I Vitelloni (1953)

3/5

Federico Fellini's I Vitelloni follows a group of five lazy punks in their late 20's who hang out, womanize, and make mischief, all while living with their parents. They are a vulgar and unlikable group of young men, and watching them rouse rabble is not as enlightening or awe-inspiring as Fellini perhaps intended it to be. It is apparently somewhat autobiographical, which I lament, and may therefore have much more meaning to him than to me. It is at the very least more engrossing than other Italian films I've seen of late (La Notte, L'Eclisse), mostly because this one has plot progression, but it was not a particularly pleasant or enjoyable experience for me. They're all such awful people and their otiose and indolent lifestyles are too glorified for me to view them with anything but disgust.

While I did not like the content of this movie, there were glimmers of technical talent that I did appreciate. Some of the shot compositions were absolutely beautiful. The use of long takes, of fluid camera movement, and of natural blocking gave the film a lifelike yet polished feel. The music was ubiquitous and delectable, although sometimes it bordered a bit too closely on the melodramatic. I really miss this kind of classic filmmaking. If you're interested in tracking Fellini's style over his life's work, then this is definitely an interesting one to watch. If you just want a movie to kick back and enjoy, this may not be the movie for you.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046521/

Ikiru (1952)

5/5

Akira Kurosawa's Ikiru, which means "to live," is a tender portrait of an aging bureaucrat (Shimura) who's wasted 30 years of his life, discovers he has cancer, and fights to reclaim meaning and relevance before he dies. Through the eyes of his coworkers and family, we see a man who has lost his excitement for life attempt to find it again--in alcohol, strip clubs, and young women--but cannot. Instead his search leads him ultimately to redemption through his job in the government, where he makes up his mind to get a park built for a local community. His achievement doesn't improve the government's inefficiency, his death doesn't change most of his coworkers' opinions of him, but for a select few, he has made a world of difference.

The structure of the film is unique, because the last hour or so takes place after his death. And this is where the film is truly elevated out of the melodramatic sentimentality modern-day Hollywood would have turned it into. At his wake we finally get to see what people really think of him, without his feelings and the possibility of hurting them to get in the way. We are frustrated at everyone who doesn't understand what he was doing, we are infuriated at them for trying to cheat him out of his accomplishment, and we want to yell at the screen: "THIS IS A GOOD MAN WHO DIED! RESPECT HIM!" But Kurosawa's brilliant directing controls it all. Our final image of the man is one of serenity, a smile on his face as he swings back and forth in the park he managed to build for people who needed it. He doesn't care about the credit; he just knows he did a good deed and can die peacefully.

The entire story is told in evocative shot compositions and Shimura's expressive face. We see a paper on improving government efficiency that he wrote 20 years prior, and we see him tear off its cover page to use as a tissue before throwing it away. Does he even remember writing that? In the waiting room at the doctor's office, he listens as a man describes the symptoms of stomach cancer and callously correlates them to life expectancy. His horror mangles his face. When he comes home to tell his son he's going to die, he overhears him greedily talking about his pension and loses the heart to tell him. Through a few quick flashbacks we see a father full of joy, pride, shame, and guilt, but unable to change how his son looks at him.

Ikiru is a slow-paced and often silent film, which demands patience of its audience for the 2 hour and 20 minute runtime. And it is a sad story for most of its length--but it ends with one of the most poignant, uplifting finales I have ever seen. Could it have stood to be edited a bit tighter? Yes. Could some short vignettes have been cut? Of course. But the picture overcomes its minor drawbacks and envelops you; it enriches your life. And after you see this movie, you might be one of the coworkers who doesn't much change, but you also might be the one who sees the whole world with new eyes.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044741/

The Ugly Truth (2009)

3/5

The Ugly Truth is a fairy predictable romantic comedy that pairs a very attractive female lead (Heigl) with a very unattractive male lead (Butler). Speaking of unattractive leads, I bet PS I Love You would make me vomit, because it has the ugliest leads I can possibly imagine. Anyway, back to the movie at hand. The hackneyed plot takes the crass, arrogant know-it-all (like Harry in When Harry Met Sally) and forces him into a romantically flawed relationship with a neurotic obsessive-compulsive (like Sally). Of course they get on each other's nerves at first, then they find themselves falling for each other, then they both make mistakes and hide their true feelings, and then finally they redeem themselves and have a happy ever after.

