797. BATMAN (1989)

Running Time: 126 minutes
Directed By: Tim Burton
Written By: Sam Hamm, Warren Skaaren, Bob Kane
Main Cast: Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger, Robert Wuhl, Pat Hingle

"WAIT 'TILL THEY GET A LOAD 'A ME"

Jack Nicholson has eleven (yes, eleven!) films in the "1001..." book and while this isn't my first one (that would be "Broadcast News"), this is my first one where he has a major role...and what a role it was. "Batman" is leaving the streaming portion of Netflix on May 1st, so I decided to go ahead and knock it out, while I still has easy access to it.

I think we all know the story of Batman, but for those of you who don't, I'll recount it and his antics in this film. Batman (Keaton) a.k.a. The Caped Crusader of Gotham City, is at first thought to be a vigilante. He swoops in at night, at the mere breaking of crime and saves the innocent, leaving the guilty shaking in their boots. He wears a cape, mask and body armor and has a bevy of "toys" that he uses to catch the wrong-doers of Gotham City. In reality, Batman is really Bruce Wayne, billionaire who spends HIS free time throwing gala events at his home, Wayne Manor. In the meantime, Jack Napier (Nicholson) is the kingpin of all criminals, only second in command to Carl Grissom, the crime boss of Gotham City. When Grissom gets word that his girl is two-timing him in favor of Jack, he sets Jack up, sending him out to raid the Axis Chemical plant. When a shootout ensues at the plant, which also involves Batman, Jack takes a tumble into a vat of chemicals and The Joker is born. Also in the meanwhile, Vicky Vale is in town, a prize winning photographer who wouldn't mind getting a couple shots of Batman and who's sharing a bed with Bruce Wayne - unbeknownst to her, they're the same person.

Ever since I was a little kid, I've been the brother of an avid comic book reader and aficionado and with that, came a little comic book reading of my own. Now anybody who partakes in a little comic book reading here and there has probably read a Batman story and that applies to me too. So "Batman" has always been a fun movie for me to watch, as I believe it to be the greatest superhero/comic book movie ever made and yes, I still think that today in 2011. I've always loved this version of "Batman" and think that director Burton nailed everything on the head as far as sets and mood go. Burton's films have always kind of been off in another world of their own, with "Batman" being no exception and Burton's world really houses the comic book characters brilliantly. If you were a comic book reader pre-1989, this is exactly what you should have picture Gotham City to look like, if ever portrayed on film.

And what about Nicholson? He was in his early 50's when "Batman" was being filmed and you'd think he wouldn't have the gusto to play a maniacal, comic book villain, but he totally nails it. I was in the theater the night "The Dark Knight" opened in 2008 and I heard all the praise that Heath Ledger got regarding his portrayal of The Joker, but (and not to take anything away from Ledger's fantastic performance) Nicholson, in my opinion, was just as good as Ledger and maybe, in some ways, even better. Without a doubt, Nicholson's Joker was the best part of "Batman" and I enjoyed every second that he was on the screen, as I ate his performance up with a spoon and asked for seconds. And honestly, Michael Keaton wasn't bad either as Batman. I know he gets a lot of flack sometimes for being a less than perfect Caped Crusader, but I thought he held his ground very well and did a fine job. The whole film just clicked with me and for my money, this is the ultimate comic book film, for which all comic book films should be compared against.

RATING: 8/10 Great film and not just a great comic book film. Nicholson is fantastic and Burton provides an immaculate setting.

MOVIES WATCHED: 265
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 736

April 28, 2011 11:39am

Read More

612. NETWORK (1976)

Running Time: 121 minutes
Directed By: Sidney Lumet
Written By: Paddy Chayefsky
Main Cast: Faye Dunaway, William Holden, Peter Finch, Robert Duvall, Ned Beatty

TRIBUTE TO LUMET: PART THREE

I bet you thought I forgot about the "Tribute to Lumet", as it's been several days since I watched "Serpico". I actually kind of did forget about it, but while browsing my Netflix instant queue today, I saw "Network" and realized I'd yet to finish Lumet's tribute. Unfortunately, I wouldn't call "Network" a fitting end to any tribute.

