Reviews

Who would have thought that Star Wars, one of the most thrilling, dynamic series ever created, would become formulaic; well, it's happened. Around twenty years ago, Star Wars was a series with something for everyone: drama, action, romance; with themes encompassing love, friendship, and family. Now George Lucas is milking that reputation by revamping the original scripts. Not to spoil anything, but the film moves at the same pace as "The Empire Strikes Back" and has a disgustingly similar conclusion. This occurred with Episode I as well, but in addition the rewritten plot, Episode II features a weak script and poor acting. The obvious hole is generated by the absence of Liam Neeson, whose performance was exemplary in Episode I and whose acting skill seemed to inspire good performances from young stars Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman. Now Neeson-less, McGregor and Portman seem rather dry. Portman, whose career has interested me since "Heat", turns in her first big lemon. With respect to Portman, I blame this partially on her co-star Hayden Christensen, whose pseudo-sensitive/romantic approach to the role of Anakin Skywalker, comes off as a non-descript monotone with a complete lack of emotion and he seems to drain feeling from every scene. Luckily, the floundering leads have help. Christopher Lee, Samuel L. Jackson, and Yoda (voiced by Frank Oz) steal every scene they're in, while the rest of the characters stagger around with poor lines and bad acting until the climactic battle. Whereas `The Empire Strikes Back' was thematically (though not ultimately) the best of the original trilogy, `Attack of the Clones' can hope nothing more than to span the gap between Episode I and III, and let us hope that this will be the low point of the series. 3 out of 10 stars.

`Wildcats' rallies my admiration as a solid though ordinary film. Between television and the silver screen, I've seen a dozen plots about a coach's hard work in turning a sports team around. `Wildcats' has some personality though, with memorable characters being placed in memorable situations. Goldie Hawn leads the cast with a light but effective performance. Accompanying the difficulties as coach of a football team, her character fights for the custody of her children; a major issue that this formula film is right not to linger on.

Nothing special, but good entertainment. 5/10 stars.

`The Sound of Music' has taken a great deal of flack for its corny musical ways. A lot of that flack is deserved. The songs are forced into the film with conspicuously bad results. The `choreography' is so despicably contrived that it isn't a wonder that stomachs turn at the sight of the infamous introduction. Lastly, Julie Andrews is a nightmare full of hot air.

This film can pass family viewing standards for its cute plot, with cute children singing cute songs. However, only two things hold my interest as a mature viewer. The first is a dynamite performance by Christopher Plummer, the second is director Robert Wise. Still with momentum from his production of `West Side Story', Wise takes this silly musical and makes it into the memorable masterpiece it is today. No matter how ineffectual Julie Andrews is, or how Ernest Lehman's screenplay falls apart, the production remains remarkable. The cinematography is beautiful and complex in scope with Todd-AO film doing credit to the film.

But just when it seems that Wise and company have been defeated by a bad plot, the film comes alive with maturity in the nick of time. First with a sensational romance then with a nail-biter of a dramatic finale. In the space of one hour I decided that I might actually recommend this film to someone over the age of 10.

In fact this is a great film with something for everyone, and good luck getting those songs out of your head. 8/10 stars.

Pier Paolo Pasolini's attempt to film Chaucer's `The Canterbury Tales' leaves much to be desired. The film is tiresome, badly acted, and the extras are so ugly they make my eyes hurt.

I have heard of only a handful of the actors, and I hope that's because the others gave up acting after seeing how absolutely terrible they were in this film. Not that Pasolini's script is a divine masterpiece.

The film is full of funny, if juvenile, bits. Furthermore, the location and scenery place to viewer in the action, as do the realistic costumes. However, to some viewers the excessive cleavage, and the matching perversion, may be unredeemable. Take the NC-17 rating seriously; this isn't a film for the kids.

Ultimately, this film isn't bad. But it is one of those unfortunate cases where a director tries, unsuccessfully, to film an unfilmable piece of literature.

Watch it if you're over 17 and have nothing better to do. 4/10 stars.