There were some really funny parts, I have to admit. In particular, the baseball game and the dinner with corporate personnel had me cracking up in my seat. Still, the characters were dumb, unoriginal, and unappealing. I felt the exact opposite of how I felt about the characters in Knocked Up; instead of loving them, I hated them. The writing, about the crude, one-track minds men have, was nothing new, inventive, or inspiring. It was just the same old, same old. There were a few shots I thought were cool or interesting, but they were fairly hard to spot and didn't really do much to elevate the movie past its other flaws. All in all, it's the romantic comedy you expect. If you know you're gonna like it, check it out. If you know you're gonna hate it, pass.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1142988/

L'Eclisse (1962)

2/5

Michelangelo Antonioni's L'Eclisse is about a woman (Vitti) who breaks up with a rich suitor (Rabal) right before a sudden economic downturn. She then meets a handsome day trader (Delon) and a new attraction begins. But if you asked me to tell you what it's really "about," like love and life and the evils of capitalism, then I couldn't say. The message is far too underplayed. Stuff happens, in the sense that people do stuff, but nothing really ever happens. This is a perplexing film filled with metaphors and imagery that may no doubt blow your mind if they weren't simply figments of your imagination. The camera focuses in on the mundane, forcing the viewer to try and look past it and see some deeper truth, but the only way you'll find a deeper truth is if you make it up yourself. It's better than La Notte, but not by much. All these pretentious art house films put me to sleep.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056736/

Through a Glass Darkly (1961)

3/5

Ingmar Bergman's Through a Glass Darkly is a movie that is equal parts fascinating and equal parts aggravating. The movie is essentially a character study of a woman suffering from schizophrenia who was recently released from a mental institution. She spends her first 24 hours out with her husband, father, and brother on a vacation island. During that time, she experiences aural hallucinations about seeing God, which is where the movie finds its title. According to the Bible, seeing God in life can only occur through a glass, and darkly; we cannot see Him clearly except in death. However, explaining even this skeleton of a plot was not a simple task, requiring some external data-gathering, because the movie is full of subtleties that are far too subtle. The thing about it is that the movie is compelling enough to make you want to go out and find out more about it. Unlike La Notte, it's not bad enough that you can just dismiss the seeming impenetrabilities.

Technically, the movie is a mixed bag. Shot by Sven Nykvist, it's beautiful. The editing is more than adequate, but nothing special. And as I've said before of the movie as a whole, the writing and dialogue are really interesting, but can sometimes be too confusing. The acting is similarly double-edged. At times there's overacting and posturing that makes it seem unrealistic. At other times there's underplayed subtlety that feels real but can be difficult to discern. Basically, the movie has some good stuff and some bad stuff. Neither overwhelms the other. Watch it at your own risk.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055499/

La Notte (1961)

2/5

Michelangelo Antonioni's La Notte is the quintessential art film that modern audiences love to hate for its lack of entertainment value, its inability to keep the viewers' attention, and its ineffable "meaning." The barebones plot follows a married couple (Mastoianni and Moreau) as they discover that they've fallen out of love after a party where they each become involved with someone else. It is the second film in an informal trilogy on the inability of couples and lovers to communicate with each other. And yet there is nothing but silence and banal dialogue nobody cares about, not even the characters. The silence isn't interesting or exciting either--it's just boring. There are inexplicable scenes, there are stilted performances, and there are about 110 minutes that could have been cut out of the 120 minute runtime.

The movie was, in fact, so boring that we took 10 minute breaks and missed nothing. On those breaks, we read cell phone reviews, did crosswords, and caught M&M's in our mouths. (In case you're curious, I caught 17 out of 20 self-thrown M&M's and also caught M&M's thrown from about 15 feet away. Do you see how this is already more fascinating than the content of the movie?) The reason this isn't a one-star movie, which it was very close to being, is that it actually had some pretty interesting thematic threads. Other than that, nothing really stands out about this movie in a positive way. If you're looking for a good Antonioni movie to see, check out Blow-Up. Forget about this one.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054130/

The Bad Sleep Well (1960)

5/5

Akira Kurosawa's The Bad Sleep Well is a complex re-envisioning of Shakespeare's Hamlet. It uses corruption as its backdrop and noir as its accent. Written with precision, directed with skill, and acted with dexterity, this is a masterpiece as only Kurosawa can pull off. As in all noirs, the plot is labyrinthine, the subject matter is dark, and the mood is fatalistic. However, this revenge story does not have all the elements of noir: a femme fatale is absent, replaced instead by a wholly kind and honest soul. Her presence makes the ending all the more heartbreaking and poignant.

