The Godfather Part II (1974)

5/5

Some have named it the best sequel ever made. Some suggest it is better than the first and therefore place it on the pedestal of best movie ever made. No matter what hyperbole you give it, the quality of this film is undeniable. Nearly every scene found me muttering to myself, "This scene is amazing." To quote each memorable line would be to read the script entire. Nino Rota's score is better than in the first. The cinematography has also improved while remaining surprisingly noir. But the acting is definitely the finest moment of this movie.

This film is essentially 3 hours of character development with 20 minutes of violence thrust upon it. Characters like Kay and Fredo were minor in the first one, but essential in this one. And it works because all the acting are tours de force. I actually consider Cazale's acting superior to Pacino's in this film, and De Niro's on par with Brando. This is not an insult to Pacino--one of the most powerfully emotional scenes is in the night club when Michael realizes that his brother betrayed him--but the raw honesty of Cazale's acting is never on display more than when he whines. "It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things. I'm smart. Not like everybody says, like dumb, I'm smart and I want respect!" While Michael's reaction is more shocking, I can never forget the way Kay says, "Michael, you are blind." De Niro's Vito Corleone: every aspect of his portrayal is flawless. If I started describing each nuance, I would get too giddy remembering it to finish my thoughts. I love every scene with Fredo, every scene with Kay, and every scene with Vito. Whenever they are on screen, I am entranced.

The decision to intercut Vito's past with the present is well-founded. Though both Vito and Michael are gaining power and influence, we see Vito creating a family while Michael destroys his own, and each is all the more heartbreaking for it. Something in my stomach wells up just thinking about it; everything is so painfully touching. The last murder is outdone by the birthday scene, and is even itself outdone by the final shot of the film. Michael reflecting, pensive. Is that regret for his entire life that we start to see? Is there some redemption?

What surprises me most about The Godfather Part II is how different it is from the first. The first film was much more purposeful in its scenes and set-ups. I feel that this movie wanders, presents scenes as ambiance as a way of setting mood instead of plot points. It works well, but would much be missed if half an hour were trimmed? There was much more flamboyance in this film, overt violence in the streets instead of the underhanded threats in the dark, yelling in rage instead of fuming in silence. I also found editing to be a bit more problematic in this film. There were extremely jarring cuts that should not have been jarring. Not that all of these complaints are mistakes, but I think my preferences lie with the precision found in the first film. Either way, watching one just makes me want to watch the other.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0071562/

The Godfather (1972)

5/5

The Godfather. What can be said that hasn't already been said? This epic saga is an unforgettable foray into treacherous deception and shifting loyalties that many have termed the best film of all time. I cannot disagree with that claim. I can remember every scene of this movie; every frame burns itself into your brain. It is beautiful, it is heart-breaking, and it is amazing.

On this viewing, I paid more attention to the subtle acting of the piece. Pacino's typically flamboyant "overacting" is here perfectly underplayed. He never yells, and is more fierce in his softness. He is emotionless and business-like, and is all the more terrifying for it. "Don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever." Brando's fury is evoked in brutal glances (when Sonny speaks at the first Sollozzo meeting, watch Brando's reaction), his sadness in lowered eyelids and sagging weight (I can never forget his breakdown in the mortuary). His character is explored by his reactions: "I want no inquiries made. I want no acts of vengeance." His choice of words as essential as his delivery. Vito Corleone's business success has been due to never showing weakness, and it almost prevents him from weeping for his lost child.

My focus on minutiae exposed me to the extent of the plot's byzantine twists and turns. Coppola intercuts three different scenes together. He fast forwards, showing the plan while the characters are simultaneously discussing it. I had never noticed before just how confusing it could get because I was always utterly enraptured by it. The cinematography is spellbinding. I hadn't before realized how stylistically similar The Godfather was to film noirs. Deep shadows clothe faces and envelop bodies. Profiles and silhouettes present themselves. A chiaroscuro sepia ages the film well, emphasizing lighting over color. Off-kilter angles at tense scenes increase suspense. And unbelievable composition, framing, and movement all glued together with exceptional editing. Never have dissolves been used so effectively and so unobtrusively. The choices of when to cut and when not to (a perfect example is the first shot of the film) are intelligently made. The score by Nino Rota is so utterly absorbing; it is without a doubt one of the best ever put alongside film.

I love how every scene has a purpose, how themes are revisited and reversed; I find it sublimely poetic. Every character requesting something in the first scene must eventually repay their debt. Bonasera's story in the beginning has a truthful core and false embellishments, while Michael's denial at the end is a lie at heart but honest in motive. Analytically, Michael, Sonny, and Vito form a perfect trifecta. All business, all personal, and a combination of the two. I could go on for hours about this piece and its thematic merits, but a blog is neither the correct medium nor does it have the professional air. I would just like to end this review expressing my reverence for the film as entertainment and also as art. It must share the title of best film with The Rules of the Game.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0068646/

Star Wars: A New Hope (1977)

4/5

Despite all my jocular poopooing of the film, Star Wars is a great movie. I really enjoyed watching it. For the first time, I understand the devotion its fans give it. I saw it slightly inebriated, but quite in command of my faculties, and I saw it when about five people not watching it were in the apartment cooking and talking such that I couldn't hear the dialogue a lot of the time. (This may have actually improved its rating as it forced me to focus on the better aspects of the movie, such as cinematography and overall sound design, and less on the worse aspects, like the dialogue.) Now, onto the review.

