, but did remember liking it enough to be anticipating the re-watch. I wasn't disappointed.

We get into the meat of the film when we happen upon Llewelyn Moss (Brolin) hunting antelope in a desert area in West Texas. After proving he's not perfect and missing the shot, he happens upon a mini massacre in the form of four vehicles and several dead bodies. After doing a little snooping we're able to piece together that the massacre came as a result of a drug deal, involving Mexicans, that has obviously gone terribly wrong. Llewelyn does some more snooping and finds a satchel containing over $2 million in cash. He takes it and makes his exit. He quickly realizes that by taking the money he has gotten into some inescapable trouble and he's not wrong, because now Anton Chigurh (Bardem) is on his tail and wants the money. Chigurh is an "ultimate bad ass" as Llewelyn puts it at one point in the film and he pretty much hits it on the head with that statement. Chigurh uses an air gun to ruthlessly kill pretty much anyone who stands between him and the money (and even some that don't). Most of the movie deals with the chase, as Chigurh chases Moss down, via a transponder that has been placed inside the money bag, allowing Chigurh to constantly know where Moss is. On both of their tales through the entire film is Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Jones), a man who is ready to face the new generation of criminals that is being unleashed on society...or is he?

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

"No Country for Old Men" is a movie that you could definitely pick apart, piece by piece and examine every detail with a microscope to find hidden meanings and such. The movie has the base theme that eventually criminals will become smarter and more clever than law enforcement and thus the sheriffs of the days of old will be surpassed in their ultimate pursuit of evil. But was Sheriff Bell to old to play with the big boy criminal of Anton Chigurh? He obviously had a lead on this guy and seemed to stumble into possible solutions without even realizing, as when he told Carla Jean Moss (Kelly Macdonald) a story about a man killing cattle with an air gun. I mean he had the answer right on the tip of his tongue, but couldn't make the connection between his statement and the evidence that he saw earlier in the film...thus our title is born and West Texas in the 1980s was 'No Country for Old Men'. Another very appealing part of the movie, for me, is the story of a man who was able to escape pure evil on more than one occasion. Chigurh was the type of man that you didn't get away from once he had you locked in his sights, but Moss got away and even got a few jabs of his own in.

You could even examine the character of Chigurh, probably one of the most interesting and vile characters in 21st Century cinema, if not all of cinema. You could make comparisons to Chigurh possibly being a ghost or maybe he was even the Anti-Christ (the initials match - AC). The ghost theory certainly holds some weight, as Sheriff Bell even hints at this at one point when he is absolutely unable to find him. At one point, Bell is seemingly inside the same hotel room with Chigurh, but Chigurh seems to somehow vanish and escape Bell yet again. You could pick apart the movie like this, but the point I'm trying to get to is why would you want to? "No Country for Old Men" is not a movie where you must find an answer in order to follow or be entertained. The film works on its own and there are no answers that are going to intensify the suspense or make you grip your chair arms any harder. Moss has a satchel full of cash and Chigurh wants it and in the meanwhile, there's a Sheriff who wouldn't mind pinning both these guys down, because obviously some crimes have been committed and some asses need to be pulled in.

I love the Coen Brothers. I love their brand of violence as it seems to be so gruesome, yet have merit all at the same time. This is a violent film, because one of the main characters is a very violent man...case closed. The Coen's know how to hook you and then shock you once they have you immersed in the picture. Whether it's Moss shooting a dog, Chigurh blowing a dead bolt out with his air gun or getting t-boned by another car, the Coens know how to make people jump and ring in that true to life factor of...shit happen when you least expect it. Great film which was definitely deserving of Best Picture, although I've yet to see all of the nominees from that particular year. Also, great acting, as Bardem is amazing as the psychopath, Jones as the old timer and Brolin as the man on the run. It also has mesmerizing cinematography (as most Coen movies have) and an atmosphere that is almost frightening.

RATING: 10/10 Yep...The full monty. This may be in contention as my favorite Coen Brothers movie ever, but still in a hot foot race with "Fargo", which we'll eventually get to.