Like any good noir, we see every character, both the "good" guys and the "bad" guys, get what's coming to them. But like the very best noirs, we feel a palpable tension creep up on us, get under our skin, and make us shudder with apprehension, wishing it didn't have to happen. We watch as each character uses deceit and duplicity to build the foundations for their greedy and vengeful goals; we watch as leaks start to spring up and they lose a bit of control; we watch as they duct-tape the pieces back together and lie to themselves about its stability; and we watch as it eventually collapses due to their own shoddy, sleazy craftsmanship. It represents everything film noir aspires to, from the technical aspects like cinematography to the nebulous qualities like mood, and does so with aplomb.

When I put the movie into the DVD player, I did not know that it would be a film noir. And I am, unfortunately, not as familiar with Hamlet as I should be or would like to be. While watching it, I assumed it would be a different kind of movie and did not find it as compelling or enveloping as I thought it should have been. But looking back on it, in the context of a noir, I see it as one of the best to emerge outside of America. I cannot yet judge the film as far as adaptations go, but I am excited to watch it again after reading through and discussing Hamlet. This is one film I know I will revisit many times to come.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054460/

The Hangover (2009)

4/5

The Hangover is a raunchy comedy full of great one-liners and hilarious situations. The plot follows three groomsmen waking up in the aftermath of a Vegas bachelor party with a killer hangover, a missing groom, and some mild retrograde amnesia. For the next 24 hours, they attempt to sober up, figure out what happened, and return with the groom in time for his wedding. It's a funny, vapid movie with lots of laughs and no message. But it's fun and entertaining, so go out and see it as soon as you can.

Technically, the movie is pretty impressive for a comedy. The framework of a mystery to progress the plot was new and inventive for the genre and kept things interesting. Seeing the smoking chair and clucking chicken lets the audience's mind run wild with possibilities that might even be funnier than the writers would have come up with. The fact that they're never explained, even at the film's end, opens up possibilities for some pretty awesome DVD extras if they choose to. The cinematography was usually pretty humdrum, but they were occasionally spiced up by truly awesome shots that made the movie stand out from the pack. The editing was accomplished, with relatively few unnecessary scenes and some magnificent surprise laughs. All in all, this is a fantastic comedy that attempts something new and succeeds. Reward them for their success--go see this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1119646/

Short Cuts (1993)

5/5

Robert Altman's Short Cuts is a virtuoso masterpiece, pure and simple. The movie follows five or so LA couples and their chance interactions over the course of a few days. At turns horrifying and heart-wrenching, the vignettes are immediately captivating and always engrossing. You watch in breathless anticipation for the entire running time. Clocking in at three hours, it may seem daunting at first, but once you start watching, you cherish every minute of it. From the humorous to the grotesque, from innocence to cruelty, this movie examines the gamut of humanity in all its glory and all its shame. It reminds us what kind souls look like in the presence of mean spirits. And in the end we somehow feel closure without getting any resolution; we know what will happen without having to see it on screen. This is the mark of a true storytelling master.

The acting by the huge cast is complete and all-encompassing; they succeed at fully embracing and transforming into their characters after even the deepest and most detailed scrutiny. Whether it is an old man getting years and years of guilt off his chest or a young couple dealing with the grief of a lost child, they are wholly believable and real. The performances are absolutely impeccable, making the already powerful script that much more potent. Coupled with stellar directing, the thematics feel wide open and inviting. The movie encourages us to really think about our place in life, to genuinely contemplate what we would do if we were given the lots these people are given. We come out of the theater reminding ourselves about how lucky we are. Short Cuts is a truly magnificent film and a truly stunning achievement. I don't think anyone could watch this movie and be unmoved; it is everything we expect of the movies and more.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108122/

I Live In Fear (1955)

