Warning: Undefined array key "hide_archive_titles" in /home1/smartva9/public_html/smartvania/wp-content/themes/baton/includes/theme-functions.php on line 254

Category: 1971

Nicholas and Alexandria

In 1971, the era of the grand epics were over. The last great epic leading up to this year was 1965’s Doctor Zhivago. Every once in awhile, an epic will come along trying to repeat the glory of the past. 1971’s Nicholas and Alexandria is an example of that. Does this movie succeed in returning to it’s former glory? Not quite….but I very much enjoyed this movie, more so than many people it seems. The film has its issues which I’ll explain momentarily, but this was a valuable history lesson to those who know little about the Russian Revolution or Czar Nicholas II-the last Czar in Russian history.

This movie tells the story, the tragic story of Czar Nicholas II (Michael Jayston) set against the backdrop of the Russian Revolution. This movie goes inside the private life of Nicholas and his wife, Alexandria (Janet Suzman) as well as their daughters and only son. Their son spends most of his childhood crippled with sickness, so the family hire the mysterious Rasputin (Tom Baker) for help in curing him. On the political side of things, Nicholas is very unpopular and is the root cause of seven million deaths because of their involvement in World War I and domestic problems such as starvation. All of these problems has Nick and his family paying the ultimate consequence.

This is the second of two movies to have the Russian Revolution as the backdrop. The first film was the big musical hit, Fiddler on the Roof. That movie occurred pre-Revolution. But this film focuses on the causes of the Revolution and the immediate aftermath. Or so it’s supposed to. My biggest problem with the film is that it treats the Revolution itself as an afterthought. There are cameos by very important characters such as Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin-but they hardly had any effect on the film. I wanted to know more about the Revolution itself and how Lenin took over Russia. I can’t be too upset because this film is about the life of Nicholas after all. I wish I wasn’t tantalized with the scenes of Lenin however.

I divided up this epic into two sections. The first section is what I find to be the more glorified, beautiful part of the film. Many epics rely on vast landscapes, but this epic does something a little different. It relies upon vast interior decoration designed to take your breath away. The Russian architecture, especially on the inside is certainly something to behold. The art direction and the production design certainly are incredible in this film. The first part mainly tells us how life is like for Czar and his family despite all the war and suffering going around them. The second half is a different kind of story. It’s a sad, painful story that shows how life of the Czar fell apart after the Revolution which culminated in a very sad, but brilliantly-made ending scene showing the execution of Czar Nick and his entire family. Of course as a student of history I knew what happened, but that scene had tears coming from my eyes. Nicholas was not an innocent man, but he tried his best with what he got-but he couldn’t get any better.

This film was brilliantly-acted. That impresses me because the two lead actors (Michael Jayston and Janet Suzman) never worked in film prior to this film. They were seasoned British stage actors but they made the transition to film really well. If you can get used to Jayston’s overreacting facial expressions, you probably will appreciate what he brought to the role as the czar. A man who had a good soul, but is largely blamed for the death of millions. Suzman does an incredible job as his wife, Alexandria who had a role in why Russia was in such bad shape. She sometimes controlled her husband to the point where it seemed like he was a puppet. They had great chemistry with each other, so I was impressed what they did with this film. Tom Baker gives a good performance as the mysterious Rasputin. There is one thing that bothered me about this character. There is a scene where all of the sudden he becomes a homosexual. I’m not sure if history supports that notion, but the way the film showed it out of the blue kind of bothered me. The supporting cast all do well in their roles. Any movie that features Jack Hawkins, Laurence Olivier, Ian Holm, and Brian Cox in the same cast is a good one by my book.

