“Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”

For those who know a little history, you would know who General George S. Patton is. You would know that he is served in World War Two as one of the top American generals on the European battlefront. He was a very smart man, but also an eccentric man. His eccentric manners is what took him away from taking part of D-Day. But there is no denying the influence he had on the war. Without his leadership, who knows how the war would have turned out. In 1970, a movie about his life came out and it was well-received by nearly everyone who has seen it. The movie was worked on by close associates of Patton, such as General Omar Bradley. An interesting fact is the producers of the film contacted the Patton family for information…..only a day after Patton’s widow was laid to rest so it’s a sad matter-of-fact that the producers didn’t get any help from Patton’s family. I remember vividly looking forward to this movie, and luckily I can join the crowd of people who adored this film.

From the moment I see George C. Scott walking onstage as Patton to deliver his iconic speech in front of a sprawling American flag, I knew this was going to be a great movie. Every scene is captivating especially when Scott is in it, but the opening scene is the greatest, most powerful scene in the movie. The above quote I featured is part of the speech and immediately you can tell what kind of man Patton was. Patton was a man who took no crap from anybody and was a man who dearly loved his country. He spoke with such colorful language (although that idea was exaggerated in the film) and he had a way to make those words count. He was a man of perfection. You can see that during a scene where he slaps a soldier for being in a hospital for depression instead of battle injuries. That caused him a fall from grace, but you can see the man Patton was. The movie does an exemplary job in making Patton a lifelike character on the big screen.

This isn’t your typical birth-to-death biography. This is a biography that covers Patton during the wartime years. The movie makes a point in showing what a fine general he was and how he positively contributed to the war, but it did not hold back on showing him as an eccentric man. The scenes where he drags his very scared puppy around everywhere he goes is just one of those examples. The film begins with his conquests in Libya as he drives German general Rommel out of the country. Then we see a downfall of his due to his big mouth and incident where he slaps the soldier. Then we see a comeback as Patton commands the Allies on the European front mowing down Germans left and right as they move closer to Berlin.

The main actor in the film, of course, is George C. Scott who delivers a splendid performance as Patton. In fact, this may be the best performance of Scott’s long career and he had a wonderful career. The performance works on various levels. Scott is an onscreen presence to be reckoned with and he follows the oldest rule in the acting handbook-to become the character. I felt I was watching Patton the entire time, despite the mannerisms of Scott. But also you can draw parallels between the two men. Scott is seen as a recluse in Hollywood because he was so eccentric. He had the extreme talent, but his personality made him like an outcast. It was a foregone conclusion he was going to win the Oscar for Best Actor (and he did), but the question was if he was going to personally accept the award. He did not stating he did not like the Academy or acting competitions in general. Scott and Patton would have been great blood brothers. Casting Scott to play Patton is one of cinema’s greatest casting decisions ever. Scott delivered such a powerful performance. The other main performance was Karl Malden who delivers an admirable performance as General Omar Bradley, the man who gave Patton a second chance in the war.

Patton is a long film as it clocks in nearly three hours long and Scott is in nearly every frame, but it works very much thanks to Scott’s layered performance enhancing upon Patton’s theatricality. The guy who possesses such bravery also loves to hear himself speak during his long-winded speeches. The movie has many speeches, but they are worthy of your attention. The guy gives such a commanding presence and I got the goosebumps during that opening scene. The movie sees the war the way Patton saw it and it’s an exhilarating experience.

The direction is also a highlight of the film. Franklin J. Schaffner is known for taking on ambitious projects and this may have been his most ambitious project he may have ever tackled. It’s fun to see directors rise to the challenge and Schaffner took a mighty challenge here and won. Also a noticeable presence was the score by Jerry Goldsmith. He created such a patriotic score with the help of a pipe organ. Everytime I think of Patton himself, the main theme becomes stuck in my head and that is a good thing. 1970 was a good year for war films. M.A.S.H and now Patton are must-see war films from that year. The former film was a spoof on the dangers of war, but the latter is about a man who dedicated his life to winning the war his style. And his style is very interesting to watch. A man who won’t back down from anything. Because of George S. Patton, the Allies won the war.

My Grade: A

I must admit that the disaster movie genre is one of my favorite genres or more specifically subgenres. When looked at on a whole, this particular genre hasn’t been well-received by critics. Regular people (myself included) eat these kind of spectacles up and we love them. Which plays a part in the commercial success of this genre. After all, who doesn’t want to see earthquakes or towering infernos or alien attacks, etc. The 1970’s gave birth to this kind of movie and if you would want to single out any particular movie that began this new wave, it’s 1970’s Airport. The goal of these kind of movies is to make sure the audience have fun. Personally, I had a very fun time watching the film so Airport does its most important job.