Howard Beale (Finch) has just been told that in two weeks time, he will no longer be the news anchor of the UBS Evening News. Howard Beale is kind of a "Cronkite-esque" personality, that old, reliable news man that people turned to to get their daily fix of goings on. However, with UBS wanting to change their direction and go with a more "out with the old, in with the new" motif, they've decided that Beale must go. After hearing the news, Beale proceeds to go on the airwaves during one of his last broadcasts and announce that before his time is up, he'll shoot himself on live television. The outburst garners considerable attention and Diana Christensen (Dunaway), eager to grab every last ratings point she can, capitalizes on the attention. She suggests that UBS keep Howard Beale on and revamp him as an "angry man" character, having him go on the air every night and raise his voice and create tirades. Beale grabs the opportunity because he doesn't want to be jobless and later he seemingly loses his marbles as his actions become madder than ever. William Holden also stars as Beale's old time friend in the news business, who hates to see his friend reduced to a circus act and ultimately loses his job because he won't play ball. Robert Duvall rounds out the stupendous cast as Frank Hackett, the hard nosed top executive in charge of UBS Studios.

"I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna' take it anymore!!"

That's the token line from "Network" and anybody who's even remotely interested in film, whether they've seen "Network" or not, has heard it. It's also the line that I felt compelled to yell at about the halfway mark of watching this pile of rubbish. Now, I already know what you're thinking: "How dare this lowly blog writer condemn the greatness that is Network!" There's just one problem though, I find absolutely nothing (except the acting) great about "Network". When I first started this blog, I said that I wasn't going to go easy on a film just because society has deemed it a classic. If a film came up, whether it was "Citizen Kane" or "The Black Cat", it was going to get my true opinions tacked on to it and I wasn't going to go soft and let public opinion scare me into going easy on a film. And honestly, I think there have been instances in the past where I've let it happen, but not this time. I cannot tiptoe around my true feelings for a film - "Network" is a terrible movie. Now remember folks, that's just my opinion and luckily when it comes to opinions not everyone is forced to share them - you can have yours and I'll have mine.

What is "Network" about? Is it merely a satire on the television industry? Is it merely trying to hammer home the fact that television and the people that determine what airs on television are basically people void of any real emotion? I don't know and I can't decide. Now, sure I could make my way to a number of websites and do a little reading and try to find someone who seems really smart to point me in the right direction and tell me what the ultimate message in "Network" is, but I don't want to do that and shouldn't have to do that. I'm a smart guy, yet the message of "Network" seems to be bogged down and may be a lot of little messages rolled into one. In fact, I think the most appealing idea, is that "Network" is a movie about the changing of the guard in terms of what was appropriate on television. You can look at television now and look at television forty years ago and there's obviously been a change. What is acceptable now, certainly wasn't acceptable back then and what was considered entertainment back then, would flop like a dying fish today. Maybe that's what "Network" is about. Maybe it's simply a film about the changing of generations and the invention of shock television. I don't know - whatever the ultimate, underlying theme/message is, I didn't like the film and in fact, I'd go as far as to call it one of the worst films ever nominated for a Best Picture Oscar.

Now then, there is SOME good in "Network" and that is the cast. They all shine and really make you wonder what it was about Sidney Lumet, that made his actors come to work with their game faces on. Peter Finch, Robert Duvall and William Holden are all fantastic. Faye Dunaway wasn't bad either, but there were some instances where she really seemed to be over selling the point that her character was a ruthless bitch. Peter Finch really shines and it's kind of appropriate that his character is the symbol for anti-establishment, when Finch's acting skills are anti-bad movie. It's also a shame that Finch never lived to accept his little gold statue. And while we're on the subject of the Oscars - Beatrice Straight wins the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress? Really? According to Wikipedia her character only had about 5 1/2 minutes of screen time and somehow she nabbed the award. WTF! I think if I were Jodie Foster or Piper Laurie, I'd be pissed...or maybe even so mad, that I'd refuse to take it anymore!