MOVIES WATCHED: 217
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 784

February 21, 2011 1:45am

Read More

270. On the Waterfront (1954)

Running Time: 108 minutes
Directed By: Elia Kazan
Written By: Malcolm Johnson, Budd Schulberg, from articles by Malcolm Johnson
Main Cast: Marlon Brando, Karl Malden, Lee J. Cobb, Eva Marie Saint, Rod Steiger

"AND THE OSCAR GOES TO...": 1954

With the Oscars a mere one week away, I figured we'd take a week out and take a look back at some of the movies that have been deemed the Best Picture of the Year by the Academy Awards. First up is "On the Waterfront", a movie that I watched for the first time today and one that is currently streaming on Netflix.

The film revolves around organized crime and takes place on the docks of the New Jersey waterfront. Union boss Johnny Friendly (Cobb) rules over the docks with an iron fist and the film opens with the "hit" of one of the dock worker's, mainly one of the dock workers who planned to testify to the Waterfront Crime Commission. The murdered dock worker is lured out of his apartment by Terry Malloy (Brando), who knew nothing of the hit and just assumed that the boys were going to rough him up a bit. Malloy later meets and falls in love with the murdered dock worker's sister, Edie (Saint), who is trying her best to get to the bottom of the murder of her brother. A local priest, Father Barry (Malden), is also determined to expose the crimes that are being committed on the waterfront. The film basically deals with Malloy's struggle to choose between right & wrong and good & evil, as he continues to see people he knows get whacked and continues to fall deeper and deeper in love with Edie, a girl for whom he has all the answers to all of her unanswered questions.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

I have to admit, despite the popularity that this movie garners, I wasn't too crazy about it. Now before you jump all over me for not sharing your opinion, allow me to explain. The one thing people usually like to cite about "On the Waterfront" is the acting job of Marlon Brando and I won't argue that in the slightest. In my opinion, Brando did a fine job and was totally immersed in his Terry Malloy character. Hell, I'd even throw Karl Malden in there too, as I thought he held his own with the likes of acting greats like Brando and Lee J. Cobb (I've always liked Cobb, ever since I saw "12 Angry Men" and was delighted to see his name in the opening credits). I'll also be the first to admit that this was a pretty powerful movie, which was beautifully shot. There are so many scenes that I can look at and say "Damn, now that's great stuff". I loved Malden's speech right after the murder of Kayo Dugan, as bottles and garbage are being thrown at him but he keeps right on preaching and it's the moment when Terry's arms are being pulled the hardest in either direction.

The ending was fantastic and any rating I give this film, half of it is because of the ending. To me, the ending signified that one, big, championship fight that boxer Terry Malloy never got a chance to contend in. When he was able to stand up for himself and for his fellow man and snub his nose at the crime world. When Father Barry asks Malloy if he can walk, and Terry, bleeding all over the place, drags himself to his feet and walks past all of his fellow dock workers, it was such an inspirational scene.

Now with all of that praise being showered on the doorstep of "On the Waterfront", why don't I care too much for it? Well it may be hard for me to put my finger on, but here goes. For starters, I just don't think they emphasized the struggle that the character of Malloy was going through enough. To me, this was a film about a man having to decide between good and evil, with evil being the predominant factor in most of his life and all he really knew. To me, it was a combination of the Edie character and all the murder that surrounded him, that forced him to reconsider his status. I just don't think that was emphasized enough and when Terry finally cracks, it comes as no surprise, because it's obviously that's where we were going. Brando was great as Terry Malloy, but who was Terry Malloy, because to me his character just wasn't defined enough. What made this guy finally throw up his hands and say "Dammit, I'm not going to take it anymore!"? Was it the girl? Is that all it took for Terry to see the light and issue a backlash toward his former friends? To me, just not enough definition in this film, not enough focus. And Bernstein's score was much too aggressive in my opinion. Terry wasn't a superhero, he was a man and a man doesn't need superhero music, he needs subtle music that lingers in the background, while still adding something to the overall picture.