Without a doubt, the best part about this movie is its unparalleled sound design. It was also extremely well-shot, with crisp and evocative cinematography. The set design and costumes were really well-done too. The plot progressed and blossomed very fluidly. There were many thrilling action scenes that put you on the edge of your seat, all within an imaginative and all-encompassing new world. But I found the characters to be two-dimensional and emotionless, spewing horrendously corny dialogue. Even when their foster parents get brutally murdered and their home planet gets destroyed, not a single tear is shed (although the uninspired requisite visual of a man sitting alone before the setting sun(s) did find its way into the piece). I cringed at the acting by whiny Mark Hamill and annoying Carrie Fisher, but most offensive of all were the ubiquitous scene wipes. How much cheesier can you get? Also, there was one major cut I really didn't appreciate, during the fight scene between Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader. Lucas cut to Luke/Leia/Han in the middle of one of the most climactic and iconic battles in all of science fiction history, and in so doing completely deflated the tension. It absolutely destroyed the entire scene for me. (Michael Bay does this in the Optimus Prime/Megatron fight in Transformers, so maybe he is paying homage to this?) Review over.

Now for my own ranting. I understand the need for directors to come out with "Director's Cuts" if the theatrical vision was not what they intended and had been changed from their original vision by the studio, but seriously what is Lucas doing? Leave this movie alone.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0076759/

Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (1999)

2/5

Ghost Dog is a very boring movie about a hitman betrayed by his employers. Despite the basic outline, it is not an action movie. Jarmusch takes the trite, overused plot and keeps it trite and overused, without adding anything to it. The story progresses slowly, with many many many worthless scenes and shots of him walking and driving around a city, looking around at stuff. Slowly. Inexorably slowly. There's nothing to get out of this movie, at least, not considering the two hours it took to sit through. And what a painful two hours those were. And I absolutely hated hated hated the blatant and unapologetic homage/theft of the Rashomon concept.

There were actually a lot of things I liked about this movie. I loved how Jarmusch doubled words, events, and character relationships and motivations. I didn't understand its purpose, but found the usage very poetic. The music was exceptional, but every aspect surrounding the use of the music made it so awkward to hear. There was one scene at the end, where a little girl shoots an unloaded gun at a guy, and he stumbles as if actually shot. The ambiguity in that single scene is quite beautiful and would have ended the entire movie on the perfect note. Instead, the movie's actual ending sucked. There were a lot of nice scenes in general, but they don't make up for the slow pace and meaningless, hackneyed plot. Do not waste your time with this movie.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0165798/

Closely Watched Trains (1966)

3/5

Closely Watched Trains is a Czechoslovakian movie about a young man who, as IMDb puts it, longs to be liberated from his virginity. The biggest problem with this movie is the pacing. I found it tedious and boring and thought it moved much too slowly. The first half lacked any real substance, and it was only in the second half of the film that we got some semblance of theme or message. This movie would have made a pretty stellar 30 minute short. The mood, sound, and images were so timeless, however, that if it weren't in Czech it could pass as a modern American independent film. (And with it, all the negatives associated with the modern American independent.) Technically, the movie is rock-solid. The shot compositions and editing were quite good, with equally well-done sound design and music to match. The characters were all really interesting, although their actions and motivations were usually quite bizarre and ultimately unexplained. There are some astoundingly erotic scenes, mixed in with tense drama and witty humor to make a very full-bodied movie. But I did not find it particularly meaningful, funny, or romantic; it didn't excel or stand out for me in any of those categories. It's a bit more tender than the gotta-get-laid comedies being made now, and for that I can appreciate it. But sometimes it's just too emo, and that is unforgivable.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0060802/

Frenzy (1972)

4/5

Frenzy sees Hitchcock return to London to follow the story of the necktie murderer and, of course, the man falsely accused of it. It doesn't have the same feel and texture as most of Hitchcock's films. It is more "adult," both in language and content. The film is grittier and more graphically violent, darker yet at the same time funnier. The mood is closer to British gangster films like Get Carter and The Long Good Friday. It was extremely shocking to see nudity in a Hitchcock film, as well as the graphic depiction of rape and murder. But it is not all gloom and doom, as this is by far, hands-down, his funniest film. I was laughing nearly the entire time. My favorite parts involve the police chief and his "gourmet" cook of a wife, but a close second is the scene in the potato truck with the victim experiencing rigor mortis. This movie could have been directed by the Coen brothers and would have fit in their oeuvre very comfortably.

Many scenes are surprisingly experimental for a man so near the end of his career. He lets his camera sit outside, watching the exterior of a building, as a new victim is found. We watch in silence, waiting for her scream. Another time, the camera backs out of the murderer's apartment after he takes his next victim inside. It goes down the stairs and backs out the hallway until it retreats to the streets of London. In both these scenes, we know what is happening, and Hitchcock lets our brains fill in the gaps, involving us and even implicating us. Another shot that has now been replicated numerous times shows a woman coming out of a pub, emotionally distraught, and the sounds of the streets of London fade out for several seconds until her introspection is cut off by a man who appears behind her, seemingly out of thin air.

As in nearly every Hitchcock film, it was technically outstanding. The editing, the music, and the acting were all spot-on. But there were also some problems with the movie. It seems to have no center or focus because of how it's told. For about thirty minutes in the middle of the movie, we follow the travails of the true murderer instead of the man accused of it. Why? Hitchcock uses this scene to generate tension, but it is not a tense moment for the person we sympathize with. Interestingly, we don't want him to get away, but to get caught. Additionally, there are several minor characters who disappear halfway in and whose motivations are never explained. These are rather minor quibbles with a great film, a film that is perhaps Hitchcock's most graphically violent and darkly comedic. Watch it. If you like the Coen brothers, Get Carter, or The Long Good Friday, you will enjoy this movie immensely.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0068611/

Torn Curtain (1966)

4/5

The first half of Torn Curtain was absolutely amazing (Hitchcock at his best), while the second half was simply disappointing. The plot follows Michael Armstrong (Paul Newman), an American physicist during the Cold War who pretends to defect to gain nuclear secrets from a (much-smarter) Communist scientist there. His fiancée (Julie Andrews) has followed him against his will and unaware of his pretense.