RATING: 2/10 I'll give it two points for acting, but even the acting was all a waste in my opinion, as it was fueling a dying engine and in the end, "Network" just wasn't my kind of flick.

MOVIES WATCHED: 264
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 737

April 26, 2011 9:02pm

Read More

643. Real Life (1979)

Running Time: 99 minutes
Directed By: Albert Brooks
Written By: Albert Brooks, Monica Mcgowan Johnson, Harry Shearer
Main Cast: Albert Brooks, Charles Grodin, Frances Lee McCain, J.A. Preston, Matthew Tobin

A FAKE LOOK AT REAL LIFE

I randomly moved this movie to the top of my Netflix queue last week because I thought it looked interesting and have always been somewhat amused by Albert Brooks. After watching it this morning, I can tell you that it's inclusion in the "1001..." book is a big head scratcher.

The film is a satire of the PBS documentary "An American Family", which apparently aired in the 1970s and was an actual series that documented the life of a real American family. In "Real Life", a "mockumentary", Albert Brooks attempts to do the same thing setting out to film a year in the life of the Yeager's. Hundreds of families are put through dozens of different tests and in the end, the Yeager's of Phoenix are chosen over another family from Wisconsin, due to nicer weather conditions. Albert Brooks (who plays himself) moves to Phoenix, next door to the Yeager's and begins his film. Warren Yeager (Grodin), the father of the group, immediately begins to try and be as pleasant as possible and tries to make his family (a wife, one boy and one girl) follow suit. Later, problems arise as Warren, a veterinarian, kills a show horse, Mrs. Yeager (McCain) loses her grandmother to a stroke and the media starts to stick their nose in as well.

I'll try to keep this short and sweet, as my complaints far outweigh my praise. There have been a number of films in the book that I've liked less than this one, but nine times out of ten, I've been able to chalk those dislikes in the "not for me" column. With "Real Life" however, not only did I not like it, I just cannot understand the appeal or why it is included in a book that has the sole purpose of providing us with a list of "must see" films. In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing "must see" about "Real Life" and while Albert Brooks is funny in it, the rest of the film has absolutely no appeal for me.

I understand the experiment and I appreciate the originality, but it just didn't work for me and it's a real shame that there are dozens of films that I can think of, off the top of my head, that are more suited to be praised in this book, other than "Real Life".

Let's just bottom line this and get it over with: Albert Brooks is somewhat funny, Charles Grodin is somewhat funny, but as a whole the film just didn't have me in stitches or anything and for the most part simply had me scratching my head at it's inclusion. If it had been a film that I had just come across and said "Hey, I'll give this a shot", then maybe I could've appreciated it more, but as a film that is supposed to be one of the 1001 greatest films ever made...I'm left speechless.

RATING: 3/10 '3' for the comedic efforts of Brooks and Grodin, but definitely not one of my favorites and a definite recommendation to avoid.

MOVIES WATCHED: 263
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 738

April 25, 2011 7:51pm

Read More

994. The Queen (2006)

Running Time: 97 minutes
Directed By: Stephen Frears
Written By: Peter Morgan
Main Cast: Helen Mirren, Michael Sheen, James Cromwell, Helen McCrory, Alex Jennings

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN

So I watched "The King's Speech" the other night and while I stave off my opinions until the monthly recap next week, I will say that it got me interested in the royal monarchy and the history of the throne. Alas, I went to the book and what better film to follow up that rising interest than "The Queen", so here we go...