When originally released, the film was met was respectable reviews. It was something that was never seen before on the big screen, but modern critics panned the movie despite praising its influence. The story itself is attention-grabbing. I became interested in a plot that calls for a severe snowstorm causing havoc at an airport. But the way the story is told is told in such ludicrous detail. I mean you really need to stretch your imagination because some plot points can become downright preposterous. Which I guess adds to its campy tone. The movie itself is not taken too seriously so you’ll have the chance to not think because if you think too much, you’ll easily notice flaw after flaw and that will take from the campy, fun tone of the movie.

George Seaton directs a film about a busy airport that is stricken because of a blizzard. The runways are shut down because of the snow and all flights are canceled. But more problems arise when a bomb-damaged plane needs to make an emergency landing if anyone on board that plane is going to live. The manager of the Lincoln Airport, Mel Bakersfield (Burt Lancaster) has his hands full trying to combat the weather, his personnel, and his personal life if people are going to be saved this night.

Critics may hold no true love for these kind of films, but I am always amazed on the casts they can muster. It’s only fair that the granddaddy of all disaster films would have a wonderful cast. It’s ironic because the main star, Lancaster later called this film “a piece of junk.” All the performances are fine in the film, but I feel maybe they could have had fun (some did though). For such a campy atmosphere, some people took their roles way too seriously. Anyhow, Lancaster does a great job as Mel and Dean Martin does a good job as the pilot of the damaged plane, Vernon Demerest. The one big standout of the film is Helen Hayes, who plays a 70-year-old stowaway. She was an absolute hoot to watch trying to get her way into a free airplane ticket. Her performance is a must see. Also throwing in a ridiculous over-the-top performance is Van Heflin, the man who had the bomb in the briefcase. The way he shakes, sweats, etc, his overacting is plenty of stupid fun and Maureen Stapleton as his wife who decided to apologize to everyone in the airport for her husband’s actions.

I am astounded a film like this would be nominated for an Oscar. Well my friends, guess what? Airport was nominated for ten Oscars!? I’m still surprised very much how such a campy film would achieve that feat. I’m not saying there is anything wrong with the film, but it is a kind of genre the Academy never paid much attention to. Hayes did win for her supporting turn  (and rightfully so). It also was nominated for Oscars for a bunch of technical work such as sound and editing, which was all well-done.

Airport is campy, over-the-top, and quite predictable……but I had a blast watching the film. There is no denying how influential the film was as it proved people do want to see these kind of actioners. I was hooked from start to finish as I rooted for Mel to be a hero and save the people on the plane. The movie is quite suspenseful at times, but quite funny in others. The plot had issues and I didn’t like the personal life of Mel’s. That section got in the way of the main story at times. I didn’t love this film, but I had a blast and enjoyed it very much so.

My Grade: B+

Now my fellow readers, we have moved into a new decade of film- a very memorable decade because many influential movies were introduced to the public. Many of these movies had something to say. This is my first review from the 1970’s-the review of M.A.S.H which is about staying sane in the heat of war. The film came out when things were going downhill in Vietnam. People hated the involvement in the Vietnam War, but this movie was so successful despite the setting in 1951 during the Korean War. How could it be so successful? Well it was a funny and subversive movie and it was unlike any war picture people have seen. The adventures of Hawkeye Pierce and Duke Forrest stayed in the minds of many Americans and later on, it inspired a very popular television series off the title name. As for me, I found some moments to be uproariously hilarious, but I found other moments to be somewhat dull.

The movie had somewhat of a problematic production largely due to the tension between the director and his cast. Robert Altman, who would turn out to be one of America’s most influential directors, was new to the world of film. He filmed in the movie in an unconventional way, and it bothered the cast so much that rumors say that actors Donald Sutherland and Elliot Gould were trying to get the director fired. The director has been known to turn down projects because of lack of quality, so he wanted to make the films the way he wanted to make them. This film was different and it raised the eyebrows of the studio, 20th Century Fox. The film lacked a central narrative and it tells the story in somewhat of an episodic way, which was rarely seen those days. The studio believed they had a disaster on their hands, but luckily they were wrong.

Altman’s film takes place in November of 1951. The 4077th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital is ready to be surprised when Captain Hawkeye Pierce (Donald Sutherland) and Captain Duke Forrest arrive (Tom Skerritt.) Their duo of merry surgeons are joined by Trapper John McIntyre (Elliot Gould). They were all great surgeons, but terrible soldiers (in a good, funny way.) They deal with the effects of war by pretending they don’t care. They use comedy in their lives to set their minds on other things that affects the camp in one way or the other. They pull of stunts such as getting rid of the really stupid Major Burns (Robert Duvall) after his “public” affair with “Hot Lips” O’Houlihan (Sally Kellerman). They help the camp dentist commit suicide (which actually is the best scene of the movie in my book.)