RATING: 5.5/10 I'm conflicted on this one and honestly I could see it growing on me over time, but for now we'll just leave it at that.

MOVIES WATCHED: 216
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 785

February 20, 2011 3:31pm

Read More

240. A Place in the Sun (1951)

Running Time: 122 minutes
Directed By: George Stevens
Written By: Harry Brown, Theodore Dreiser, Patrick Kearney, Michael Wilson, from the novel An American Tragedy by Theodore Dreiser and the play A Place in the Sun by Patrick Kearney
Main Cast: Montgomery Clift, Elizabeth Taylor, Shelley Winters

ON MY JOURNEY I MET A LADY NAMED ELIZABETH

My wife got this one in the mail today from Netflix and realizing it was in the "1001" book, I decided to join her in watching it. The biggest impression that "A Place in the Sun" left on me was the realization that Elizabeth Taylor was a stunning beauty.

"A Place in the Sun" is based on the novel An American Tragedy and tells the story of George Eastman (Clift), a man raised in a highly religious household who takes advantage of an opportunity to go work in his uncle's factory. Despite being the nephew of the owner, George is treated with no favoritism and is given the lowest position available in the factory. However, George is grateful for any opportunity and puts his best foot forward. On his nights and off days George takes to fraternizing with a girl he works with, Alice Tripp (Winters), which is in strict defiance of the workplace rules. Eventhough George is dating Alice, it seems that every boy in town is enamored by the beauty of Miss Angela Vickers (Taylor) and George is no exception. Once Angela notices that George exists, it doesn't take her long to fall for his good looks and proper manners. George is now courting two ladies, when he'd rather just be courting Angela and despite his efforts to ignore Alice, he can't shake her, especially when it is revealed that she is pregnant. Meanwhile George begins to move up the ranks at work and elbow his way into his uncle's social circle, but that is all in jeopardy when Alice threatens to spill the beans about their relationship unless George marries her.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

The thing that I find the most intriguing about "A Place in the Sun" is the observance of what a man will do when his social rank is in jeopardy. You take the very gracious, very humble George Eastman, who was raised in a very poor household with a strict religious upbringing. He comes to New York for an opportunity at making it on his own, with his own job and own place and doesn't expect much. He makes the most of the opportunity and in the process begins to gain a little notoriety around the factory and begins to draw the attentions of a beautiful woman. You give George Eastman a taste of what the high life can be like and it drives him to ponder the thought of murder...murder on a person who is threatening to strip him of his new found social rank. I guess it echoes that old adage "Give him an inch and he takes a mile". George was in a good spot when he was living on his own, courting Alice and holding down a steady job, but when he got a taste of how the upper class lived, he wanted a mile.

I can't say that I fully enjoyed this movie as I did the last time I saw it, which was some years ago. I am intrigued by the premise and am enamored with the beauty of Liz Taylor and the acting skills of Monty Clift, but it just didn't fulfill me like it seemed to many years ago. I did love the camera work too. In fact, there's a particular shot in the film where George is conversing with Alice and all that can be seen is Alice's eyes. George looms in the shadows and to me this represents the exact moment when the thought of murder crossed the mind of George Eastman, when a purely evil thought consumed him. On the other hand, one thing that really took me out of this movie, just a bit, was the editing. I'm pretty sure that every change in scene over the course of the film is done with a dissolve, a dissolve that seems to hang way too long and leave us with overlapping images for too many seconds. I know it's a really anal thing to even mention, but it just seemed really sloppy and could've been handled with a little more care.

RATING: 6.5/10 Despite my nitpicking, this really is a good movie and I recommend it based on Elizabeth Taylor alone. I also recommend watching it as part of a double feature with "Match Point" - the 2005 Woody Allen picture.