4.9/5

Akira Kurosawa's I Live In Fear takes a simple premise and makes it powerful, unique, and memorable. Toshiro Mifune stars as an aging foundry owner in post-war Japan who fears that his and his family's life are in danger from a nuclear holocaust. He becomes so frightened that he tries to force his family to move with him to Brazil, where he thinks they will be safe. They take him to family court, where Takashi Shimura plays a mediator, to petition his fiscal activities on the grounds of mental incompetence. But who's really crazy, who's being helped, and who's being hurt? The thematics are rich, involved, and compelling. It explores the seemingly basic topic so fully and thoroughly that you are surprised at the amount of depth it contains.

Technically, the movie lives up to the Kurosawa name. He uses fluid camera movement and pristine blocking to give us amazing visual compositions. The editing smartly cuts out useless, empty shots yet also lets scenes sit patiently when called for. The acting by Mifune is simply outstanding--simply unparalleled. Despite the monstrous "old person" makeup he was wearing, he infused his character with empathy and warmth to make him completely and wholly believable. His performance is a marvel to behold. As with every Kurosawa movie, this one is more than just the sum of its parts. Every aspect of this movie combines to form something extraordinary. It rises way past its minor flaws to produce the singular masterpiece that it is.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048198/

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist (2008)

3/5

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist is just about as quirky indie as you can get. It stars Michael Cera as awkward Nick, the only straight guy in the gay punk band The Jerkoffs, and Kat Dennings as rich girl Norah, the daughter of famed music producer Ira Silverberg. Nick recently broke up with his girlfriend of 6 months Tris (who has also been cheating on him for 6 months) and is taking it pretty hard. He makes her mix tapes, which she just throws away, only to be picked up and adored by Norah. They meet at one of his band's concerts and Norah asks him to pretend to be her boyfriend for five minutes. And so begins the night. And just like every teen romantic comedy, they fall in love, fall out of love, and both eventually redeem themselves and partner up again.

Aside from the eclectic, interesting music, nothing really stood out in terms of technical skills. The editing and cinematography were only okay. The plot progression was predictable, the dialogue was filled with the requisite awkward humor Cera often--or always--produces, and the characters were written with just enough oddball characteristics to make you think they might be real. It's the typical indie movie you expect to see based on the trailer, and nothing about Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist really makes it stand out from that genre. Still, it's an entertaining film without much distinctly wrong with it, so go check it out if you think you're gonna like it. You probably will.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0981227/

The Third Man (1949)

5/5

The plot of Carol Reed's The Third Man follows Holly Martins (Cotten), an American author who goes to post-war Vienna at the behest of his friend Harry Lime (Welles). When he arrives, he finds out that Harry has died in a bizarre car accident filled with coincidence, suspects foul play, and tries to get to the bottom of it. The police are reluctant to help him and are in fact glad he's dead. They believe he was a racketeer who profited on the misery and suffering of children in need of penicillin. Harry's lover Anna Schmidt (Valli) disregards their opinions; even if it is true, it doesn't change who he was to her and the love between them. The plot brings up unique viewpoints on betrayal vs. friendship, love to one person vs. duty to all mankind--all very ripe for discussion about your own beliefs.

In fact, I find the characters surprisingly deep. When Martins tells the police that Harry was the best friend he ever had, the police responds that it sounds like something from a cheap novelette. Martins writes cheap novelettes. Perhaps he's written so many he becomes the cheap novelette himself. We later find out they hadn't talked in ten years; is that really the best friend he ever had?

The Third Man is a striking film in many aspects. From its off-kilter camera angles to its all-zither score, the film makes an impression both visually and aurally. And this impression stays with you, even if the techniques are too over-the-top or just not as successful as they could have been. While they are few long takes or moving cameras, the well-envisioned, well-lit compositions more than make up for it. The editing is lean and sharp, with hardly a single unnecessary frame to be found. And Harry Lime's entrance just 30 minutes before the ending is still as memorable and nerve-wracking as the first time it came out. This is a richly-textured film that should be watched, discussed, rewatched, and remembered.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041959/

The Idiot (1951)

2/5

Akira Kurosawa's adaptation of Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Idiot follows an epileptic named Kameda who is a "positively good man" that gets crushed by society. After being falsely accused of murder, he is sent behind a firing squad and is rescued just seconds before his death. He loses his mind as a result of that event, and all that seems to be left is the good inside of him. It is his inability to understand society and his ability to speak only what's in his heart that makes two women fall in love with him, each with their own separate suitors. He too must come to terms with how he feels about each woman.