It took me awhile to warm up to them, but I liked the performances of the film. The characters are rather interesting. When not in the surgeon room operating, they run around the camp making fun of other people. But they show a contrast when in the operating room. They are covered in blood, and they look so realistic performing such operations like sawing off a leg or closing up arteries and using such words related to their medical profession. Seeing the contrast between the two sides was very interesting. It shows they are serious when it comes to their job of saving lives, but in general are just goofballs. Donald Sutherland does a great job as the leader of the gang and Elliot Gould and Tom Skerritt likewise turn in good, fun performances. I also found Robert Duvall’s brief performance as the idiotic Major Burns was a hoot to watch.

The music in the film is also memorable. I liked the song that played at the beginning of the movie, “Suicide Is Painless,” which was written by a 15-year-old apparently. But that song would become the main theme song for the television series. It continued the trend of using pop ballads in feature films introduced several years previously, but it’s a song that I found very enjoyable.

So just remember, the film uses dark comedy in the face of war. This movie may not be for everybody. I really didn’t care much to see it at first because the tone turned me off, but it’s not a bad little film. The scene where they are helping the dentist commit suicide is a classic scene. The scene reminded me of the classic Leonardo Da Vinci’s painting “The Last Supper.” If you saw the film, you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about. In the beginning, where they are giving hell to Major Burns was also very entertaining. I couldn’t stop laughing when they got Major Burns and Hot Lips making love over the camp’s loudspeakers. Just a brilliant scene. Also the use of those very loudspeakers were a main part of the story, and a plot novice according to Altman. These random (but often funny) loudspeaker announcements helped connect the “episodes” in the film.

I had some issues with the film. I liked the loudspeaker announcements, but I felt it gave the film a choppy look and that it wasn’t edited that well. Also, the final act of the film is focused on a football game against a general. The football game itself was well-done, but I felt it ruined the tone of the film. It didn’t fit with the first two-thirds of the movie. The game was meant to be funny, but the funny references are what only true football fans will get. I like the sport, but I wouldn’t call myself a fan so some of these references went over my head.

That being said, I rather enjoyed M.A.S.H. It is a different kind of war movie and I applaud the efforts of Robert Altman to bring his vision to screen. He didn’t even use the screenplay written by Ring Lardner Jr. which actually went on to win an Oscar for best adapted screenplay.  It was nominated for four Oscars including Picture and Director. The performances are genuinely funny because of the characters and the situations they get themselves into. The movie took a bold move in portraying the story and it worked out. It shows there can be lightness during dark times. But the dark comedy, while very hilarious at times can be a little offensive. It is a good movie, and I can respect the kind of film it wanted to be.

My Grade: B

Ladies and gentleman, the time has arrived for me to review a new kind of genre compared to all my reviewed films so far; the western genre. Western films were very popular in early American cinema because of actors like John Wayne. But as the decades came and passed, the popularity of the western began to decline. One of the last memorable westerns from the olden days was this film, 1969’s The Wild Bunch. It has received ecstatic reviews and it has been praised for its realism and its themes. The violence portrayed in the film was, and remains controversial. From this era, it’s my understanding this is one of the most violent films you’ll see. As for myself, I respect the film very much especially when it comes to the realism aspects and the gritty performances. I actually disliked the film on my first viewing, but my second viewing changed my mind rather drastically. Still far from a perfect film, but I understand why people called this film a classic and I found myself really warming up to it after my second viewing.

The themes are very interesting and I believe these themes that affects everyone, old and young. It’s about a clash of old versus the new. The setting of the film is right after the turn of the 20th century in the years leading up to the first World War. The wild bunch aka the main outlaw gang are old, worn out, and ready for retirement. Times are changing and it’s not all about the horses and the guns anymore. Technology is beginning to be pivotal at this point in America. One of the bunch remarks after seeing a car, “they’re gonna use them in the war, they say.” Because of changing times, new generations come into play. In the very opening scene, we see the bunch passing a group of children playing with scorpions and eye contact is made between the leader, Pike and one of the children. I think that is important because it sets up the last few scenes of the movie. In a sense, the passing of the torch from the older to newer generation. I thought these are very powerful scenes and the film uses them very well.

One of the controversial things about the film is the use of the violence. The violence gives the movie its sense of realism. Director Sam Peckinpah meant to use the violence as an allegory to the Vietnam War, in which Americans were seeing on their television sets every night. Peckinpah wanted to show that violence was awful, and not a pleasant thing to witness. Most western films glorified the violence and made it bloodless. But Peckinpah’s vision was different. Such gun battles were common on the American frontier, and they were extremely bloody. The last act of the film makes a fine example of that statement when Pike’s gang decides to take on a Mexican village whom kidnapped one of their members. So be forewarned, the film does not shy away from it’s violence.