`The Untouchables' is a solid movie, containing great performances from Sean Connery, Kevin Costner, and Robert De Niro, with more than adequate performances all-around. This film contains a well-known, excellent premise, successfully played-off the classic TV series. I raise my glass to David Mamet for an excellent screenplay that encourages these strong performances.

I have one complaint, and it is massive. Between second-rate director Brian De Palma and above average screenwriter David Mamet, the film is given moments too intense to be remotely realistic. The oft-praised `Odessa Steps' shoot-out scene is ludicrous in content, and the bridge shoot-out isn't much better. Having just praised Mamet, I pin these scenes on Brian De Palma, the most over-rated director in the history of film. His heavy-handed style unable to recognize moments requiring drama and subtlety.

Appreciate an excellent and appropriate score by Ennio Morricone.

Enjoy the film but mourn its mistakes. 7/10

Well-known screenwriter David Mamet's first turn at directing isn't great, but the film has its highlights.

Mamet's screenplay is good, though a few needless bits of psychoanalytic theory are incredibly awkward. Joe Mantegna is excellent in the role of Mike, however Lindsay Crouse is little more than adequate; her marriage to Mamet explains how she got the lead. The camera-work is fairly good along with the lighting and set design.

But all that cannot make up for the plot of the film, which is implausible at best. A tale of a psychologist's lust for action through crime sounds great, in theory, but it doesn't work here.

All the same, the film is good for two hours of entertainment. 5/10 stars.

Antonioni's `L'Avventura' is a boring film, with a soap opera plot; that is if the viewer wants to see it that way.

To me, `L'Avventura' is a masterpiece depiction of human nature as the disappearance of a woman shows its effects on the upper-class. To the viewer, the film isn't an adventure as the title would suggest. To the characters, the plot is an adventure filled mostly of sadness. They are rich, these characters, not used to having things taken away. The male lead, Sandro, requires only sex from his girlfriends and refuses to commit himself to one. The female lead, Claudia, needs love above all else.

The cast is solid, though uneven in the supporting roles. Lea Massari gives, by far, the best performance; making it sad that the film centers around her character's disappearance.

Beautiful cinematography creates scenes not soon forgot. The location of the disappearance is overwhelmingly appropriate and memorable. But good luck reading the subtitles against the pale scenery.

Slow and even tedious. For the discerning viewer. 8/10 stars.

Normally I would hesitate in dubbing one film a director's masterpiece, especially the likes of Hitchcock; but there's no doubt here. When I saw `Vertigo' for the first time, I was already well-acquainted with Hitchcock. I'd seen `North by Northwest', `Rear Window', `Psycho', and `Rebecca', each several times, before seeing `Vertigo'. Now having seen `Vertigo' several times, the jury of my mind is out. It's the best.

The entire cast is at its best. Let people flap their lips about `It's a Wonderful Life', `Vertigo' contains James Stewart's greatest performance. His obsession even takes physical form, his eyes gleam with it, and his brow glistens with sweat in anger and in fear. His performance climbing the steps of the tower at the end of the film is magic.

Kim Novak has hardly the resume of Stewart, but her performance even surpasses his at times. The way her face tightens in her sadness, she is even divine in the scenes where she is purposely distant from the scene. A seldom used Barbara Bel Geddes is also good.

These two stars alone mean a great movie. But the plot, and the man who molded it, are the stars here. The quirky plot gives me chills from its air of creativity and ultimate excellence of being. This tale of obsession forces me to watch the film over and over, indulging in the plot twists every time.

Incredible, innovative camera-work from the `master' make this one of the great technical achievements of movie history.

What else to say? 10/10 stars.

I have seen few films with such diverse reviews as Scorsese's `Taxi Driver'. Roger Ebert has sighted it as one of his `Great Movies', yet Leonard Maltin gave it only two stars. There is a definite schism between the two critics, but I am personally also dubious in commenting on `Taxi Driver'.