Cut by the studio from its original running time of 265 minutes down to 165 minutes, the movie is unsurprisingly jumbled and disconnected (and surprisingly bad given the big names behind it). There are a lot of scenes that don't make sense or feel out of place. The parts that are left in have been paced for a four and a half hour film, so they feel really slow in the shorter two and three quarters hour film. There is a lot of silence (like pregnant pauses that simply end instead of give birth to something meaningful) and a lot of overacting and a lot of melodrama. There is little subtlety and little left to your imagination, except trying to figure out what parts of the movie were cut by the studio. On the upside, the cinematography is excellent as always, with flawless blocking and camera movements. And I love his use of reflections. On the whole, I simply cannot recommend that anyone see this movie. However, perhaps if you've read the book and you like Kurosawa, you can fill in the blanks yourself and maybe make the film amount to something meaningful for you.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043614/

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

3/5

Michael Bay's Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a spectacular piece of entertainment. That is to say, it's an entertaining spectacle. Because I had heard bad things from many people, I went in with lowered expectations. And those lowered expectations were far exceeded. This movie is better than the original in just about every facet. It's funnier, it's more exciting, and you can actually tell what's going on in the fight scenes. Oh, and Megan Fox was hotter. Even the dialogue and acting was surprisingly good, especially compared to the original. The parents were just as funny if not funnier and John Turturro's character was awesome instead of boring and dumb. And I absolutely loved the cameo by Rainn Wilson.

As for the rest of the movie, there's not much to say. The plot is unimportant and probably filled with holes, so I won't waste any time on it here. Suffice it to say, there are transforming robots fighting other transforming robots to save Earth and all of humanity. Unfortunately, the robots are still as ugly as before, except now they combine with each other to form bigger transforming robots, like the Power Rangers on crack. Even at 2.5 hours, it doesn't nearly feel as overlong as the first one. All in all, it'll satisfy your summer need to see crude humor, hot chicks, and explosive action, but don't expect much more than that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1055369/

The Hurt Locker (2008)

4/5

Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker is a superb, engrossing, taut film. Jeremy Renner plays Sergeant William James. A soldier in Iraq, his job is to defuse bombs, whether they're boobytrapped under the ground or strapped to innocent Iraqis. If you've never seen a movie about defusing bombs, it's probably the most intense plot device you can imagine (except maybe Russian roulette). And you will be gripping the armrests throughout every scene involving said plot device. But that is not the whole movie; it is more than a simple anxiety-filled film. There is a phenomenal amount of emotion in this heart-felt character study of a man who is addicted to putting his life on the line, a man unsure of his ability to save lives, and a man scared of death who hides it by yelling. The acting was exceptional, giving fully developed characters complexity and humanity. For a few minutes, I actually forgot I was watching a movie with actors--I thought I saw soldiers in Iraq afraid for their lives.

Technically, there is much to like about the film. The cinematography is flat-out perfect. The use of rapid zooms, 16mm film cameras, and slow motion provide a realism and tension that work together effortlessly and seamlessly. The editing was brilliant, extending the uncertainty to its breaking point, but never past it. Unfortunately, there were also several unnecessary scenes. And the film felt a bit long. This is in large part due to the lack of a story arc; we are left at the mercy of the director as to how many vignettes are told before the film ends. Still, this is a film well worth watching and comes highly recommended by me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887912/

Public Enemies (2009)

2/5

Michael Mann's Public Enemies is a disappointment from start to finish. The plot follows bank robber John Dillinger (Depp) in the early 1930's and the rising crime spree that spurs the police to declare a war on crime. Melvin Purvis (Bale) is put in charge of the Dillinger Squad and is responsible for taking him down, dead or alive. Where Mann's films usually succeed--tense action--here he fails. The gunfights are little more than confusing cuts and annoying noise. The fact that everyone looks, dresses, and talks the same makes it even harder to tell what's going on and who's getting shot. It completely deflates the tension. Mann's use of digital cameras at night without lighting worked in his modern revision of Miami Vice, but the grainy picture feels anachronistic in this film. The romance with Billie Frechette (Cotillard) actually feels slightly stronger here than in his previous films, although love stories were never his strong suit. But all in all, it's a fairly frustrating film and simply doesn't live up to my expectations. I don't know who should see this film, but I would not recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152836/