Nicholas and Alexandra is quite a fascinating epic. The first half is a movie about style, about grandeur during a time where peasant living conditions were terrible. The second half of the movie is a haunting story of the Czar’s downfall. I loved the production design and the film was given an authentic feeling. It must be nice being so rich like the Czar was. The second-half is my favorite section of the film and that final scene is a powerful, very emotionally-driven scene. The story itself was good, but it could have been much better if the actual Revolution was not used as an afterthought. But given this movie seems to be the only one in existence about Czar Nicholas II and his final days, I am very satisfied with this film. Maybe my grade is high because of the powerful last few minutes, but there is no denying this is a good epic that came out in an era where these kind of movies were seen as dead.

My Grade: A-

Fiddler on the Roof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QegNUOg2ajE

I was a little late to the game when it came to Fiddler on the Roof. It seemed to be a movie every single person has seen, but now I have joined the party. Based off the very famous stage play, this film takes place in a pre-revolutionary village in Russia where there is a mixture of the Jewish and Christian people whom each have their own traditions. This film has a major theme in tradition, told from the view of the Jewish peasantry. The message regarding tradition is that times change and sometimes tradition has to be changed to keep up with the changing times. This film particularly talks about traditional marriage within a Jewish family, and how some events changed the very old traditions. Not only is the film about tradition or culture, but you can learn some history. This movie has a setting in pre-revolutionary Russia just before the Russian Revolution of 1918. The Jewish people are being exiled from their home over the course of the film to places like Israel or even Chicago. One of the iconic figures in the movie was the fiddle player-hence the title name. The fiddle player is shown in two very iconic shots-one at the opening and one at the end. This is a symbol for the tolerance or the forbearance of the Jewish people in the movie.

This film, which is well-directed by Norman Jewison, is a musical that takes place in pre-revolutionary Russia (just barely). This is a country that struggles to modernize. Maybe a reason is because of the Jewish peasantry, whom hold dear to their traditions. One of the traditions is having a matchmaker pair up matches for people who are of age to marry. There is Trevye (Topol), who is a poor milkman who has five daughters of his own-three ready to marry. The matchmaker, of course, pairs his daughters up. But instead of arraigned marriages, the daughters find love. The eldest daughter falls in love with a poor furniture-maker and his second-eldest falls in love with a Marxist, causing anguish in Trevye as he sees tradition falling apart. Meanwhile, revolution is spreading across the country forcing all Jewish people to leave their homes and their country.

This film, just like the stage play, is a musical. There are a lot of songs and dancing. I liked most of the songs, but two that stood out to me were “Tradition” which was the opening number as Trevye discusses the tradition of his people and “If I Were A Rich Man” which as Trevye lamenting his life and wondering how different it would be if he had money. From what I heard, the music is very faithful to the play. But there were a couple new songs added specifically for the film. It shouldn’t be a surprise how good the music is because the legendary John Williams is at the helm as composer-one of his very first gigs in the film industry. As for the dancing, there is a good amount of choreography. I liked that Jewison made the dancing appropriate for the movie audience, not the play audience. Older musicals had problems where I felt I was watching a play, not a musical. Anyhow, there is a rather strange dislike about the dancing of Trevye. He moves his hands in such a weird fashion. I was like, “Dude, don’t make me tie your hands up when you are dancing!”

The film is reasonably well-acted. When I saw the cast, I haven’t heard of a single name. Topol apparently is a well-respected Israeli actor and other than those distracting hand movements, he did a wonderful job. His singing was emotionally-charged as everything around him changes. He is a man nof tradition, but even he can be persuaded. When asked by his daughters about marriage, he goes on a rant each time with God pleading why this has to happen to him. They are powerful scenes that rightfully nominated him for an Oscar. Leonard Frey as Motel, the lover of the eldest daughter does a solid job. I love his scene where he builds a sowing machine with giddy delight and holds it as if its his own baby. As for the daughters, I can’t recall any names. They are just there to fall in love and play daughter to their father. They didn’t have much characterization.