The film is a complex portrait of a man's descent into violence. Travis, played by Robert De Niro, is continually exposed to the horrors of the city as a New York City cab driver. Already seriously disturbed by the war, Travis is the product of several experiences that seriously impair his view of reality. He becomes hopelessly infatuated with an angelic woman he finds in this panorama of horrors, only to be denied by her because he takes her to a dirty movie. He watches such films all the time, but because his perceptions are so skewed, he doesn't understand what is wrong with them. Later he gives a ride to an erratic man who is determined to kill his cheating wife. The man proudly tells Travis that he is going to blow his wife to pieces with a .45 Magnum. Later, when encouraged to buy a gun for protection, Travis requests a .45 Magnum, and buys every gun available to him. He becomes a soldier, ready to face the evil of New York. He works-out diligently, devises methods to draw his guns, and all the time growing farther away from reality. Armed to the teeth, he comes to the aid of a child prostitute. In the end, he lashes out at his demons with violent results.

I have heard rumors that the films premise is based on the film/novel `The Searchers'. Both films center on disturbed veterans that want to save a woman that really doesn't want to be saved. He is simply trying to save the girl from what he hates above all else.

`Taxi Driver' doesn't have a distinct plot, it's simply a character sketch of a disturbed individual; an exceptional sketch. I personally don't see a point to the film, but there's a subtle one and somehow it gets across to viewer.

`Taxi Driver' strikes me a potential disaster. The film is perplexing at times with a difficult protagonist. The script is heavy-handed and too complex to be correctly interpreted. Here's the good news: the film doesn't attempt to explain confusing points, the film just moves forward. De Niro is a godsend to the film, his exceptional acting makes his character understandable but still appropriately detached from the viewer. Martin Scorsese is exacting in his direction with the additions of excellent camera work and film editing.

The violence of the film is superfluous but compelling if the viewer can take it. `Taxi Driver' is not for everyone, but is worth a viewing. 8/10 stars.

`The Garden of the Finzi-Continis' stands out from the scores of films about the Fascist persecution of Jews due, in no small part, to director Vittorio De Sica. His veteran hands crafting an excellent story into a masterpiece.

The story focuses on a young Italian-Jew and his interaction and quest for romance with the daughter of a wealthy Jewish aristocrat. The trials of their relationship coming during the growth of Fascism in Italy in the late-1930s. Even the viewer can feel the segregation closing on the two young people and their families.

But even the superb drama of the film cannot hold a candle to the awesome cinematography of beautiful scenery that adds vitality to the film. The acting is good, mostly from the supporting cast, but occasional spouts of brilliance come from all directions.

Exceptional. 9/10 stars.

What to say of Casablanca? It's one of the most beloved films of all time, its romance and immortal lines have brought it into history. It's really an ordinary film, even Ingrid Bergman has so commented. The cinematography is nothing to gawk at, nor does the film possess any godsends of technical achievement, nor was it expected of run-of-the-mill director Michael Curtiz. The play it was based on, Everybody Comes to Rick's, was second-rate even in 1942.

But the acting is something special. At the time, Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, and Paul Henreid were hardly household names. Bogart, then just establishing himself as a serious actor, nearly lost the lead role to actor George Raft. Raft refused to have a nobody like Ingrid Bergman be his costar. While Bogart lost that year's Oscar to Paul Lukas, this is his most famous if not best performance. Bergman was passed over come Oscar night, but she too gives a great performance, bursting with the tangible emotion necessary for her part. However, I must first tip my cap to Claude Rains, who plays Captain Louis Renault. He is one of great character actors, and never have I seen him more in character.

But the true star of Casablanca is the Oscar-winning screenplay, the brainchild of playwrights Julius and Philip Epstein. The screenplay has brought its lines to the lips and minds of even those unfortunate enough to have never seen the film. Lines like `Here's looking at you kid' and `Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship'.

Lastly, there's that song, As Time Goes By. It's never completely played, in fact its almost just squeezed into the film. It's an ordinary song, but it's the song of Rick and Ilsa (Bogart and Bergman) and that makes it incredible; so much that my heart fills with remembrance of this beautiful film whenever I see it.

If you haven't seen it; see it. 10/10 Stars

I am surprised that `Forrest Gump' made it on the 1997 AFI list of the 100 best American films. My only explanation is that had the virtue of being a recent film. It is memorable, no doubt, but it doesn't fit together.