This outlaw gang led by Pike (William Holden) is on the brink of retirement. They know their time is up and its up to a new generation to take over. They plan on doing one last score before they settle down. However one of their own is kidnapped by the Mexicans and although the group knows it is a suicide attempt, they decide to possibly do their last hurrah by staging a rescue mission. I think the plot was pretty good, and once again the themes are prevalent throughout this story. They ain’t young men anymore.

The performances are very effective from everyone, but its the three leads who steal the thunder. William Holden is an amazing actor and I felt he was perfectly cast as Pike. He brought good leadership qualities to his character. He is a man who knows when it is time to move on. His first mate, in a sense, was played by Ernest Borgnine. He also delivers a quality performance as Butch. I also loved the performance of Robert Ryan, the former gang member turned bounty hunter who is charged with bringing Pike to justice. I loved seeing the dynamics of Ryan’s character who was a former friend of Pike and is now going after him.

There are two giant violent action set pieces-once in the beginning and once at the end. While I think the action itself was done well, I didn’t like the treatment of civilians, especially during the first one during a failed bank robbery. There was a mighty gun battle with Ryan’s character, Deke on a rooftop shooting down at Pike’s gang  in the bank, but with no regard to the civilians. I mean the man is on the side of the law, so I was bewildered by that. But it’s not really a major issue. The second part is pretty much a “blaze of glory” act. I won’t give what happens here away, but rest assured there are many, many bullets used in this sequence.

I found interesting how you could parallel the themes of the story to the themes of Peckinpah’s career. He hadn’t made a film in five years prior to the film because he was fired off his last movie. He is extremely difficult to work with and it was hard for him to progress into new Hollywood. Just like his characters in the film, he was old, worn-out, drunk, violent, and a man ready to move on. He is a very accomplished director, but he was given a very notorious reputation.

The Wild Bunch is a good western and it was mostly a fun if somewhat grueling watch. The violence can be hard to watch sometimes, especially during that final gun battle. Peckinpah wanted realism, and well he got it. He said his mission was to show people the feeling of being gunned down, and I did get that feeling a few times. The film is not a light movie. It’s about betrayal, violence, and the realization that your time is up. The movie does not shy away from its messages and it will hit you hard. I loved the realism of the movie, which many older Westerns are devoid of. Peckinpah’s screenplay does serve the film justice and so does the look of it. I often got the feeling I was out there amongst the sand with the people in the movie. The movie is not for the light-hearted, so consider yourself warned.

My Grade: B

I love movies like 1969’s Midnight Cowboy. They are the kind of movies that are embedded in American culture. They tell a story about the reality of everyday people and the themes explored are ones that people can relate to. I love all different kind of stories, but I find these stories featuring real-life themes to be more meaningful. This is a classic example of an American film-a film with a gritty tone involving the everyday life of ordinary people. The Hollywood studio system began to change in the late 1960’s and instead of focusing on big-budget epics, they narrowed their focus down to American dramas similar in style to this film. The 1970’s is very popular regarding these kind of films, so stay tuned for future reviews to understand my point.

The main theme of the movie is love. But it’s not just any kind of love. The movie has overtones of homosexuality, which caused lots of controversy when released. It was unheard of that a movie would feature such things in a movie, but as Bob Dylan likes to sing, “times are a-changing.” The love interests are between our two main characters, a Texas cowboy named Joe Buck and a New York City outcast named Ratso. At first, they only use each other for business interests. But as the movie progress, a friendship evolves between them. A very close friendship that symbolizes something deeper than that. The movie does not explicitly say the men were gay (although there are some scenes that may say otherwise), but it grows clearer and clearer there is some kind of romantic attraction between the two men. Here is some interesting trivia. When it came out, it received an X-rating. This is the only motion picture to have ever been nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars with an X-rating. People felt like the film would give their children very bad influences, which I believe was a bunch of crap. However in 1972, the film was changed to an R-rating where it currently stands today.

This film is essentially a love story set in the good ol’ Big Apple. Joe Buck (Jon Voight) is a hustler who is from Texas. He decides to move to New York City to chase his big dream involving lots of cash and women. But very quickly he learns the city in the east is a much different animal compared to his small Texas hometown. He makes some money as a hustler, but he doesn’t have very many opportunities. Then he meets a shady man named Ratso (Dustin Hoffman) who deals with the underbelly of New York. They forge a partnership as Ratso decides to show Joe Buck how to make it rich. As the adventures begin to roll on, they might have feelings for each other that they could have never expected to have.