The tension, the wit, and the romance in the first half were all there, and in just the right quantities. The characters were well-developed, and the acting stellar. Our hearts are with the protagonists every step of the way. The pacing and editing were extremely precise. The shots, as always, were incredible. The music, though not by Herrmann, was still riveting and a good accompaniment to the movie's mood. But the best part of the first half is that it contained one of the most incredible murder scenes ever committed to film--I was nearly breathless the entire time. This movie should be seen just for that one scene. The second half was marred by a meandering, overlong escape, the introduction of a million worthless side characters, and a complete lack of progression and build-up. I did like the very unexpected re-introduction of a very minor character from the first half of the movie, but that is pretty much it. Despite moments of tension, it just didn't build up to anything and bored me. I was just waiting for it to end. The finale has nothing on The Great Escape. Even with the problems in the second half, the first half is just too good not to recommend it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0061107/

Blue Streak (1999)

3/5

Blue Streak follows Martin Lawrence as a bank robber who hides a diamond in the vent of a building under construction during his failed escape attempt. Two years later, he's released from prison and finds out that the building has become a police station, and therefore must pose as a cop to infiltrate the building and recover his loot. It's a very entertaining action comedy heist movie, meaning good but mindless fun. It has problems, as expected for this genre, such as corny dialogue, bad acting, and unrealistic plot developments. The music is often overbearing and there are continuity errors. Despite its silliness, I actually found myself laughing during a lot of this movie. You probably won't turn this movie off if you find it on TV, as I refrained from doing when I myself found it on TV, but I don't think there's much reason to go out and rent it unless you're a huge Martin Lawrence fan.

Disclaimer: I saw this on network TV, so it was edited for content and length.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0181316/

The Wrong Man (1956)

4.9/5

The Wrong Man is the true story of Manny Balestrero, a musician falsely accused of armed robbery. The film, shot on location in New York City, is strikingly authentic. In this story, Hitchcock has found the epitome of everything he has searched for during his entire career. Bernard Herrmann's score is absolutely wonderful and a perfect fit for this piece. The acting by Fonda and Miles is phenomenal and unforgettable. Hitchcock makes you feel for the characters, and then twists your heart again and again with every turn his life-changing predicament takes. Hitchcock has almost outdone himself in terms of cinematography and shot composition. The framing is beautiful and the camera movement is natural. He knows what we want to look at and he shows us exactly that in the exact manner we expect to see it in.

Four scenes stand out in my memory. The first is when Manny goes to the insurance agency. The tellers' suspicion is evoked almost too perfectly through flawlessly tense editing and simple, silent shots. The second shows Manny being taken to prison in a paddy wagon, the shame he experiences from being with criminals forces his head down and his eyes on everyone's shoes. The third, though, is my favorite in the entire film. As Manny is taken to his jail cell, the camera follows him until it gets stopped by the cell door, then it peeks in through the peephole and continues through the peephole to see him investigate his new home before backing back out. It is an unbearably haunting moment. The fourth I don't want to reveal, but suffice it to say that it reminded me of the end scene in Kurosawa's High and Low.

I'm conflicted about the ending. I know it's limited by the facts, but it almost seems as if everything the movie was building up to was flipped over and turned on its head with the final words. As Hitchcock was a part of the Hollywood studio system, it may have been forced on him by his producers. And the human side of me does appreciate those last words, but my artistic sensibilities remain irked by the about-face at the end. Either way, this is definitely one of Hitchcock's best, both technically and thematically. I was enthralled the entire time and loved it immensely.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0051207/

The Trouble with Harry (1955)

3/5

The Trouble with Harry is another one of Hitchcock's lighter films, but it doesn't work as well as his others. It doesn't play like a Hitchcock at all, but like a very British black comedy. As a Hitchcock, it's a bit disappointing; as a British black comedy, it's only slightly above average. The shot compositions were simple yet elegant, and the cinematography captured the colors beautifully. There are some very clever moments, some extremely witty dialogue, and a truly inspired red herring. But there are also pacing issues, worthless scenes, flat characters, and no build-up or anticipation. The characters' back stories were bland and the plot and dialogue often wandered into nonsense. And there's a score by Bernard Herrmann that, while good on its own, doesn't quite fit the mood of the piece. But I love the closing title card they use to replace THE END. If you want to know what it is, you'll have to watch it!

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0048750/

To Catch a Thief (1955)

4/5

To Catch a Thief feels like North by Northwest lite. It is an entertaining film by a man who knows how to entertain, but nothing more. It is neither realistic nor relevant. Instead, it is escapism at its best, extravagant people doing extravagant things on extravagant sets wearing extravagant clothing and extravagant jewelry. Cary Grant's charisma and Grace Kelly's beauty are unparalleled in this film and work wonderful together here. Though the plot focuses on Grant as a reformed cat burglar who is suspected of new thefts and has to clear his name, it's not a heist movie at all. It is closer to a romantic comedy with an adventure/James Bond-style overtone. And it works so well. There are so many funny scenes to love in this movie, but my personal favorite is when Grant "accidentally" drops a chip into a woman's cleavage at the casino. I think I enjoyed the movie a little bit more than I should have because it takes place at Cannes, and I'd just been there earlier this summer. While watching the movie, I recognized the beach and the Carlton Hotel that Kelly's character and her mother were staying at--the same one that I saw Jerry Seinfeld zipline down as a promotion stunt for Bee Movie!

It does have its problems though. Hitchcock seems to overindulge in many shots, loving his relatively new color photography and not wanting to cut any of it out. There are so many lingering, unnecessary shots of countrysides and the like. The plot isn't perfectly cohesive and half the dialogue is in French, untranslated. There are a lot of side plots and plot holes and an unsurprising "twist" as to the identity of the copycat burglar. Still, a very entertaining movie and worth checking out for Hitchcock fans, Grant fans, and Kelly fans.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0048728/

Lifeboat (1944)

4/5

Lifeboat's genre of war drama is not really the Hitchcock thriller staple, but he injects those elements he's familiar with into this survival/Lord of the Flies-style plot, wherein survivors of a torpedoed ship find themselves in the same lifeboat as one of the Germans responsible. Given that this entire movie takes place on the lifeboat, it is surprisingly enjoyable and almost never stale or boring, although it is very talky and heavily character-based. Luckily, the characters are fully fleshed-out in a naturalistic patchwork manner; they don't go around in a circle and talk about who they are, but their pasts have a way of popping up and exposing the characters and their motivations through conversation. Unluckily, the acting is far from extraordinary (although capable and not embarrassingly bad). There is also a suspense and mystery that Hitchcock brings to the piece. He heightens the tension almost methodically and constantly engages and involves the viewer throughout most of the movie. That being said, I must also say that the tension sags severely for about 10 or 15 minutes at that crucial point about two thirds of the way into the movie. It felt like Spielberg's Duel, where the tension he had worked so hard to build up so high was pointless, because they just go back to ground zero again.