When I first saw the film, I didn't understand the Black Panthers or even the specifics of the Vietnam War. Ultimately I was lost at some places. Now I understand the history, and my stomach turns at the thought of squeezing forty years of history into a two and a half hour film; it didn't work. Digressing, I am shocked by how disgustingly idiotic the character is portrayed, under the guise of a 75 IQ. I'm no expert, but I don't see someone with that IQ dropping his pants or letting himself be hit by rocks. Frankly, the rural areas of the South where young Gump grew up didn't yield rocket scientists. This is because common sense was taught instead of the abstract reasoning of the Weschler IQ scorer. Just because a person cannot recite ten numbers backwards doesn't mean that they will drop their pants on TV.

I'm lingering on this because it annoys me due to my elementary knowledge of these facts which were overlooked in the plot of the film. In the 1979 film `Being There', Peter Sellers plays Chance, a gardener with a mind similar to Forrest Gump; even a little simpler. However, his character never left the house where he was born and learned everything from television.

Next up on the docket, Vietnam. Vietnam was not funny, nor is its interpretation through the eyes of Private Gump. I don't like heavy-handed Vietnam films like `Platoon' or `Apocalypse Now', and this film is more accurate, visually; so I hear. As for the aftermath, Lieutenant Dan's post-war trauma so closely models that of Jon Voight's character in `Coming Home' that I would sue for copyright infringement.

The acting has ups and downs. Gary Senise is excellent as Lieutenant Dan. Robin Wright's dime-a-dozen performance makes me want to throw up. Sally Field is good in her few scenes. Star Tom Hanks is overrated and, frankly, not deserving of that golden statuette. As for the film's Best Picture Oscar, I can only conclude that the judges knew they would be lynched by angry mothers, old people, and arch-conservatives if they selected the ultra-controversial, though much better, film `Pulp Fiction'.

`Forrest Gump' has highlights however. The bus stop bench as a forum was a fresh idea. The Bubba-Gump Shrimp section is hilarious. And the too-little-too-late drama at the end of the film sticks with you.

Make your own decision, I'm playing it safe with a 5/10.

Roman Polanski's "The Tenant" (Le Locataire) is one of the more unique films I have ever seen. It paints a dynamic mental portrait of a man literally driven crazy by his neighbors. The man, Tralkovsky, moves into an apartment whose former tenant jumped from the window. Slowly, his neighbors become malevolent toward him and vindictive of other tenants as well; creating a mood reminiscent of Polanski's earlier film `Rosemary's Baby'.

The film is shot from the blurred perspective of Tralkovsky, putting the viewer in his mind; feeling his fear and knowing the futility of his situation. Conversely, as only brilliant filmmakers can do, Polanski leads the viewer to contemplate how much of the Tralkovsky's perspective is reality and not delirium. For instance, Tralkovsky sees fellow tenants just standing in the bathroom. When he first enters the bathroom in the film, he finds bizarre writing on the walls, then he looks up to find that he is being watched by himself. Later he watches a decapitated head being thrown against his window and he looked down to see a bizarre ritual taking place below. The head belonging to an evicted tenant who always spoke to him late at night.

The acting is diverse but well-cast. Tralkovsky is played by director Polanski who lends a passive, ordinary character to the film until Tralkovsky becomes erratic with delirium; excellent through and through. The protagonist is the only defined character, and therefore all other characters are minor. Nonetheless, Melvyn Douglas, Shelley Winters, and Jo Van Fleet are all sadistically chilling in their roles.

Sven Nykvist does an excellent job with his camera work, making the introduction something to marvel at.

"The Tenant" is Polanski at his best, but the film fails in a few places. A little past the first hours, the film breaks apart. Tralkovsky starts dressing like the apartments former female tenant, the reasoning is nonexistent then and still vague at the end of the film. Also the film falls back on ‘70s counter-culture, which is no longer appealing to a modern audience.