Nominated for eight Oscars and winning three of them, Fiddler on the Roof is a very faithful adaptation of the Broadway musical. I didn’t go nuts over the film, but it’s perfectly enjoyable. It’s nice to learn about the history and culture of a group of people (from Russia) I did not know too much about. I studied the Russian Revolution, but not so much what happens before. The music is mostly enjoyable and keep an eye out for the fiddle player. The film is very lengthy, but this is an adaptation that pleased fans of the play and general musical fans over the years.

My Grade: B+

The Last Picture Show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfgUF86tpD8

I really loved Peter Bogdanovich’s The Last Picture Show. This was a film that was never on my radar, but then when I heard about the talent behind the film, I knew that I should check it out. Everything about the film is nearly perfect from the spot-on performances to the masterful direction to the technical side of the film. I very much enjoyed how the movie was filmed in black-and-white. It added to the surprising realism the film showed us. The film is about life and how people try to figure out the meaning of their lives in the rather desolate town of Anarene, Texas.

There is no denying how depressing the film can be. It’s certainly moody and there is no happiness to be found. The lives of everyone is like living in an empty void. People move on from one thing to the next with nothing to look forward too. This is one of the factors that make this movie so powerful. Also adding to the depression of this dying town is the changing times. The town resembles an old Western town way past it’s due date. You understand the reasons the tumbleweed rolling through town. The film points out rapidly-evolving urban centers nearby as people flock to these towns to start new lives. But for the people remaining in town, the old-timers fondly remember the happy days while the young people wonder what to do without being so bored. After all, downtown only consists of a diner, the pool hall, and an old-fashioned movie theater all owned by one man known as Sam the Lion.

Something that really surprised me is how much of a factor sex plays in the film. Of course, sex is necessary in everyone’s lives. But this film really pulls the strings with that sentence. People have sex with each other in the film because there is nothing else to do. They use sex as a way to get through their rather meaningless day. Except for a few cases, there is no sense of eroticism in the sexual activities. There is this one girl named Jacy who uses her looks to seduce every man in town and there is the relationship between our main character Sonny and the older wife of the local gym teacher, Ruth. After Sonny cheats on Ruth with Jacy, there is a very powerful scene between Ruth and Sonny (that involved chucking a coffee pot at Sonny’s head) that shows the deep, real feelings that people did have. The feeling that love actually existed inside of these people.

It’s 1951 in this small, hapless town of Anarene, Texas. The only person who seems to enjoy life is Sam the Lion (Ben Johnson), a father figure of almost everyone in town. Life does not hold much of a future in this town for the younger generation. Two kids the film keeps an eye on are the co-captains of their terrible high school football team; Sonny Crawford (Timothy Bottoms) and Duane Jackson (Jeff Bridges). Sonny is more of the sensitive kind of person while Duane is a brash, outgoing man-but they happen to be best friends. Duane also happens to be dating the best-looking girl in town, Jacy (Cybill Shepherd), the daughter of an oil baron. Meanwhile, Sonny just broke up with his long-time girlfriend who only were together for the lack of anything to do. Jacy begins a pursuit on her mother’s Lois (Ellen Burstyn) to find other men that could give her a future. Meanwhile, Sonny begins an affair with the older Ruth Popper (Cloris Leachman). These events show exactly how much of a future is left for the younger generation in Anarene.

The film has a very strong cast, whom many would go on to have strong careers. There really is not a single standout because everyone gives an incredible performance each depicting their own sense of sadness. If I had to choose the best performance in the film, I would pick Cloris Leachman as the unhappy wife who begins an affair. That forementioned scene in the argument with Sonny is very powerful. Ben Johnson would be a very close second as Sam the Lion. He’s a stern man content with life in the town, but he understands the plight of the young ones. His scene where he takes Sonny out fishing and reminisces on his younger life concerning love actually brought a few tears to my eyes. There is Jeff Bridges, who gave a very steady performance and despite his young age, he already held a commanding presence onscreen. Cybill Shepherd was an unrecognizable name at the time, but her sexual turn as Jacy opened up some eyes. Ellen Burstyn likewise as her mother.