What made me contemplate giving this movie a 4.9 was the thematic message Hitchcock presents. He exposes the darkness and distrust inherent in man and the brutal extent of the survival instinct. Throughout the course of the movie, every character reverts back to the basest and most primal human behavior. Everything society has ruled on as being acceptable or unacceptable is completely flipped on its head out here in the boat. A woman who prides herself on her place in society ends up losing every aspect of what she thought was her identity. A reformed criminal is forced to once more use the dishonest techniques that landed him in jail in the first place. A man participates in mob-based violence that he vehemently argued against at the beginning. And on and on, until everything these people have worked for is destroyed. The steady unraveling of the American dream makes this one of Hitchcock's bleakest films.

What lowered this film to a rating of 4 was its dated nature. The special effects were noticeable, and I never really felt like I was on a boat. The use of rear-projection was a little too obvious. The background was rocking up and down like crazy, and yet the shadows on the characters remained static. Please, I can only suspend my disbelief for so long. There was another huge problem for me. Some of the dialogue and acting simply fell flat. At times their actions and words were too exaggerated or unnatural that the just seemed silly to me as a modern audience member. Despite the problems listed here and in the first paragraph, I still think this is a great movie. I highly recommend it if the plot sounded interesting, if you like Lord of the Flies, or if you like Hitchcock.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0037017/

Audition (1999)

1/5

The premise behind the Japanese horror movie Audition is as follows: a man wishing to remarry decides to hold auditions for a movie as a method of selecting his new wife. Sounds funny, right? Or at least interesting. Instead, it is neither. It is a complete waste of time, a compost heap filled with trash of the most exploitative kind. If it had a message, I could understand the graphic violence. If it were entertaining, I could accept that it had no message. But there is simply no redeemable aspect to this waste of time. The cinematography was ugly and annoying, the acting was worse than amateurish, and the dialogue was insulting to anyone who knows how to talk, or listen, or neither. The unintelligible script was further hurt by unconvincing props and bad lighting, such that we actually have absolutely no idea what is happening at any point in time. Not even the sound design was good. Every gory sound was as if a man slowly put his hand in an apple pie. The entire time I was waiting for this "thing" masquerading as a movie to end. I will now describe everything that happened so that you will not need to watch this movie even out of curiosity. It is not a spoiler alert, it is a save-your-time-and-anger alert. As a side note, Sameer wanted to physically injure the director after seeing it.

The first hour and a half are boring, worthless, and irrelevant. Then the "horror" aspect of this movie comes into play. The very very ugly woman he has selected to be his new wife starts to torture him without explanation. She sticks a syringe filled with ??? into his tongue. Then she starts stabbing his belly with thin metal needles, like acupuncture but painful. Then she sticks them in his eyes and flicks them around. Then she cuts off his foot with a garotte wire. She starts cutting his other foot off when the man's son arrives. She finds an object that puffs, giggles, and runs away to surprise the boy and presumably torture him in front of his father. Then we find out it is a dream. Then it is not a dream. And his son runs up some stairs with her chasing, puffing, and giggling, and at the top he kicks her down and kills her. Oh, also, there is a man without feet, with 7 fingers, one ear, and no tongue in a tied brown bag that jumps and growls when you least expect it to. He is let out once in the movie, which is how we find out about his disfigurement, to show us that he is wearing a diaper and is glad to have the chance to slop up the very very ugly woman's vomit. There is also a disabled, blind ballet instructor who gets his thrills from burning girls very close to their vagina. And that is all there is in this movie. The end.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0235198/

Duel (1971)

2/5

Steven Spielberg's first feature-length film is too long to support its simple premise. The story revolves around a man driving to a business meeting and an insane truck driver trying to hunt him down and kill him. Why the truck driver desires such a fate for our hapless protagonist is never explained. Although interesting at first, it quickly overstays its welcome. Very quickly. And by a lot. It would have worked much better as a twenty minute short. The action titillates, but it cannot sustain tension; every five minutes or so we are back to square one, with no progression. This movie has serious pacing issues. It feels merely like a collection of many five minute segments instead of a unified whole. And there are so many worthless shots of the same thing over and over again that you just get sick of watching. The acting is laughably bad and the voice-over narration is laughably worse. The plot wanders into banal side stories for the sake of adding to its total running time.

The car shots were great, literally every single one was fantastic. And there were around three specific shots/sequences that made me think, wow, that is amazing. There were indeed scenes of great tension and paranoia. But these were overshadowed by the many scenes that contained only boredom. I do not recommend this film. In fact, I want to end this review as soon as possible so I don't have to think about the movie anymore. Although intriguing and seemingly promising, it quickly loses its momentum (ha!) and falls flat on its face. A colossal disappointment.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0067023/

Psycho (1960)

5/5

Psycho is a brilliant masterpiece, unharmed by its age, the spoofs, and the gorier flash of modern horror movies. We all know the infamous shower scene, with its shrill, staccato strings, and yet this movie is as shocking now as when it first came out. Hitchcock knows that suspense is not about showing the grotesque, but telegraphing out the events leading up to said violence. That is how this picture achieves its longevity: it does not show the newest, grisliest, most realistic deaths ever filmed up until that point in time, but rather it reveals the timelessness of evil as a wolf hiding in sheep's clothing. It shows how simply such evil can creep up on any one of us, a well-intentioned wrongdoing that escalates and escalates until it completely consumes us. And all from a desire to do good.