Chilling, dynamic, and roughly excellent. If you like this one, check out Polanksi's `Repulsion'. 7/10

This immensely funny sequel to 'The Pink Panther' holds the rare novelty of being better than the original. In fact an intentional extension of the Pink Panther series, the film is based on a dissimilar play. However, It's hard not to see 'A Shot in the Dark' as the true foundation of the series. The film introduces two key characters: Commissioner Dreyfus, played by Herbert Lom, and Clousseau's Asian sidekick Cato.

Like the rest of the series, 'A Shot in the Dark' is full of humor. From physical comedy to hilarious bumblings to an underlying vista of satire, this one dwarfs the rest.

As for acting, Sellers is in top form at the peak of career. Never do I remotely question that it is Clouseau I am seeing and hearing; Sellers is never out of character. 23 year old Elke Sommer co-stars as Maria Gambrelli, a young maid accused of murder. She leaves little to squawk about in her acting, but has few meaningful lines; but convincing all the way. George Sanders, as millionaire Benjamin Ballon, gives his uniform best. Lastly, Herbert Lom as Dreyfus brings a hilarious second presence and sub-plot to the film and to the future series.

I laud this film and its excellent script for its comedy, its good acting, and its rewatchibility.

If you're looking for serious drama or action, don't look here. One cannot call 'A Shot in the Dark' anything more than a comedy, but that's more than enough for this reviewer.

8 / 10

This pro-industrialist (and anti-communist)comedy ranks among Billy Wilder greats like "Some Like It Hot". James Cagney is well-casted and up to the challenge of a face-paced script, portraying a materialistic Coca-Cola factory manager. The film's Communist quirks date it immensely to modern audiences, but the comedy is ageless.

However, Arlene Francis does some damage via mediocre acting and the part of a strong-willed wife that was cliche even in 1961. She is a deflated fifth wheel to an otherwise monster truck of a cast: Cagney, little-knowns Tiffin and Buchholz, and Pulver.

The best part is a hilarious car case through East Germany, enhanced by the Oscar-nominated cinematography.

This deserving winner of the Best Picture Oscar is by far the best depiction of the average Joe, working his way up the ladder of success.

Unlike other Wilder comedies, like Some Like It Hot or The Seven Year Itch, The Apartment is not meant to be funny. The film is such a precise dissection of the bourgeois that it models the shreds of humor that enter our lives no matter no matter how grim or rose-colored the situation is; and that humor becomes evident through the eye of the camera. The perfect example is the ideosyncratic phrase "Be a mensch", sounds silly but presented in a serious context.

The Apartment features an impressive triumvirate of stars: Jack Lemmon, Shirley MacLaine, and Fred MacMurray; all giving some of their best acting.

Best supporting actor recipient Jack Kruschen, playing the annoyed neighbor, steals all of his scenes.

Put aside the film's archaic view of women and enjoy this one!

While Frank Capra was making a name for himself with It Happened One Night, French director Jean Vigo made film history with this story of the trials of love on a barge called L'Atalante.

L'Atalante wasn't the first great film. But it feels like it is when watching it because of how I can understand the characters and their motivation. A young girl swept into a boring life on a supply barge, and the ensuing strain on the romance with her husband, the captain. Its idealistic end challenging such famed conclusions as Casablanca, and certainly deserving of a few tears.

Some people have described a dream-like nature in the film. I don't presume to put the feeling into such a catch phrase, but L'Atalante is simple in construction and contains great emotion that shows lucidly through the film.

A must-see. 10/10

"Last Year in Marienbad" is not a film by any standards, nor even a story. It is a collection of breathtaking images and precise dialogue. Nay, it is a work of art; and a certain masterpiece. For the film is but the tip of a beautiful, artistic iceberg; like a painting, it is not defined by script or acting but the sum of its well-crafted parts given to the viewer for their interpretation.

Even before I saw the film, debates of its dubious plotline reached my ears. Midway through the film I had a dozen thoughts to spew into the existing arguments, but by the time 'Fin' came to the screen I knew that "Last Year in Marienbad" was a masterpiece to be enjoyed, not analyzed.