These kind of films rely on acting, and it’s an understatement to say Hoffman and Voight crushed it with their roles. Hoffman was a rising star with his turn in 1967’s The Graduate, but he shows here that film was no fluke. Hoffman’s character was not a guy I’d generally root for, but Hoffman gave his character so much sympathy. He was a flawed man who needed a friend and more importantly, needed love. I find it ironic how the character’s name was Ratso. Ratso did somewhat resemble a human-sized rat in the movie, which I guess is a symbol for the criminal underbelly of New York City. Jon Voight crushes it in one of his first major roles. The scenes when he first arrives in New York are fabulous and pretty funny. His cowboy hat doesn’t look right amongst the clad of people in their business suits and I love how he tried to hustle women in public to no avail. New York is a different beast, my friend. The chemistry between the two are spot-on. From their mutual thoughts on living in Florida to their hustling deals, the chemistry here is something special.

The film relies upon the dynamite performances of Hoffman and Voight to succeed, but there is the tidy direction of John Schlesinger who helped changed the face of cinema with his controversial art. There is the strong screenplay Waldo Scott, which depicts the underbelly of American life in a way that it makes it difficult to watch. I only wished he left out that stupid psychedelic party scene of his screenplay. It really did not fit with the tone of the movie and it was cringing to watch, although this is where we can see love come into play for the two characters. This era also introduced using songs in addition to the score. The Graduate began that trend, and the film makes good example from that trend. The song, “Everybody’s Talkin’ to Me” is a wonderful song with strong lyrics that add to the story.

Midnight Cowboy is an American film that is known as a love story between bros, but it is deeper than that. It’s a story about valued friendship. The paths are very different at the end, compared to where they were in the beginning. The ending comes across as tragic, but in a way it is also a very sweet ending. I had misty eyes, but I also had a nice smile on my face. Honestly, there shouldn’t have been any controversy with the film. If this was released today, people wouldn’t bat an eye at the subject matter. Luckily, the majority of the people loved this film upon release and it became a heavily influential film. Just see 2005’s Brokeback Mountain, and you’ll see some similar themes. I really enjoyed watching the movie. I was curious at why the film was deemed controversial, but in the end it was just another powerful love story.

My Grade: A

Where Eagles Dare has been given the status of one of the best war movies ever produced. I think that statement is going a little too far, but I found the movie to be an effective war film and one of the better ones from an era in which seemingly hundreds of movies focused on World War II were released. Despite the acclaim it has received, it has received notice for historical inaccuracy. Personally I don’t mind because the value of a movie is entertainment, not truth. On top of that, this story which was written by Alistair Maclean as a pet project for Richard Burton so it’s a work of fiction, so history accuracy should not matter here. The movie is rather lengthy as it clocks in a tad over two-and-a-half hours, but I felt the time flew by quickly. There are plenty of action sequences and most of them are convincing and entertaining. Who wouldn’t want to see Allied personnel lay waste to a bunch of Nazi scum? Despite this being a piece of fiction, I was washed over by a feeling of pleasure watching these Allied troops infiltrate a Nazi stronghold.

During the war, a British aircraft was shot down over Nazi territory leaving only one survivor, an American general. The Allies are fearful because he knows all about the D-Day invasion, which holds the key to their success in achieving victory. They decide its best that he not divulge any information to the Nazis, so they plan a rescue mission. The team is led by Major John Smith (Richard Burton)-I know, such an original name right?, and his second-in-command, Lieutenant Schaffer (Clint Eastwood) who happens to be the only American in the rescue group. After the parachute drop goes wrong, it becomes clear to Schaffer that the mission is more important and more secretive than originally thought.

The performances seem to be low-key despite the starpower in the main roles. You know, the one and only Richard Burton and the main famous for his manly scowl, Clint Eastwood. They all did well in their roles, even if their roles are not the best they have ever done. Burton does well in anything he does so it’s no surprise he does so here. I like Clint Eastwood, and he puts his action chops to good use here. I read that he thought the screenplay was horrible and he wished to be given less speaking lines. So director Brian G. Hutton gave more of his lines to Burton and allowed Eastwood to focus more on the action. In the end, I think that worked out well.

Where Eagles Dare is a very fun, entertaining movie. The movie has lots of muscle to it, but it surprisingly has a good amount of brains to it. That scene in the headquarters meeting room with Burton revealing some traitors, that was an incredible scene. Burton’s character was messing around with the heads of everyone in the room, friend or foe. The action is consistent and they do a solid job. From the beginning with that parachute drop to the infiltration of the Nazi headquarters, to the grand escape with a bunch of Nazis on their heels-it was all good fun watching Smith and crew act smarter than the Nazi’s. The movie itself is nothing special, but it’s fun, entertaining, and a war thriller that doesn’t take itself seriously. Not everything about the film plays off as rational, but does it really have to be?

