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/