I also must comment on the use of music in the film. Unlike many films at the time, it does not have an orchestral score. Instead, it uses some pop music as background music. The use of Hank Williams made a good, rather unique fit for the film.

Also, I have to mention the cinematography, which was used in black-and-white. That gave to the overall realism of the movie. But it is the little things on camera that showed the emptiness of the town. Whether its the tumbleweed, the dust blowing the air, the sad faces of everyone, the broken-down cars, etc. Everything that was shot, in some shape or form, showed what life was in this town.

Overall, The Last Picture Show is a bleak, sad movie that is nonetheless a very powerful feature that is masterfully directed by Peter Bogdanovich and brilliantly adapted to the screen by Bogdanovich as well. He gets powerful performances from everyone in the film, and that is a rare feat for a young director. It goes to show that growing up is not all golden and wonderful as some people struggle to live because of the area they reside in. This is surprisingly a very powerful film and one of my favorites from 1971.

My Grade: A

The French Connection

I remember watching The French Connection for the first time several years ago. I knew people regarded it as an instant classic, so I was expecting to love it. But the power of subjectivity appeared, and it turned out I didn’t like it all too much. In discussions with cinema lovers, I was lambasted because people see this as one of the all-time greats. I watched this for a second time recently, and how about that! My opinion changed. While not calling this film an all-time great, I do respect and like it very much. The film fits the definition of a 70’s American film. It is dark, gritty, and features some heavy violence. Also, the film happens to be home of one of cinema’s greatest car chases. Essentially, the movie is a giant chase but that particular car chase is something else. I’ll discuss it more later on in this review.

This Oscar-winning film takes us onto the streets of New York City following two detectives, Jimmy ‘Popeye’ Doyle (Gene Hackman) and his partner, Buddy Russo (Roy Scheider). Popeye is infamous for taking in street-level drug dealers, and at best his policework can be described as shady. He’s violent drunk cop with low ethical standards, and his career is rapidly falling apart. But he seizes his biggest opportunity when he learns of a huge heroin shipment coming from France. Now we have an interesting contrast between Popeye and the heroin smuggler, Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey). I just mentioned Popeye has low moral standards, but he still is a dedicated cop. On the other hand, Charnier is a smooth gentleman that no one can predict he is a criminal. Now the standoff between the two men begins when Popeye does all he can to bring Charnier in.

Now going back to that car chase! It was a wonderfully executed car chase and what I like is that it is all real. There was an actual chase filmed in Brooklyn exactly how you see it on screen. It’s crazy too because the chase is about a simple car trying to outrun and outmaneuver a moving train which eventually has a dead conductor at the wheel. So then it turns into a psychologically-crazy man versus machine kind of chase. The chase also proves the recklessness of Popeye. He held no regard for the common people as he had close calls with them during the chase. He was basically using the people for his benefit….in an oddly positive way. Some of the camera techniques are very effective. They filmed in a way where the subjects are actually further away from the cars than shown onscreen….which must have been a relief for some of the actors. But yes, this is one of the biggest car chases to have ever been filmed so this film is a must-see just for that.

Speaking of actors, well yes let’s talk about the acting. Director William Friedkin famously did not want Gene Hackman in the lead role. Hackman, by 1971 was already a bankable star, but Friedkin did not think so. Luckily, they decided to cast Hackman anyway and it’s a good thing they did. Hackman is one of those actors who can do any genre and always gives his best effort. I loved his performance here and his character was perhaps the only three-dimensional character in the film because the film spends so much time on him. But I was won over by Hackman almost right away. The scene where he enters a bar and violently asks everyone to turn out their pockets in the search for drugs-well, I knew I would be in for a treat. I was happy to see his performance win Best Actor at the Academy Awards. Roy Scheider does a solid job as Popeye’s partner, but I didn’t feel the same way for him as I did for Popeye. There was nothing much to do for him except to act as a backup. Same goes for Fernando Rey. A very solid performance, but his character was also under-utilized.