My Grade: A-

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

The first time I saw Oliver!, I was not too fond of it. I must have been in a foul mood that day or perhaps my younger brain didn’t appreciate the film as I do today. It’s not a perfect film by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s a fun, harmless musical that brings the words of Charles Dickens to life-musically speaking of course. Those who are familiar with classic literature will know that this film is based of the classic Dickens novel, Oliver Twist. The novel was previously made in a film adaptation by David Lean (which I have yet to see), and that was more of a straightforward narrative, while this film acts more like a musical.

This film is a musical, and its damn proud to be one. The tone of the film is relatively dark and serious at times especially in the second act, but I was able to detect some lightness in the tone. I attribute that because of the music, which was overseen by John Green who overseen musicals at MGM during the heyday of musicals in the late 1940’s. There are just some songs here that will swell you up with happiness and wonder. Two songs that come to mind is the lovely “Who Will Buy” which is the leadoff song of the second act, and the relatively comical song “Reviewing the Situation.” Out of the other songs, I enjoyed the one called “Food, Glorious Food.” That song sounds like a cheerful song, but it’s not because it’s about the young boy who is yearning for food after suffering from meager rations. I mostly liked the songs on the whole, although sometimes they seemed a little stuffy.

Unlike the novel, the film focuses away from the main character of the story-Oliver, and focuses more on the villains and there are quite a few of them. If you think about it, there’s nothing that interesting about Oliver himself. He’s not a bad kid, but he does not elevate the story. This is where the villains come in. We have Fagin who is an elderly man who runs a group of child pickpockets. There is the malicious Bill Sykes who is a former pupil of Fagin’s and is a very dangerous man. There is the “Artful Dodger” who is a kid who works with Fagin as the number one pickpocket. It’s a very interesting cast of villains and it was a pleasure watching them develop onscreen.

Oliver Twist (Mark Lester) is a poor orphan who is kicked out of the orphanage after asking for more dinner one day. Then he is received by Fagin (Ron Moody) and his merry gang of pickpockets. He is taught the trade by Fagin and the Artful Dodger (Jack Wild). After being accused of a theft, he is taken in by a kinder, richer gentleman who may know something about Oliver’s past. That raises the interest of Bill Sykes (Oliver Reed) and his love Nancy (Shani Wallis). Bill attempts to use Oliver as mean to get rich while Oliver finds an ally in Nancy.

The performances are not bad, but there are nothing truly memorable outside the performances of Ron Moody and Oliver Reed. Moody delivers a dynamite performance as Fagin and he really embodies his character through song. He is one of cinema’s most underrated and memorable villains. Reed also transcends the screen with his memorable performance as the overly violent Sykes. Jack Wild had a decent performance as the Artful Dodger, but I don’t think his character was developed as well. As for Mark Lester, well I believe his performance was bland. Not bad nor good, but just bland. I actually saw in my research that Mark Lester was awful at singing, so his voice had to be dubbed by the director’s daughter. Ouch!

The film looks amazing. The production design gave the film a moody feeling and we see the darkness arise on their makeshift cobbled London streets. The sets are great and they did a good job with the costumes. They did not go overboard with everything. They struck the perfect balance when it came to the looks of the film, so I was pleased about that.

This film was directed by Sir Carol Reed and he delivers a smooth direction, especially when it came to the tone of it. He was able to strike the fine line between the serious and light tones when needed. Despite all of the darkness, this is an excellent family film. I found, on discussion forums, that people enjoyed watching it with their families. When that happens, you know you have a successful movie on your hands. It certainly did well when it came to the awards pundits. It was nominated for eleven Oscars, and won six of them including Best Picture and Best Picture. An interesting fact is that this is the only G-rated film that has ever won Best Picture. I found that piece of trivia mind-blowing.

All-in-all, I found Oliver! to be an entertaining musical, even if it suffers from flaws. The film looks beautiful and it works due to fluid direction, solid performances, and some good music.

My Grade: B+

There are many things in life that are meant for each other. Things such as me and my movies or Albert Einstein and science. In cinematic terms, you can add Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon to the list. In terms of pure comedy, the matchups of Matthau and Lemmon over many decades resulted in great comedy films. They are like very close brothers because they have been in so many films together. One such film is The Odd Couple. The movie is based of the smash Broadway hit which was written by Neil Simon. Simon also wrote the screenplay for the film, which is one of the highlights of the films. As older people may remember, the film share many similarities with the Broadway play. The play was directed by Mike Nichols, and it’s been told the two share a sense of similar direction despite this film being directed by Gene Saks. Walter Matthau acted as the character Oscar in both mediums. I’ve also read they even shared the same sets. So basically, this film is the exact same thing as the Broadway play but now it has accessibility to people over the world because it’s a movie.