Never has such greatness been achieved in a film about lives off the stage as in All About Eve. If you want proof, look no further than George Sanders' Oscar-winning performance as the critic Addison DeWitt. The poison pen donning DeWitt, though holding but a handful of scenes, carries the film on his character-actor shoulders. DeWitt is treacherous and vile to the well-acted quartet of main characters, but to myself and others, DeWitt is an antihero -- cunning and, as he puts it, "nobody's fool". A cool character through the foolish antics of Margo Channing and the devious plots of Eve Harrington.

The other characters, save Eve, are too human and fall into each others traps. Eve, on the other hand, is much like DeWitt, only less precise and too ambitious.

Anne Baxter's Eve is often overplayed, but Davis, Merrill, and Marlowe are on the money, though they pale to Sanders. Look for Thelma Ritter and, especially, Marilyn Monroe giving short but excellent performances.

I have never found anything wrong with Citizen Kane, nor have I tried hard to do so. A sour note of dialogue badly read, or an auteur quirk taken too far; both are so ostentatious in a film that they cannot be overlooked. So instead I compare Citizen Kane to itself -- a privilege I hold for very few films. Orson Welles and Joseph Cotten give excellent performances, but the character that I cannot resist is Everett Sloane's Bernstein. Bernstein is so consistent as a character I forget he isn't real. He is the source of humble wisdom as the manager of the New York Inquirer -- it is he who first suggests the most correct interpretation of 'Rosebud'.

Then there is the camera work, the innovations that appear only in this one-film wonder. It doesn't take a trained eye to hold in awe the beginning of the film. Fades, montage, and actions reflected in a glass ball.

Incredible stuff!

Too often musicals are saccharine and pointless that I jump for joy when a musical like 42nd Street comes along. Chorus girls have moved to Las Vegas and "Shuffle off to Buffalo" is no longer a Top 40 hit, but 42nd Street remains remarkably fresh. I attribute much of this to Warner Baxter's portrayal of director Julien Marsh, a character willing to sell his soul for his new musical to be a success and to deliver him from the Depression gutter. It is his reactions to the trials of making a Broadway show that breath life into this 67 year old film.

The musicals of Lloyd Bacon and Busby Berkeley during the '30s, like "The Gold Diggers" series, had second-rate numbers and third-rate acting. But 42nd Street is again a shining star. I have seen the songs "Shuffle off to Buffalo" and the title song stick to many a mind, including my own. Discerning viewers should also look for a good performance from up-and-comer Ginger Rogers as Anytime Annie.

American Beauty ranks as one of the greatest films of the decade and with good reason. It represents a pinnacle of black comedy. Not only has Oscar-winner Spacey been given hilarious lines along with quirky situations, but the film also holds an accurate grasp of human nature and society. It is this that separates American Beauty from similar films like Happiness. The film also contains the best and most vivid motif/symbol I have seen in the color red. Thanks to the crew, the color found its way to the front door and to the clothing along with blood and roses. And the film of the plastic bag is poetry, enforced with an marvelous performance by Wes Bentley.

However, I cringe at the film because of the ultimately irresponsible script by Alan Ball. Ball overstepped himself in trying to force profound meaning into his work. He takes the "world of beauty" concept way too far. The speech that supports this concept is read twice, making the second time superfluous. Worst of all is Spacey's final nostalgic speech. He begins by saying that his last second of his life is infinite; which sounds like bar room philosophy in the untried hands of its writer. Then Spacey begins talking about how his grandmother's skin felt like paper -- absolutely inexcusable! That line has no place in any black comedy, Ball is playing with fire. I've seen American Beauty several times and the ending grows more saccharine each time.

Still, this movie is worth watching for it is filled with excellent material. I just hope you're not as critical as I am.

This film is not worth seeing. While other users see historical accuracy I see a pathetic attempt to integrate prejudice into a dubious situation. As for the plot, it is not feasible. Too many pointless plot twists turn the ending into an unreasonable climax that is no where near a realistic ending and it only feigns happiness. As for the dialogue it is a cocktail of cliches and unnecessary responses. I implore you, do not waste your money.