Tony Blair (Sheen) has just been elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and his first step is to seek the Queen's approval. The Queen, in this case, is Queen Elizabeth II (Mirren), whom despite her qualms about Blair, gives him well wishes. Her qualms rise from Blair's promise to modernise the nation, although he plans to stay respect the Royal Family. Some time passes and August 31, 1997 arrives and with it, brings the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. From here the film shows how both sides, the Queen and Blair, deal with the tragedy. The Queen chooses to ignore the hubbub and decides it best to take Diana's sons, Harry and William, on a vacation so that they will not be consumed by the media circus, as well as choosing to hold a private funeral. Tony Blair, on the other hand believes that the funeral should be public and that the nation needs a chance to get closure and grieve for the "People's Princess", as Diana is dubbed. Blair, always keeping utmost respect, urges the Queen through several phone calls, to return to England and be with the nation in their time of grief. The Queen wants no part of the frenzy, mainly because she wasn't a supporter of Princess Di and was still holding ill feelings toward her at the time of her death.

The film seemed to flow along nicely and there was never a time when I was staring at the clock and wondering if this film was near end. However, even in retrospect, I'm left pondering if they even had enough material to make a film out of all this. The film deals very little with the actual car crash that ultimately killed Diana and spends the majority of its running time dealing with the aftermath. It just doesn't seem "film-worthy", but then again, I'm an American and I'm really not familiar with the circus that arose following the Queen's death or how big of an impact it had on the U.K.

Other than that, I thought the film was fine. It quenched my thirst for some more British history and served its purpose in providing me with a good film to sink my teeth into. It also quite changed my opinion of Tony Blair, whom I've always considered George W. Bush's lackey. I can still see images of Blair and Bush in my head, from the news as the second Iraq war was being waged and always thought Tony Blair looked like a bit of a rat. If the film portrayed him accurately, then he was obviously a stand-up P.M. and deserves credit for holding England together in the crisis that took place in 1997.

Looking over the nominees list from the Academy Awards ceremony of 2007, it seems that Helen Mirren did deserve the Oscar, based on the list of other potential winners. I wouldn't say Mirren blew me away or anything, but she did a fine job of transforming herself and holding herself in such prominence as to portray a Queen. Otherwise, this is a fine film, with not a lot of substance, but an unbiased look at the aftermath that would occur following the death of Princess Diana. The film never asks us to choose sides, but simply presents the story, as it were, and lets us make our own opinions about how certain people behaved.

RATING: 7/10 A fine film, that neither blew me away or left me bored. That is all.

MOVIES WATCHED: 262
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 739

April 24, 2011 3:24pm
Happy Easter

Read More

570. SERPICO (1973)

Running Time: 130 minutes
Directed By: Sidney Lumet
Written By: Waldo Salt, Norman Wexler, from book by Peter Maas
Main Cast: Al Pacino, John Randolph, Tony Roberts, Bernard Barrow, M. Emmet Walsh

TRIBUTE TO LUMET: PART TWO

Continuing on with our three film tribute to the late Sidney Lumet, we come to "Serpico". Actually we go back to "Serpico", as I should have actually watched this one prior to "Dog Day Afternoon", but it's all good. I had only seen "Serpico" one time prior to today and this time around my opinion pretty much stayed the same.

Al Pacino is once again our main man and is once again portraying a real life figure, this time Frank Serpico. Frank has just graduated police academy and wants nothing more than to be a stand out cop. Serpico starts where all cops start, in a uniform, doing shift work and chasing down collars. Soon he becomes a plainclothes officer, wearing funky outfits and sporting a massive mustache and beard, trying his best to blend in with the street life of New York City. When Serpico does move to plainclothes he makes a discovery that shatters his idea of what an officer of the law is supposed to be. He finds that a lot of the men on the force are taking paybacks and Serpico doesn't pussy foot around in making it known that he wants no part of it. He falls under heavy criticism from his fellow officers and is constantly ridiculed for being an honest cop. Frank makes several transfers, but can't seem to shake the corruption that seems to follow him everywhere he goes. Frank has to look over his shoulder at every turn and can count on no one, as he has no friends on the force.