Bruno (2009)

3/5

Sacha Baron Cohen's Bruno is a vulgar, offensive comedy that works. No matter how disgusted, horrified, or shocked you are by the lengths he's willing to go, you laugh because he actually goes that far. He succeeds. And it's funny. The bare-bones plot follows a gay Austrian fashion reporter on his quest to become an American celebrity. He tries hosting a talk show with Mexican furniture, adopting an African baby like Angelina Jolie, and even becoming heterosexual. But the fashion world is not so quick to accept him.

Where the movie succeeds, it does so brilliantly. Yet the comic moments are not as believable, frequent, or hilarious as compared to Borat. And it's very much the same movie, but with a different persona that Cohen takes on. The structure and style of Bruno are nearly clones of Borat, and what made me love Borat so much was that I had never quite seen a movie like it before. This movie will make you laugh, but it unfortunately doesn't live up to the expectations that Borat set up. It won't change anyone's opinion on his style of humor, but if you already know you like it, go check it out.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0889583/

Notorious (1946)

5/5

Hitchcock has been named the master of suspense, and for good reason. Notorious remains one of the most nail-biting movies I have ever seen. It is one of Hitchcock's finest films, without a shred of doubt. The plot follows Cary Grant as a federal agent involved in the German spying business and Ingrid Bergman as the daughter of a German recently found guilty of treason. He has been told by his superiors to enlist her help, and after meeting they quickly fall in love. The job she is requested to do involves spying on a man who used to love her, played expertly by Claude Rains, and so the complicated web of emotions begins. I will let you enjoy discovering the rest of the plot when you check it out yourself.

The more I watch Hitchcock's Notorious, the fonder I grow of it. The first time I saw it I gave it 4 stars, the second time I gave it 4.9 stars, and finally I've come to my senses on this third viewing and given it the 5 stars it deserve. Watching it again, I am struck by its subtle expert touches. Hitchcock uses common, everyday items and images to generate suspense: wine bottles on ice, keys on a keychain, coffee cups on saucers. He uses restrained editing and long takes with unerring camera movement to build that suspense, instead of rapid-fire cutting or close-ups on sweating faces. He uses silence and our own imagination to terrify us instead of trite musical chords or gratuitous violence found in modern movies. He uses intelligence to craft the ending instead of cheap twists, and the result is something that absolutely cannot be forgotten. That walk down those stairs is awe-inspiring in its simplicity; that return trip to the house remains haunting in its condemnation.

But the spying is only part of the movie. There is an equally memorable romance that both flabbergasted me with its brutality and floored me with its beauty. The performances by all three leads are compelling and believable, heart-breaking and redemptive. The love story and espionage tale are not two discrete parts of one movie, but are intertwined in both plot and emotion. Each makes the other more fulfilling and rewarding. The suspense is more terrifying because we care about those involved, and the romance is more powerful because the stakes are so high. Can you imagine what that kiss outside the wine cellar must have been like for them? Can you imagine?

Notorious is unrelenting in many departments. It succeeds because it traps us in its world, it envelops us in its terrifying environment, and it softens us with empathy for its characters. We feel everything we are supposed to because Hitchcock is such a deft magician with the art of film. He absolutely controls us in this movie, but he does it with heart and humor. And we walk out of this movie thankful for his talent, thankful for the entire experience.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038787/

3 Women (1977)

3/5

Robert Altman's 3 Women is a curious, intriguing film. It follows the amusing and awkward interactions between the optimistic and oblivious Millie (Duvall), the shy and idolizing Pinky (Spacek), and the silent and artistic Willie (Rule). The plot is apparently based on a dream Altman had, and indeed the mood is very surreal. That is perhaps its strongest aspect, thanks to stellar cinematography and editing, and is reminiscent of the unsettling environment in Kubrick's The Shining. You have no idea where it's going, but you won't be satisfied until you find out. While the film might be called slow, it's never boring. While it might be called dull, it's never uninteresting. This is largely due to the strong performances and rich characterizations.