The acting by all parties is superb, but Anthony Perkins is simply unparalleled. His nervous habits, his innocent persona, his sometimes subtle, sometimes shockingly violent changes in demeanor--all interwoven in an unforgettable and painfully believable performance. He is able to garner your sympathy at once and you never want to doubt him for a second. The other actors stood their ground quite well. The most memorable part of Janet Leigh's acting was her piercing, powerful eyes as she drives away with the stolen money, staring down the camera and defying us to say she made the wrong decision. But she only has herself to convince, and she cannot do it.

There is so much in this movie for filmmakers to love. Hitchcock, the consummate showman, peppers it with needlessly difficult shots as if to prove his master status. A low shot showing Arbogast ascending a staircase, with the ceiling visible and even focused on, then the camera lifts up weightlessly to that same ceiling we saw, and sits there, perching down as if a bird watching the ensuing events. From that same spot where we know no rig resides. Other shots are beautiful in their own right, yet more subtle in their genius. The shifts in view when a character stands up or sits down, the close-ups, the resistance to editing. Bernard Herrmann's score is a perfect companion, and stays in the mind of any who have (or even haven't) seen this film. And yet none of these aspects are the best part of the movie.

In fact, Hitchcock's brilliance lies in the overall structure of the film. He sets it up as a typical mystery thriller about Marion Crane stealing $40,000 and running from the cops. We relate to her because she does it for love. As she runs, the paranoia infiltrates her entire being. Her actions become suspicious and the net tightens ever closer. The anxiety is palpable, even putting Polanski to shame, until she gets to the Bates Motel and, after a short discussion with Norman, decides to return the money. Feeling cleansed of her mistake, she gets in the shower and then ... is killed. Hitchcock knows that none of her feelings and changes in character make a difference in the end, because she is not the main character, but he doesn't want the audience to know that. And so he directs it as such. A third of the way into the film, Hitchcock switches main characters on us. Where he succeeds is in getting us to immediately sympathize with Bates. When he tries to sink her car in the swamp and hide the evidence, our heart skips a beat because the car stops sinking. Will it stay visible? Eventually it sinks, but aren't we twisted to want this man to get away with murder? The murder of a character we grew to love and respect, no less.

The movies does have its flaws. Some edit-heavy scenes, some dated special effects, some meandering dialogue. Much has been said about the ending with the psychiatrist. Many critics despise it, considering it to almost ruin this perfect film with its banality and overtness. But I do not have such qualms with it. I think it wraps up the story nicely and it humanizes Norman Bates by explaining in scientific terms without judgmental bias what happened to his mind. Hitchcock has always loved the psychology and motivations behind his characters, and suggesting that this part should be removed would be dismissive of Hitchcock's own interests. I agree that it is a bit blunt, but not without merit and not so bad as to warrant such ferocious antagonism. It grounds the film in reality, distinguishes Bates from pure evil, and gives our hearts a chance to beat more slowly.

For the past couple of years, both Psycho and Vertigo have shared for me the title of Best Hitchcock Film. Vertigo started with the title, but recently, Psycho had been edging ahead. But now I feel a strong desire to watch Vertigo again and give it another shot because it opens itself up much more readily to significant analysis. Either way, these two films are without a doubt his best, and by far my favorite of them all.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0054215/

Oliver Twist (2005)

3/5

Roman Polanski's version of the Dickens classic does not stand out in any way except visually, and not in an altogether positive way. The choice of which plot elements of the story would appear was kept to a minimum and included only the already famous "essential" scenes of the story. Although he did give slightly more depth to each scene, Polanski added nothing of his own directorial style, which made for a very uninteresting movie. We already know everything, so why are we watching? The film's colors are much too warm and inviting for the bleak and depressing environment of a traditional Dickens interpretation, as in the Lean adaptation. The acting, while acceptable, was hidden beneath layers of heavy make-up and exaggerated caricatures that made any emotional involvement with the characters impossible. The plot seems to progress by adding more and more characters instead of fleshing out and maturing old ones, and it becomes less and less about Oliver Twist the character and more about him as an object to own and use. And Barney Clark's Oliver just didn't garner much sympathy from me, I don't know what it was.

There were some positive attributes to the movie. The set design, costuming, and make-up was absolutely amazing. It was an exemplary achievement and a breathtaking spectacle to behold. Also, the music was really good, epic with just the right touch of melodrama. There were three excellent mini-scenes that really stood out and gave the movie a bit more visual flair than the otherwise boring and mundane shot/counter-shot staple. The pacing was precise, with nothing lingered on too profoundly. And while this review is mostly negative, nothing about the movie was appallingly bad. It just didn't live up to expectations, and nothing about it really warranted a remake. But I would say see it if you have no idea who Oliver Twist is! Which is nobody reading my reviews, I hope.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0380599/

The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)

4/5

The Nightmare Before Christmas follows Jack Skellington, who gets bored of being the Pumpkin King of Halloween Town and, upon accidentally visiting Christmas Town, decides he wants to bring a special kind of Christmas to Christmas Town. It is a simple story told efficiently and skillfully. The animation is absolutely beautiful to behold. The music was energetic and exciting; it draws you in perhaps more than the story itself does. The environment of these worlds is expertly evoked and cleverly detailed. Most of the story was unpredictable and really engaged me because I had no idea what kind of world this was, what special rules they followed, and how all the events would play out. Also, I loved the climactic fight at the end.