MOVIES WATCHED: 215
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 786

February 16, 2011 8:37pm

Read More

558. The Sting (1973)

Running Time: 129 minutes
Directed By: George Roy Hill
Written By: David S. Ward
Main Cast: Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Robert Shaw, Charles Durning, Ray Walston

NEWMAN AND REDFORD TOGETHER AGAIN

I took a small break from watching movies from the "1001" book for the past couple of days, so that my wife and I could enjoy our Valentine's Day Weekend in bed, watching other movies. We saw some great movies and some terrible ones, but that's now what we're here to talk about, now is it? Today we're talking about Newman and Redford once again and this time it's the tandem teaming up in "The Sting".

Johnny Hooker (Redford) is a street-wise conman and a very good one at that. He proves his worth when he pinches a numbers runner for a big time crime boss, Doyle Lonnegan (Shaw). When word gets back to Lonnegan that he's been conned, he aims to make an example of any "grifters" who have their sights set on his dough. He puts the word out to his boys to take down Hooker and when Hooker shakes Lonnegan's boys by paying them off with counterfeit money, they kill Hooker's friend and fellow conman Luther. Hooker now has revenge in his head and tracks down Henry Gondorff (Newman), a man skilled in the art of the "big con". Gondorff also knew Luther and with a mixture of revenge and riches on their mind, Hooker and Gondorff set out to pull of the biggest of the big cons on Lonnegan.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

It was a smart move to watch "The Sting" in conjunction with "Butch Cassidy...", as they really go well together and make a pretty good pair of movies, especially for fans of classics or the pairing of Newman and Redford. Both portray the characters of Newman and Redford as criminals, yet they're the types of criminals we're meant to root for and have a hell of a time doing so. Once again Robert Redford doesn't fail to impress me here and once again I have to say that I enjoyed him more than Newman. I think it's more of an underestimation on my part, as I just really never paid too much attention to Robert Redford and now I'm getting a wake up call to the fact that he was a hell of an actor. The scenes in "The Sting" are perfectly shot, in that they turn a normally tame scene of Gondorff and Lonnegan playing poker, into a real nail biter. Another thing I have to hand to the makers of "The Sting" is that they really captured the time period. Now, not that I lived in the 1930s, but this is exactly how I would picture downtown Chicago during the Depression era. The music, settings and costumes in "The Sting" we're fantastic and it really made you yearn to be around during that time period.

Now on to the cons...and no I'm not talking about the ones IN the movie. For the most part I enjoyed "The Sting", but I think there was definitely a point there in the middle where it felt like we were just killing time. It wasn't boring at all during, but afterwards when the film was over, it just felt like for a movie that was over two hours in length, not a whole lot happened. They managed to keep the momentum going though and like I said, there was never a point where you were staring at the clock and sighing with impatience. There was also a little bit of predictability in there, with the whole FBI part of the con thrown in, which I wasn't crazy about. It just seemed to provide us with more of a twist ending and I thought the movie could've ended just fine without it, with Robert Shaw screaming at the top of his lungs and throwing a Robert Shaw caliber hissy fit, because he lost a half million bucks. But hey, the FBI racket was the focal point for Dana Elcar, a guy I haven't seen in ages, not since his Pete Thornton days on "MacGyver". And speaking of cast I also thought Ray Walston, Charles Durning and Harold Gould all did magnificent jobs.

RATING: 7/10 I liked "Butch Cassidy..." better, but this was still a lot of fun and I'd highly recommend watching them both as a double feature. On a side note, I just realized that the Oscars are in less than two weeks and I've decided to let "The Sting" be our segue into a week filled with some Best Picture Oscar winners...so look out for those.

MOVIES WATCHED: 214
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 787

February 16, 2010 1:52am

Read More

799. Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)

Running Time: 107 minutes
Directed By: Woody Allen
Written By: Woody Allen
Main Cast: Martin Landau, Woody Allen, Mia Farrow, Anjelica Huston, Alan Alda

WOODY ALLEN WEEK: THE FINAL ACT

The final leg of the Woody Allen movies, as they exist within the pages of the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die", "Crimes and Misdemeanors" was an Allen film that I once considered my favorite of his work. This time around I didn't regard it so highly, but still hold it in high regard.