The French Connection is a violent, fast-paced film. I said in my opening the movie plays like one giant chase, but I liked the frenetic pacing of the movie. My favorite scene is no doubt that car chase, but I loved the smaller scenes especially the ones where Popeye is up to no good. I also loved the actual photography of the film. Sure, the movie is over forty years old but seeing the streets of my favorite city in the world always makes me happy as it brings back some fond memories. The film has a violent nature and it may take you by surprise, but this film is heralded by many as an instant classic. I may not think so, but I did enjoy it very much.

My Grade: B+

McCabe & Mrs. Miller

Coming off the unexpected success of M.A.S.H, director Robert Altman decided to do a complete 180 in choosing his next project. As we all know, his first film was a black comedy with themes of war. His next movie, McCabe & Mrs. Miller strays very far from that field. This film is a combination of a Western and a romance film, but in ways you wouldn’t expect. This is not a Western in a sense of cowboys and Indians, but about a man struggling to earn a living in the cold doldrums of the Old West. There are hidden themes about love, but this is not a love story although there is a heightened sense of romanticism in the movie. Altman introduced me to his style in the solid, if unspectacular M.A.S.H, but he comes through with this film in a big way.

I very much enjoyed this film. It’s one of those slow-burn dramas, but when the time is right, I do enjoy these kind of films that don’t heavily rely on action, but instead upon our characters. Speaking of which, Altman delivers an interesting way of developing characterization. As the movie starts, we see the townsfolk whom plays a major role during the entirety of the film. But, we are not introduced to them in the normal sense. Altman wisely refrains from using any monologue with his characters (outside the two main ones) that tell us who they are, what they are doing, where they come from, etc. We, as the audience, must piece together the puzzle ourselves. It’s clear the townspeople knew each other for a long time. Each individual is pivotal in the lives of others. It is a master technique that Altman inhibits not only in this film, but in the majority of his films.

Another noticeable trait of the film is the look of the film. There is something about that snowy landscape that gives off a sense of beauty. The film was beautifully shot by legendary cinematographer, Vilmos Zsigmond (who unfortunately passed away only a few weeks ago). His work lives on in this film very much so. The film is beautiful to see with the snow-filled Canadian wilderness, but at the same time Altman gives an intentional dreary look to the film and his characters. The movie makes wonderful use of white, gray, and black to show how unspectacular life is for our characters. Everyone goes about their day in unspectacular fashion. Other than work, there is nothing much to do in this area.

This film is about a businessman named John McCabe (Warren Beatty) who builds himself a whorehouse in this remote Western town. The town is predominantly male, and women are hard to come by so this is the perfect investment for McCabe. Soon after he builds his whorehouse and tavern, a mistress named Mrs. Miller (Julie Christie) arrives offering herself to become McCabe’s business partner in his booming business. She promises to handle the business side of things because she has expertise in that field. Soon after her arrival, several businessmen arrive in town wanting to buy McCabe’s business. The stake of the town and even his life depends on the answer of McCabe.

There is a trend I’ve noticed in American films from the 1970’s. They hardly ever rely upon a huge cast of big names, and that rings true in this film. The only big names at the time of this film’s release were Warren Beatty and Julie Christie. This came out during an era where names led to a movie’s success. Anyhow, they were both phenomenal in the movie. The chemistry shared between the two is excellent, and the aura they possess when it’s only just one of them onscreen magnifies their performances. McCabe is dim-witted when it comes to business, and I love how Mrs. Miller changes that.

Another interesting item about the film is the music. Unlike films at the time, it doesn’t have a score to use. Instead, it uses three haunting Leonard Cohen songs that helps with the story. The soundtrack is another reason why this film works. They are haunting songs, but at the same time they are beautiful songs.