I thought Jack's change of character at the end felt out of place; there wasn't any real explanation for it and it didn't follow any legitimate train of thought. I thought the love story was too simple to be believable. These elements felt like they were included because of some arbitrary requirement from a scriptwriting class, not because they fit the story. I loved the creepy atmosphere, but felt it didn't quite mix with the fun, musical style. It was sort of a kid's movie made for adults, too goofy for adults and too scary for kids. Highly recommended, but only for a specific target audience.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0107688/

Jacob's Ladder (1990)

3/5

Jacob's Ladder isn't really a horror movie, as I initially thought it was, but in fact an intense psychological exploration of hallucinatory paranoia. Jacob Singer, a Vietnam vet deftly and believably played by Tim Robbins, starts having nightmares about a specific attack his unit experienced back in the Mekong Delta. The movie takes you along effortlessly in revealing the events that happened and his resulting descent into madness. The bizarre images were evocative and unsettling, although not quite shocking or frightening. I liked how the movie pushes and pulls you at will, convincing you of one reality before tearing it all down and putting you into another. The movie was always interesting, its pacing and progression perfect. The cinematography was above average at times, merely average at others. The editing was also quite good, extremely fluid except for a few spots that lingered too long.

Much of the movie feels dated, from the characters' hairstyles to the music and dancing. Many hallucinations really did not fit at all (the demon dancing/fondling, or whatever it was) or served absolutely no purpose (the car chase). The scarier parts instead are based in some form of recognizable reality (putting him in an ice bath because of his high fever). Most of the supporting acting was sub-par and/or throwaway (except for Danny Aiello, who was incredibly and surprisingly tender). Also, yes, Jason Alexander was in the film, but his involvement actually hurt the movie overall because I could not separate his George from Seinfeld with his role in this. Also, I found the plot quite predictable and unimaginative. And what is up with the gratuitous nudity? I say, there's no need to go out of your way to see this movie. But if you like Tim Robbins, it won't hurt to stick this in your DVD player.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0099871/

I Confess (1953)

4/5

I Confess is a wonderful lost gem from Hitchcock's oeuvre. A priest (Montgomery Clift) is falsely accused of murder and, despite knowing who the real murderer is, he decides to keep silent because it was revealed to him during confession. In typical Hitchcock style, the composition and camerawork were excellent, but the complex and realistic characters were the best part of this movie. Much like Casablanca, the audience's emotional attachment to each character shifts throughout the film, switching back and forth between love and hate as information is gradually revealed. I loved how seemingly minor characters (such as Keller's wife) emerge as being vital to the plot, tension, and even message. The acting by all parties was very good overall, although at times a bit too exaggerated. While the story plodded along in the middle (and was interesting although not particularly suspenseful), the thrilling finale was especially brilliant. It went deeper into the consequences of the characters' actions than you thought it would, and the characters themselves feel much fuller and richer as their motivations and regrets (or lack thereof) are further revealed.

I felt that some of this movie was below average and could have been heavily improved upon. The script had some problems, not in dialogue, but in overall structure. The heavy use of flashback in Anne Baxter's interrogation, coupled with its clunky style and lack of rhythm, simply did not work. The trial could have and should have been made more compelling; it seemed as if there was no climax here, merely a playing out of events. And while the score by Dimitri Tiomkin wasn't bad, it has nothing on the perfectly seamless integration Hitchcock usually has with Bernard Herrmann. I also have no idea why the film was set in Quebec; it just seemed odd. The rest, though, is an unexpected joy to behold, and is highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0045897/

Irreversible (2002)

3/5

Despite its title, Irreversible is told entirely in reverse. A violent act of revenge preceded by a vicious rape and the events that led up to it. This movie is not for the faint of heart because it is unflinching in its documentation of said brutalities. It is a disquieting tale of things that happen beyond our control and it reaches us because we feel so helpless. We realize that it could be us, no matter how different our lives are, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Its realistic depiction is aided by single-takes. Its use of music effectively ratchets up the tension and speeds up your pulse. I love a scene near the end, where the two people who become tangled up in violence and rape are instead entwined in each other; evil is replaced by love.

But there is so much to hate about this movie. From beginning to pretentious, baffling, experimental end, the camera rotates and swirls around to a fever pitch. Your stomach literally churns; I could not imagine seeing this in a theater, especially not an IMAX. The camerawork feels like a gimmick to physically make you as sick as the disturbing events do at a mental level later on. There was a decidedly unnecessary and gratuitous amount of nudity, sex, and violence in this movie; some of it was essential, but as a whole it became almost exploitative, as if its extensive presence had the sole purpose of shocking the audience.

I don't think the reverse chronology worked for this movie. Much like 21 Grams, it diluted the emotional build-up and climax and the film lost a lot of its overall impact. One of the main character's shift in demeanor, when told backwards, almost feels like a devolution; you like him much less. And the end extends for far too long. The problem with most movies that go backwards is that you never really reach a point where it makes sense to stop. Normal movies reach a climax and then tie up loose ends, but where do you go once you've told the start of a story? The intro is almost never as compelling as the finale, and it isn't in this movie either. Some of the dialogue that would have worked in a normal chronology seems contrived and forced when told backwards (about events being decided beforehand and having no control over them, for example). The backwards time line did have one good aspect, however. You saw the act committed first, and then you see all the parts of the story in which one different word, one different action, one different choice could have prevented all this. It becomes so much more painful.

Despite my rating, I cannot make a blanket recommendation of this movie to anyone. You have to know what to expect and have to be ready to take it all in. It is hard to digest, but not without merit.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0290673/

The Ninth Gate (1999)

2/5

The Ninth Gate follows Johnny Depp as he travels around Europe trying to authenticate a rare text believed to be able to conjure up the devil. Yes, it does sound a little similar to Indiana Jones, but it doesn't play like that awesome adventure series. Instead, this piece of crap is filled with predictable subplots, hollow characters, boring action, unexplained scenes, bland cinematography, uninspired editing, unnecessary nudity, and mediocre acting. It is, in a word, bad. But in truth, as I was watching it, I was entertained. It was always pretty interesting and enjoyable. I kept waiting for an explanation, and the fact that none came only disappointed me at the end of the movie, not during! Also, there were some pretty funny parts (some unintentional). Save yourself the trouble of watching this movie because, though it may look interesting, you will get nothing out of it except exasperation.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0142688/

Death and the Maiden (1994)

3/5

Death and the Maiden is a psychological thriller from director Roman Polanski about a woman (Sigourney Weaver) who believes that a man her husband brings home one night (Ben Kingsley) was a key member in her torture years earlier. She ties him up and tortures him so that he will confess to what he's done. But did he really do it? So begins a tense night, where secrets are revealed from all three of the main characters. The plot progression was fantastic; we slowly learn of each person's history and motivations in very calculated amounts. Kingsley's acting was superb. Until the end, we could never be certain whether he did it or not. He reveals nothing despite being on screen almost the entire movie. Most of Weaver's acting was also great, but was marred by the occasional ludicrous piece of dialogue or ludicrous delivery of an otherwise normal line. The descriptions of torture were hard to bear sometimes, but essential because it gave the audience a glimpse into what she had been through. The music was great as well (Schubert's Death and the Maiden, from which this movie gets its title).