I feel the same about "Serpico" as I did about "Dog Day Afternoon", in that Al Pacino makes this film and without him this would have been a prime contender for the "not for me" pile. I was always a big fan of Pacino and this is really a great outing for him, as he gets the chance to have a few outbursts and otherwise really shine as Frank Serpico. I wasn't all that into the story, as the passing of time has made the story of the dirty cop a cliche one. The book points out that in 1973 this was potentially risky subject matter and cops were always portrayed, for the most part, in a positive light. Now, in 2011, dirty cop stories are a dime a dozen and as a whole they're just not for me. However, "Serpico" shines a little brighter than some of the more recent ones and all in all it kept me interested enough to really want to see how things turned out for Frank. The book also points out that the only downfall of "Serpico" is the score, which I couldn't disagree with more, as it totally worked for me and really made me feel sympathy for our hero.

I should also point out that in a week filled with the watching of this and "The Thin Blue Line", my faith in the justice system (both the law and the order) are getting totally marred. I mean, here all you had was a man who wanted to be a cop, protect and serve and like the boy who found out that Superman was nothing more than a tight wearer with rocket launcher on his back, Frank's dreams are totally dashed. In a way, this film kind of reminded me of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", which pretty much deals with the same type of character (a man who believes in the system, only to find out that the system is corrupt) and had me feeling about the same amount of sympathy. If only our White House was filled with Jefferson Smith's and our streets being protected by Frank Serpico's, then we'd be in business.

RATING: 6.5/10 That's a total knee jerk rating and by the time the end of the month rolls around, I can definitely see this one climbing in the ratings via the monthly recap.

MOVIES WATCHED: 261
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 740

April 20, 2011 9:17pm

Read More

590. Dog Day Afternoon (1975)

Running Time: 124 minutes
Directed By: Sidney Lumet
Written By: Frank Pierson, from article by P.F. Kluge and Thomas Moore
Main Cast: Al Pacino, John Cazale, Charles Durning, James Broderick, Chris Sarandon

TRIBUTE TO LUMET: PART ONE

Eleven days ago Sidney Lumet passed away and in honor of his legacy, I've decided to watch his three remaining films in the book. Of course, last month I watched "12 Angry Men" and it immediately became one of the major contenders for the top spot of my next TOP 20 list. "Dog Day Afternoon" is another old time favorite of mine and a film I've seen at least a half dozen times.

The film is based on a true story and stars Al Pacino as Sonny Wortzik. Wortzik, needing money for his lover's sex change operation, enters a bank a few minutes before closing time, with his accomplice Sal (Cazale). It was a simple robbery and Sonny knew all the ins and outs of the banking business, especially the details that had to do with tripping alarms. What should have taken only a few minutes, started to go awry when the groups third accomplice chickens out at the last minute. Furthermore, Sonny soon finds out that the bank had a scheduled pickup on this particular day, so they only stand to get away with about $1100.00. Suddenly the phone rings and the man on the other end tells Sonny that the police have the bank surrounded and there's no way out. Sonny and Sal shuffle to figure out what to do next, as the hostages (including a group of women and the bank manager Mr. Mulvaney) sweat it out inside, on this hot, August afternoon. Eventually Sonny and the hostages become friendly, to the point that Sonny even teaches them army maneuvers with his gun, letting them hold it and practice. Sonny soon makes a list of demands to the cop in charge, Detective Moretti (Durning), that include a limo to take them all to the airport (hostages included) and a jet to take them out of the country.

To be honest, this was much better the first time I watched it - however many years ago that was. It seems like every time I watch "Dog Day Afternoon", my opinion of it gets worse. First of all, there's no doubting that acting capabilities of Al Pacino, as he totally makes this film what it is and without him this could have been a disaster. I like how they weave in a little bit of comedy (my favorite line coming when Sonny picks up the phone and answers, "W-NEW, we play all the hits!) and Pacino delivers them so well that looking back I wished this guy would have been given a legit chance to make a straight up comedy. I also thought Cazale and Durning did great jobs too, Cazale lingering in the background and forcing us to wonder about the real life Sal and was he really that Lurch-looking. Durning is just as good too, bringing in the fire and having some intense back and forths with Pacino's Sonny.