The film has a depressing feel though its duration, and sometimes I found myself searching for happiness in the movie. Right away, I knew what the tone would be as McCabe introduces himself to the town during a game of poker and finds he has a reputation of killing a man. Then there is the scene where this random kid (played by a young Keith Carradine) gets himself killed just because he couldn’t stay out of trouble. He knew he was going to be killed and he tried to postpone his murder by adapting a cheerful attitude, but it didn’t work. This town features a Presbyterian Church, which plays a prominent role in the plot and in the ending, where there is a cat-and-mouse shootout.

McCabe and Mrs. Miller is an excellent film and one of Altman’s masterpieces. I loved how the story took its time to get rolling and I got the feeling I knew these characters as if they’re real-life people. That should be the goal of every single movie, no matter the premise. The movie is very beautiful to look at, but I also get a sense of sadness because there is no happiness to be found in the movie. There is a lot of dreariness, but it’s important for the kind of story being told. I had a heavy heart at times, but I still liked this movie very, very much.

My Grade: A-

 

Bananas

As we enter the beginning of 2016, one of the most prolific directors working today is Woody Allen. He directed a film every year since the early 1970’s and at a ripe 80 years young, he is still going strong today. My review is for his second directorial effort, Bananas. No, this film is not about bananas although if you know Latin American history, the movie has a country resembling one from the Banana Republic. Actually, bananas is a slang word for “crazy.” Truth be told, that is an apt description for this movie. The movie is totally bonkers, but in a good way. You learn right away that Woody Allen has a flair for dialogue. Not clichéd dialogue, but words that are different and that mean something. He is also a natural comedian, which helps him when it comes to his screenplays, directing, and acting.

Coming off the Vietnam War and the troubles regarding the Banana Republic in Latin America, this kind of film was ripe for the taking and Allen seized his opportunity to make a satirical, over-the-top movie. The movie lambasts topics ranging from politics to relationships and it’s really easy to find the humor in it. I really love how Allen does not take the film seriously. If the film became too serious, or bogged down in political correctness this film would have been a major disaster. Many of the jokes or scenes work, but not all of them do. The scene where Allen was showering with another man in his suit was distracting and not that funny. But the funny scenes outdo the other scenes in a great way. My favorite scene is after Allen’s character marries a girl, Howard Cosell of all people delivered commentary on the first sexual encounter between the newlyweds as if it was a boxing match. My God, I loved that scene very much. For those of you who don’t know, Howard Cosell was a commentator on ABC’s very popular program, Wide World of Sports. From the scenes I mentioned to the mere fact that Allen’s character becomes a dictator of a random, foreign country, it’s clear Allen is embracing the over-the-top style of the movie.

Woody Allen’s second directorial effort is about some awkward man named Fielding Mellish (played by Allen himself) who is a consumer product tester. After his girlfriend Nancy (Louise Lassier) dumps him, he decides to travel to the fictional South American country of San Marcos to take a break from his current life. But he gets caught up in a revolution (a very similar look to the Cuban Revolution), and somehow becomes a dictator for San Marcos after the rebels overthrow the government. But now the American government and the FBI turn a keen eye on Mellish.

The film is practically devoid of any big name stars. I would say the quick cameo by Howard Cosell brings the most star power to the film, and he’s not even an actor. I’m not knocking on anybody in the film, but they just don’t have the star power as of yet. In the case of Allen, that will change. But here we have an early example of what kind of auteur the man is. He knows his way with words and he can be a very funny guy. Case in point where he decides to go to a sub shop and order thousands of orders for his rebel camp. Just seeing people bring the food to the camp in wheelbarrows was priceless. Louise Lassier was married to Allen at the time of filming, and she does a decent job as the girl who is awkward in relationships and is in love with political rallies more than her boyfriend. If anyone is good at spotting cameos, keep an eye out for Sylvester Stallone. He plays one of the thugs on the subway.