Sigourney Weaver was naked for a period of time in the beginning of the movie. It was both unnecessary and unwanted. Because she looks like a man--an ugly man. The first half hour or so felt really wobbly; you could tell how Polanski tried to force tension on the audience to keep us interested as he set the scene for the rest of the movie. The story often went off on tangents (the husband sleeping with another woman) that would neither relate back to the central plot nor increase the tension. So why were they included at all? Sometimes characters would act in extreme and unrealistic ways, and others would consequently react to those actions unrealistically as well. The ending felt like a cop-out to me because everything was tied up a little too neatly. Both the cinematography and editing were unexceptional, except for several shots that made excellent use of foreground and background to increase the tension. I really did enjoy this movie though, and recommend it if you like psychological thrillers and/or Polanski.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0109579/

I Stand Alone (1998)

4.9/5

Gaspar Noé's I Stand Alone is a brutal film, on par with or even exceeding Requiem for a Dream in its utter hopelessness and unrelentingly bleak outlook on life. This film is extremely unsettling; it instantly gets under your skin and stays with you long after the film ends. The story is closer to that of Taxi Driver, as a delusional butcher slowly goes insane and his fantasies turn violent. His twisted sense of love, justice, and morality is such an extreme perversion that you really have no idea what he is capable of. But like A Clockwork Orange, this film forces you to empathize with him by using ubiquitous voice-over narration of his innermost private thoughts. Despite wanting to look away in horror and revulsion, your eyes are glued to the screen. The shot compositions tend to avoid showing faces or eyes, focusing instead on the bodies or the mouth, emphasizing the butcher's distorted perceptions. The editing is punctuated by a singular music note or by a gunshot; it is always unexpected and always makes you jump. I found the most terrifying part to simply be the following words: "Warning: You have 30 seconds to leave the screening of this film." After seeing the graphic violence and sex that had come before without any such warning, I was almost trembling with fear as my mind raced through all the possibilities of what could happen. And the climax was absolutely torrential. Perhaps the most twisted part of this movie is that it pretends to give you a happy ending--but that is only the butcher's point of view.

This movie represents excellent, effective filmmaking, but is not without flaws. I thought the film lost a lot of steam during the middle thirty minutes, although it brought it back in full force and then some after that lull. Some of the sex scenes early on were unnecessary. (We get that he's watching a porno--we don't also need to be watching it, do we?) I think that an unbelievable amount of political and social commentary went over my head simply because of the intensity of the performances and the vulgarity of the events--there was just too much to focus on all at once. Also, being told entirely from one deranged person's mind, such commentary is inherently biased and as such loses some value. Even with these mistakes, I see a master filmmaker honing his craft, unafraid to immerse himself in realms few have dared even peer into.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0157016/

Seconds (1966)

2/5

Seconds follows aging Arthur Hamilton, who is selected to have his death faked and undergo surgery so that he can start a new life. It is in fact a rather bland drama masquerading as a thriller. Neither genre works, moving back and forth between the two with no central mood, build-up, or connection. It was interesting to see how this film connected them, but the final product just doesn't work. The drama portion is the most compelling part because the suspense aspect simply does not succeed, despite being directed by Frankenheimer (he previously directed the brilliant original version of The Manchurian Candidate). The drama hit me hard despite its lack of originality, mostly because I was expecting a traditional thriller and was surprised to see its presence in the movie at all. It deals with the age-old question of the meaning of life, the choices we make, and the mistakes we must live with. But it's not worth sitting through the entire movie just to get that little out of it. Instead, go out and rent It's A Wonderful Life because it deals with the same questions more thoroughly and honestly--not to mention that it's more tense because you come to really care for Jimmy Stewart's character as he contemplates suicide.

The acting felt hollow, except for John Randolph and Rock Hudson, who really owned their parts. Most of the cinematography was distracting (especially the distorted, close-up hand-held shots) except for a very few interesting and effective ones. The editing confused instead of clarified, and it tried too hard. There was a lengthy bacchanalia sequence that felt out of place and exploitative. There are so many characters and events that are simply a waste of time; I felt cheated out of an hour of my life, as this movie could've been made much tighter and better in 45 minutes. Plot points were intentionally left muddy and unexplained. I did get something out of the movie, but not anything that would have taken 105 minutes on my own. Don't bother with this movie.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0060955/

The Tenant (1976)

4/5

Polanski's The Tenant follows Trelkovsky (played by Polanski himself) as he rents an apartment where the previous tenant committed suicide. Gradually, he begins to think that his neighbors are trying to turn him into the last tenant so that he too will kill himself. It is brilliantly suspenseful and psychologically terrifying as it crescendos to the shocking climax. And it is a refreshing treat after seeing Knife in the Water and Repulsion. He seems to have discovered cinematography, as we finally get shots where we can tell what's going on, thanks to the great Sven Nykvist. There are also some masterful camera movements and envious tracking shots (the camera once goes through a stairway railing, for example). I really liked the acting in this movie--Polanski knows what he's doing as an actor just as much as a director. Is is truly horrifying to see him not only inhabit the previous tenant's apartment, but also inherit her habits and friends. Subtly at first, then flamboyantly. The build-up works extremely well as it keeps your heart pounding ever harder, whether through anxious waiting or sexual tension. I absolutely loved the ending.