But, as time goes by in the film, it honestly starts to get a little boring and that's even hard for me to admit, but it's true. In fact, this film would have prospered by being about a half hour shorter, as I think it would have served to keep the picture flowing and let's be honest, there were definitely some scenes in there that could have been cut. Once you get past the initial bank holdup and the police arrival, we're pretty much just sitting in a bank with a group of characters as the ring leader runs to the door every five minutes to chit chat with Moretti and yell things at the crowd that gathers (most notably, "ATTICA, ATTICA!!...). Maybe because I've seen it so many times, it just doesn't work anymore, once you know the fate of the main characters. Although, I'll admit, every single time I watch this, I still think Sonny and Sal are going to get out of the bank without being caught and I'll be damned if they never do.

RATING: 7/10 It's hard to shake old time favorites and if I hadn't seen this so many times, I doubt it would even garner a '7', but my repeated viewings and the awesomeness of Pacino give this a thumbs up.

MOVIES WATCHED: 260
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 741

April 20, 2011 3:16pm

Read More

39. The Docks of New York (1928)

Running Time: 75 minutes
Directed By: Josef von Sternberg
Written By: Jules Furthman, from the story The Dock Walloper by John Monk Saunders
Main Cast: George Bancroft, Betty Compson, Olga Baclanova, Clyde Cook, Mitchell Lewis

SLIDING BACK INTO THE SILENT ERA

In a perfect world, I would have watched "The Docks of New York" back in October of 2009, when I was still going in chronological order. However, it wasn't available on DVD at the time and it wasn't until recently that the good folks over at Criterion released a silent set commemorating Josef von Sternberg, that included this film.

Bill Roberts (Bancroft) is a stoker (those guys that shovel the coal into the furnace of a steam engine) on a ship and as our tale begins his ship is docking. Bill is a rough and tough type, with tattoos of ladies names and naked ladies on his arms and a guy who likes to knock back a few cold ones when he's not shoveling coal. When Bill's boat docks and he begins to depart, he spots a lady who has thrown herself into the water. Bill jumps in after her, saves her life and then takes her to the local saloon, to be treated. She is eventually revived and Bill takes an immediate liking to her, even stealing her a handful of fancy new "duds". The newly introduced couple make their way to the bar and have a good time getting to no one another. Bill and Mae (Compson) flirt with the idea of getting married and what starts out as a joke, ends with the retrieving of "Hymn Book" Harry, the local minister and a couple of "I Do's".

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

I gotta' say it was great seeing a silent film again. I haven't seen any silent cinema since I watched my last one for the "1001..." book and even though it wasn't that long ago, watching this one brought back memories of Keaton, Chaplin, "La Roue" and "Greed". It's just too bad that "The Docks of New York" wasn't even half as good as some of the previously mentioned titles. I just couldn't get into this one, at all. It was nice finally seeing George Bancroft in the leading role of a silent picture, but I wasn't crazy about him. On the plus side, I did like Betty Compson, as she added a ray of sunshine to the whole production and made a good "baby" to Bancroft's Bill. To me, this film was much too predictable. I saw the fairy tale ending coming from a mile away and while I appreciate the little twist with the stolen clothes, it still wound up being pretty much the ending that I had pegged.

The way I see it, "The Docks of New York" needed to have just a little bit more tragedy involved. I mean, here you got these two down on their luck characters and fate throws them into each others arms. However, I really never felt any pity for the characters and for my money, when you have characters like this, you kind of have to let the audience feel sympathy for them. Never once did I say anything to the effect of "Man, that Bill - he acts tough, but he's hurtin'." There was never any reason for Bill to go back and reclaim Mae, because he was a loner all of his life and he was going to keep being a loner and for me, the money ending would have been the more tragic one, where Bill stays aboard the ship and the two spend the rest of their life wondering, what it would have been like if things had worked out.

RATING: 4.5/10 That was a lot of grumbling and ranting, sorry. Anyway, it gets some points for some catchy scenes and Betty Compson, but all in all I can't even get it to that average marker.

MOVIES WATCHED: 259
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 742

April 20, 2011 2:26am

Read More