Near the end, unfortunately, it loses coherence and tightness. It spins wildly out of control and it's difficult to keep track of everything that's going on. It starts quite a few new threads and leaves quite a few loose ends. Worst of all, it fails to answer the questions it raises and leaves everything ambiguous. There's good ambiguous (where you have a few option to choose from), and there's bad ambiguous (where you have no idea what's going on). This was bad ambiguous. Still, for the first 90 minutes, I simply could not take my eyes off the screen. This is a fantastic movie with an end that will frustrate many, but might fascinate a few. If it sounds interesting, I suggest you give it a chance. Otherwise, leave it unwatched.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075612/

Scandal (1950)

3/5

Akira Kurosawa's Scandal is a rather middling film, I am disappointed to say. The plot follows a tabloid scandal alleging a love affair between painter Aoe (Mifune) and singer Saijo (Yamaguchi). Furious, Aoe threatens to sue the tabloid's publisher (Ozawa) and hires attorney Hiruta (Shimura) to help. But Hiruta's gambling addiction compromises their case. While the movie is more than a simple legal drama, it fails to satisfy on that basic level. After watching so much Boston Legal lately, my expectations for the genre have risen exponentially. And Scandal fails to meet them.

On a technical level, there is little to impress. I remember next to nothing of the cinematography and editing. Even the performances by Mifune and Shimura felt a bit like staged overacting given the rest of the piece. Where Kurosawa excels is in the human drama. The heart of the movie is Hiruta's relationship with his dying daughter. The man's vice fills him with guilt and he has no idea how to express it appropriately. All he can do is call himself a worm and beg for his daughter's mercy. It is a sentimental tale that ends ultimately in redemption, but not without a heavy dose of sadness along the way. As I said of One Wonderful Sunday, Scandal is not as good as Kurosawa's more famous works, so you should wait to watch it until after you've seen the rest of his oeuvre.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042958/

Casablanca (1942)

5/5

Michael Curtiz's Casablanca is without a doubt the greatest romance to ever grace the silver screen. The story follows Rick Blaine (Bogart) in Casablanca during World War II. While the rest of France is German-occupied, Casablanca represents a bastion of hope for those trying to flee to America. After two letters of transit find their way into Rick's gin joint, so do married freedom fighters Victor Laszlo (Henreid) and Ilsa Lund (Bergman). We soon find out that Rick and Ilsa shared a past together once, in Paris.

The plot exhibits the same sentimental heartbreak as in every love story, with both parties guilty of misunderstandings and mistakes. But the plot itself is not what makes this movie great. It is the way the story unfolds, the way we are introduced to the characters, the way they appear to evolve and develop before our very eyes. And yet the people we see at the end of the movie are the same as those at the beginning; it is merely the lens through which we see them that changes. As we discover more about each character's intentions and motivations, we go from despising them and the hurt they caused each other to adoring them and their tremendous love for each other. Our hearts are manipulated so forcefully and so easily, it is almost inhumane.

The emotional roller-coaster ride we go through would have been effective if all it had was a script as phenomenal as this one, but the acting is what makes it real--and what makes it hurt. Bergman and Bogart are at their best, able to evoke pity, horror, hatred, and sympathy at the drop of a hat. And after all they put us through, we are grateful to have met them. For everyone who has seen this movie, Bogie will always be Rick and Ingrid will always be Ilsa.

As for the rest of the cast, they are spectacular all around. From the minor performers to the major supporting roles, the film is chock-full of memorable characters. They infuse the piece with witty banter and humorous irony. We are intrigued by the cordial competition with black marketeer Ferrari (Greenstreet) and the affectionate back-and-forth with Captain Renault (Rains) as their beautiful friendship begins. And we cherish their presence.

Technically, the film is rather unremarkable. The editing manages an economy of scenes, albeit with a few extraneous ones. The lighting and cinematography get the job done, with some well-lit shots and well-composed long takes. Unlike Citizen Kane, the filmmaking is not what makes this movie great. It is the flawless love story between Rick and Ilsa that tugs at our heartstrings and attracts us to this movie. And it will always be Rick and Ilsa that brings us back to it, over and over again, as time goes by.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034583/