I thought Bananas was a very entertaining, well-written satire by Woody Allen. He certainly has a style you have to grow accustomed to and it’s still hard for me to do that. I used to refuse to watch any of his works because his style turned me off, but I’m slowly warming up to his movies. I was able to enjoy this movie very much, but some jokes didn’t land well as others did. Regardless, this is an effective movie from early in Woody Allen’s career and despite some small flaws, I can easily recommend it.

My Grade: B+

THX-1138

It is really interesting to see how this little sci-fi original film THX-1138 came to fruition. In the late 1960’s, the definition of an American film included the likes of films about young life, motorcycles, cars, and other experimental films. Two young filmmakers named Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas created their own company called American Zoetrope which would focus on making these kind of films. Unfortunately when American film changed to character films, their production company was left behind in the dust. THX-1138 was their first film and ultimately it wasn’t treated well by Warner Brothers. It eventually became a modest box office success and garnered a cult following.

But the big question is what I thought of THX-1138. I love science fiction films, especially if they are based on originality. This film is an original work directed by George Lucas (you know, the guy who created Star Wars). He originally had a short film based on this premise in the 1960’s, so it was a dream for him that he was able to create a full feature-length film. My blunt opinion is the film is not bad. It has some shortcomings, but I liked the picture on the whole. It features a simple storyline that is common in many sci-fi films, especially in more modern ones. I do like the concepts. Rising against the totalitarian government in order to feel love is a unique concept.

The film has such a simple storyline-in which I’ll describe in a moment, but the film is a visual wonder. I really liked the use of the color palette, but Lucas takes advantage of using white as his primary color. After the main character THX-1138 is captured, he is sent to a prison where he and the prisoners are embalmed in nothing but white. What’s the point of escaping from a prison that has no walls and is just a long, meandering white void? But even outside the prison-the hallways, living corridors, etc, white plays a huge role. It shows what a bleak, dystopian world the movie features. Also a high point of the film is the sound effects. The film was made on a very low budget, so the sound effects are admittedly rather cheap. But Lucas uses these effects in the right way. They add to the creepiness of the film as well as getting the audience to know what a bleak society these people are.

I do have some issues with the film. It has somewhat of a simple, maybe even derivative storyline but Lucas works with the story very well and creates an engaging one. However, I felt there were pacing issues. The movie is really short as it doesn’t even crack the 90-minute mark. But sometimes, I felt I was watching a three-hour movie. Maybe it was the lack of heavy action or that the first section was a bleak love story, but it somehow felt like a very long movie. Also, I had an issue with the looks of the characters. Every human in the movie is bald. I ask myself why they would do that. The story doesn’t really explain it very well. The women all looked ugly without hair and it was pretty distracting.

In this film, humans have been forced to live underground and the government controlling the people is a totalitarian government where all citizens are drugged to suppress their emotions. Their behaviors, especially love and sex, are a crime. The population is controlled by a robotic police force (not all too bright though). One day, a factory worker named THX-1138 (Robert Duvall) stops taking the drugs and a wave of emotions hit him when he discovers love as he falls in love with his roommate LUH-3417. After she is confirmed as pregnant, THX is arrested and sent to prison. With the help of another prisoner-a programmer named SEN-5241 (Donald Pleasance), he escapes from the prison in search for LUH and to escape from this underground city.

The performances are all solid ones. Robert Duvall draws some attention to his portrayal of THX-1138. Despite everything that goes on, Duvall does a good job at keeping his character rather calm and intact through the duration of the film. Another strong performance is that of Donald Pleasance. Pleasance does a serviceable job as THX’s fellow escapee.

THX-1138 was the beginning of the career of George Lucas. It shows he had a good directing style (though that will change many years later). The story was written by Francis Ford Coppola. It is a simple story, but an interesting one full of bleakness, despair, and everything you would want to see in such a dystopian film. The movie has some cool effects both visually and sound-wise, and they may be why people were interested in the film. The movie does have some good stunts. That chase at the end between THX and the police robots was fun to watch. The film isn’t a great film, but it’s an entertaining, serviceable science fiction film.

My Grade: B