Once again we're treated to two stories that are very loosely connected by the characters that play in each of them. In the first, and darker of the two stories, Martin Landau is Judah Rosenthal, a very successful eye surgeon who is paying dearly for years of infidelity. When his mistress Dolores (Huston) threatens him by telling him that she is going to go to his wife and confess everything, he turns to his criminal brother (Jerry Orbach) for help. In the other, more light-hearted story, Woody Allen is Cliff Stern, an ailing documentary filmmaker who has decided to take a job producing a documentary about his successful sitcom writer brother-in-law Lester (Alda), whom he hates, citing that he is a pompous bore. Along the way, Cliff falls head over heels for the executive producer of the project, Halley (Farrow), whom he gets along with due to their common interests and wants to pursue something with her, despite the fact that his is currently married.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

Once again, there's no use even mentioning the cast, as Allen obviously assembled a great one once again. I loved Martin Landau and it is his story that is the focal point of the film for me. In fact, and I can't even believe I'm saying this, if Woody would have cut his own story from the film and made the entire film a drama regarding Judah Rosenthal and his problems, this could have been one of the greatest movies of all time. Not that I hated the Allen/Alda/Farrow story, because I didn't, I just took more to the Landau/Huston story. It was also nice to see Sam Waterston get a more prominent role this time around too and I also loved seeing Jerry Orbach in there. Speaking of Waterston, he is involved in the most powerful scene of the film, when Judah imagines him and has a discussion about morals with him in Judah's living room. It's such a strong scene, as the two argue while maintaining whisper tones and debate on right and wrong, murder, infidelity and forgiveness.

I'm not really sure why my opinion went down this time around, I really have no excuse or even negative criticism. I just know that in watching these six Allen film, it was "Manhattan" that I enjoyed the most of them, with "Hannah and Her Sisters" coming in second and this one in third. However, I'll never forget the first time I saw "Crimes and Misdemeanors". It was near the end of my Allen watching quest and with no more proof needed to consider Allen one of the greatest filmmaker's of all-time, I see another home run smacked out of the park by the "Woodman". I remember loving this film so much and immediately deeming it my favorite of all his work. I think the thing I love about Allen, is that my opinion of his greatest film has changed so many times, not because of my indecisiveness, but because he has SO MANY great movies, that it's just impossible to stay married to one. I guess you could say as far as Allen films go, that I'm as much of an infidel as Judah Rosenthal.

A FINAL WORD REGARDING WOODY ALLEN

I had a great time reliving these six pictures from Woody Allen and writing down some of my thoughts on them. It excites me to write about things that I am passionate about and Woody Allen films are a certain passion of mine. I guess now I'm ready for Tuesday and the release of "You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger" which I absolutely cannot wait for.

I guess in the end, the thing I love most about Woody Allen movies is that they allow me to peer into the lives of people in another class as me. We're more often than not viewing upper middle class New Yorkers, who take vacations to Connecticut and throw dinner parties. People who have relationship struggles and analysts to tell their troubles to. I don't know why, but Allen's entire universe just interests me so much. Even the way he passionately films the city of New York is breathtaking. I've never had any particular interest in visiting The Big Apple, but when I watch a Woody movie, I so want to be sitting under a tree in the middle of Central Park or walking downtown, going to my favorite of thousands of restaurants.

As a last bit of information for you, I guess I should tell you that the film I ALWAYS cite as my personal favorite Allen flick was not included in the "1001" book and that would be "Manhattan Murder Mystery". I've always loved this film and probably because it's the first Woody Allen movie I ever saw, way back when I didn't even know who Woody Allen was or that he was even a prominent filmmaker. I'm sure that opinion will flip flop as time goes by, but for now, I won't pick a favorite, instead I'll just suffice it to say that I am a Woody Allen fan in general.

RATING: 8/10 Great film that just didn't do it for me as much as some of the others did. Still it comes with the highest of recommendations.

MOVIES WATCHED: 213
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 788

February 12, 2011 3:31pm

Read More