This film surpassed my rather high expectations I had for the film. Honestly, I’ve never seen any movies with them in it but I heard they are just incredible comedic talents. There wasn’t a moment that go by I was not entertained or laughing. There are times where it feels like a drawn-out television soap opera, and that got a little grating at times. But that is very low criticism. The charms and comedy of Matthau and Lemmon are just too good to miss.

The Odd Couple is about a man named Felix Ungar (Jack Lemmon) who is in the state of depression because of his very recent break-up with his life. He was on his way to commit suicide when his best friend Oscar Madison (Walter Matthau) intervenes. Oscar offers Felix his home for the temporary being. Felix reluctantly agrees. But the two men are polar opposites when it comes to cleanliness. Oscar lives in a house that a pig would be proud off, while Felix possesses a tidy nature. Those two personalities clash and hijinks ensue between the two friends.

It seems like all I mentioned so far were how good the two leads are. They are great real-life friends, and you can see that by how they work with each other in the movie. They feed off each other very well, and the chemistry alone is worth watching this movie for. Lemmon plays his role as Felix straight, while Matthau’s character is way less serious, as evident of his slobiness. My favorite scene is where Felix decides to clean Oscar’s kitchen much to dis dismay. Felix decides to play the motherly character and cook a hearty meal for Oscar each night instead of his excessive junk-eating he had been doing prior to Felix’s arrival. I also liked the scenes where Oscar decides to take himself and Felix on blind dates with some neighbors. Oscar had some high intentions, but they hilariously backfired on him.

Overall, The Odd Couple is a fine little comedy. It may not be recognized by modern audiences, but it really should be seen. The performances are excellent and Neil Simon’s screenplay is sharp and I love how me makes the contrast between neatness and tidiness a big factor in the relationships of the two men. The film started off pretty serious, but I loved how the tone progressively gotten lighter as the minutes went on. It’s a sharp-written and funny movie, even if there are some mindless soap opera moments.

My Grade: A

When it comes to discussing influential movies of all time, I’d call you crazy if you did not mention 2001: A Space Odyssey. This film influenced science fiction of the future, so without this film there would be no Star Wars. This film influenced the style of future directors like Steven Spielberg and Ridley Scott, whom are fantastic filmmakers. Not only is the film influential, it’s also a great movie in general. When it was first released in 1968, it was met with mixed reviews. People saw a vision that has not been seen before, and they had no idea what to think of it. I read reports of walkouts at the premiere that occurred and those who remained complained of boredom. The film is deliberately slow-paced, but my interest was held over the duration of the film. I loved the film very much, but there are so many complicated ideas. Your brain is meant to be put to use because of all these abstract ideas. I’ve seen the film three times already, and I’m still not sure if I fully grasped all the concepts of the film. But the bottom line is 2001 is more concerned about inspiring our awe, not thrills.

One of the big reasons why we are supposed to feel a sense of awe is the music itself. You know, originally the film had an original composition by Alex North. Director Stanley Kubrick had a back up soundtrack he used to help him with the editing process. The problem is (in North’s case) the music just worked too damn well with the film to not use it. He used various classical compositions such as The Blue Danube and Also sprach Zarathustra composed by Richard Strauss. The music played a huge role in the film. I feel as if it was used as the main dialogue. There is some dialogue of course, but the music tells the story and pulls the emotional strings. Kubrick’s film has no dialogue the first and final twenty minutes of the film. It is all music, and the placement is right on the money.

It’s hard to describe what this film is actually about. There is no single plot line. Instead, the film and its themes are about the evolution of mankind. There are four main segments to the film. The first part takes place in prehistoric times. A group of apes discovered this shiny black monolith which of course is made by intelligent beings of some kind. Somehow, the monolith convinced the apes were able to discover that bones could be used as weapons. The next section takes place a few millennia later, and this is where we have the famous docking scene played to the tune of The Blue Danube. We are given a sense of realism of the docking because of the deliberately slow pace. After the docking scene, we discover a second monolith which delivers us to the next segment involving the spaceship Discovery and its intelligent mind, HAL. The ship is on a mission of some kind, although we don’t glimpse many details. The final segment is the famous Stargate sequence featuring astronaut Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) as he travels through some wormhole to some unexplained space.

This is one of those rare films where acting does not matter. There are not many actors present after all. Sure, I guess you could call Dullea’s performance good, but he doesn’t seem to matter in the film. The computer system, HAL probably shows the most emotion of anyone in the film. His voice even sounds panicked when he realizes he is about to be unplugged for good. This is one of the early films to use the theme of man versus machine. HAL believes he has good intentions, but at the sake of the astronaut’s lives. He has been holding back information and later on in the minds of the astronauts, he is believed to be the bad guy.