There were some problems with it as well. The first half and second half don't seem to mesh very well, almost as if they were two separate movies. The first half was a psychological thriller and the second half was a horror movie. The divide was really striking and much too sudden, taking away from my overall enjoyment. For some reason, some of the audio felt like it was dubbed over. Was English the original audio track language? I don't know. Also, there were so many side stories that neither advanced the plot nor increased the tension (like getting hit by the car and Stella's party).

This is definitely a movie other film fans will appreciate. I can see the inspirations for The Shining with the haunting imagery. Early in the movie, Trelkovsky finds a hole in the wall covered up with a cotton ball, behind which is a human tooth. Repeatedly, tenants stand in the bathroom staring up into Trelkovsky's room, keeping deathly still. And he borrows heavily from Hitchcock's best works: the doubling of elements and people in Vertigo, the voyeuristic viewing of neighbors in Rear Window, and the cross-dressing and split-personality in Psycho. I think most cinephiles will appreciate this movie based on those credentials, but if it sounds interesting and you like Polanski, this is definitely one to check out.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074811/

Ghost World (2001)

3/5

Ghost World is a bizarre, angst-filled, social-outcast teen comedy starring Thora Birch and Scarlett Johansson. After finally graduating high school, they decide to play a mean prank on Steve Buscemi, quite the middle-aged loser, after which Birch forms a strong bond with him. Their relationship forms the backbone of the story. Overall, it's a very fun and enjoyable movie. Most of the cinematography, shot compositions, and editing were spot-on and quite a joy to watch. I loved the blunt, comedic dialogue, the quirky attitude of the three main eccentrics, and the subtle jabs at "normalcy." The script is great except for some minor pacing and progression issues. I found the emotional aspects touching, although not particularly groundbreaking or new. All the acting, however, was amazing; I especially loved Steve Buscemi and Bob Balaban. There was one great scene with Birch in art class that I found flawless; she just deflates for a couple frames when her teacher dismisses her drawings as simple, light-hearted entertainment. Actually, that reminds me: every single scene in the art studio was absolutely hilarious. Also, I really liked the ending, even though it was predictable.

Thora Birch has a face that makes her look twelve and boobs the size of Greenland; it's really quite a striking and not altogether normal physique that distracts from her acting. She's really whiny in this movie, all the characters are, and their emo-ness is funny to laugh at at first, but after a while it just gets a bit old. Scarlett is really young, but still really hot, which almost makes me feel like a pedophile, but not quite. The unique story is not for everyone, and the Harold and Maude relationship between Birch and Buscemi stumbles into real pedophilia, although a romantic kind and not really a disgusting kind. There are a lot of minor characters that have greater meaning like Norman, but also a lot of worthless, throwaway ones like Josh. Same with side stories and events. And I'm not really sure what the time period was supposed to be. Anyway, check out this movie if you want a little smarter comedy about misfits.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0162346/

Repulsion (1965)

2/5

Repulsion focuses on a sexually repressed woman who goes crazy when she is left alone in her apartment while her sister vacations in Italy. Another Polanski, I had high hopes that were crushed. I do not understand what people see in this movie. It is certainly unsettling, frightening, and memorable, but that doesn't make it good. It is atrocious. The sound quality and video quality make it impossible to understand what's going on. The muddy, blurry black and white cinematography coupled with several dubbed-over audio tracks was just too much for me to handle. The music was effective at times, but also often out of place and dated. The clothes, mannerisms, and dialogue also felt outdated. It took about an hour to start getting tense, a very boring hour. The whole movie reminded me of Welles's The Trial, where I actually really did have no idea what was going on.

Like The Exorcist, it has scenes that truly terrify, images that stick in your memory, and a buzz about it that nearly forces any film fan to see it. What this movie did well was Deneuve's characterization. She starts off normal, if a bit odd, but nothing you can't empathize with. Then she turns on you and goes absolutely insane, with a vengeance. Much like A Clockwork Orange, you want to feel for the protagonist but find it nearly impossible to do so. Polanski was also able to evoke the most uncomfortable and nauseating feeling of claustrophobia I have experienced in a movie. It absolutely gets under your skin and chills you to the very core; you too feel trapped in this apartment, with sickness and deterioration all around. If you have already heard of this movie, then you are probably going to see it, regardless of the words in my review. If you have not heard of it, you will probably not appreciate the experience. I had heard of it, would have seen it if I had read a negative review from someone I trusted, and then thoroughly regretted the experience, as I do now.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0059646/

Knife in the Water (1962)

2/5

This Polish thriller from Roman Polanski takes an interesting premise and turns it into an awful script and a worse movie. The actors are supposed to be attractive but are in fact ugly. Hideous, even. They look and act as if they are in a student production or a low-budget, made-for-TV movie, and much of it seems to be (at one point we can even see the railing of a boat on which the camera is filming the scene). Polanski's dialogue is affected and his shot compositions are stylized in an effort to make them evocative. The story is all over the place, which no central tension or mood on which this drama/thriller can stand. There were senseless, meandering side plots, backstories, and dialogue. The music was off the entire time; it never managed the right mood or timing.

I can see the future Polanski in this earlier piece, but only in his thoughts and ideas. The attempts are genuine conceptually, but the execution is amateurish at best. Every so often there are scenes of anxious nervousness, of waiting in suspense, but they are few and far between in this otherwise drab and pointless film. The last 20 minutes or so were actually quite exciting, with a dramatic and unexpected turn of events. Also, the story of the seaman who jumped on broken glass is a good bookend for the morality tale of the movie (male posturing and oneupmanship). It was not what I expected going in, but it wasn't all bad. I had high hopes knowing what Polanski is capable of, but he does not achieve any of that greatness in this movie. As I said before with House of Games, Criterion does make mistakes. Although not quite the disaster that House of Games was, this movie is still one of those mistakes.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0056291/