Ah, now lets talk about the spectacle of the film. The visuals are amazing, even today after all these years. We are now in the digital age, where CGI looks consistently impressive (or in some cases, not at all). But the special effects, designed with the help of Douglas Trumbull, look very convincing because the film gives off an aura of being a documentary, and the effects follows suit. They just look very real for the setting they are in. The spaceship itself looks real and I loved the docking sequence. Towards the end, where we witness the vast amount of colors and the Star Child, I was basked in a glow of delight watching the effects come to life.

What I like about all of Kubricks film is that they ask us deep questions. For example, this film concerns mankind and evolution. The film asks us who we are and what is life about. Kubrick never gave in to tell us what the film is about. He opened the film up for interpretation and every idea is a plausible idea, according to Kubrick. We are just not skin and bones, but we are intelligence. We live not on planet Earth, but amongst the stars. These are just some of the ideas Kubrick was trying to convey. There are many themes to get out of the movie, being such an abstract film.

This is Kubrick’s most ambitious and most likely his greatest film he has ever made. I loved his previous film, Dr. Strangelove but he reaches news heights with this film. This is not a narrative story in the common sense so if you’ve never seen this film, just heed my warning. I love how the movie opens up for debate/interpretation and to this day, people debate about the themes and just how influential the movie is. Featuring amazing visuals and musical cues, 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the greatest, most influential movies of all time.

My Grade: A+

“Mrs. Robinson, you’re trying to seduce me. Aren’t you?”

If there is a movie that can hit viewers of all age from this groovy decade of the 1960’s, I would have to choose The Graduate. At it’s base, the movie is a coming-of-age story and usually those kind of stories relate with people of all ages. The younger generation may be living through the same eyes as the characters in the story and the older generation gets nostalgia as they remember the days of old. In fact, this movie is a favorite of my family. They grew up in the era when this film is released, so they understand the struggles the character is going through. Also the movie is recognizable because it is a damn fine piece of art. It took me years to see the film, and I finally did so recently. It did not hit me as strongly as it did with my family or other people of their generation, but there is no denying how good the film is.

I feel like I can relate to the film somewhat because I’m in the same boat of our main character, Ben Braddock. Ben is a recent college graduate, but is struggling to find a life after college. I know how he feels, because I have the same struggles in a much more competitive world. I can also relate to Ben’s personality, because I had similar traits years ago. Ben, in the film, struggles mightily around females because of his awkwardness. Back in my teenage days, I had similar issues. Although I eventually changed and I never fell for any older women like…..ahem….Ben does. But people adore this movie because of its very relatable themes involving post-graduation life.

One of the popular things about the movie was its soundtrack. The film heavily relied upon folk rock duo Simon & Garfunkel to provide the music, and provide the music they certainly did. One would say their most famous song is “Mrs. Robinson.” Now you know where the song received its personality. Personally, I loved the music in the film but other people, such as the late great Roger Ebert had major qualms about the music. But everyone is subjected to their own opinions because everyone usually have different opinions about any single movie.

This film follows around this kid, Ben Braddock (Dustin Hoffman) as he joins the big, wide world after college graduation. Everyone expects great things out of him, especially his parents (played by William Daniels and Elizabeth Wilson). At a homecoming party of his, Ben is asked to drive Mrs. Robinson (Anne Bancroft) home. Mrs. Robinson is the wife of his father’s business partner (Murray Hamilton). After Ben drove the seductive older woman home, they begin an affair. But things take a sharp turn when Ben meets Mrs. Robinson’s daughter, Elaine (Katherine Ross)…….and falls in love with her. Now with two women in his romantic life with the affair unbeknownst to each other, Ben is going to have a lot of work to do.

The film partly works because of its fine, naturalistic performances. Dustin Hoffman, despite being 29 at the film’s release, convincingly plays Braddock as a shy, awkward kid who wants to take this time in joining the real world. Hoffman will become a big star, and this is the first piece in helping him do so. My word, I really enjoyed Anne Bancroft’s performance as the seductive wife. She could have stolen any guy’s heart with her portrayal. It’s funny because she was supposed to be the older woman in the picture, but she’s only six years older than Hoffman is. Those of you who seen the 90’s sitcom, Boy Meets World, you’ll recognize Mr. Feeney himself, William Daniels who played Ben’s dad. He has some amusing scenes, and I particularly liked the scene where he forces his son to try on a scuba diving outfit much to Ben’s chagrin. Murray Hamilton has a rather smallish role as Mr. Robinson, but I thought he did a fine job and likewise for Katherine Ross as Elaine, whom we don’t meet until much later in the film.

Mike Nichols was a well-known director who is known for his quirkiness and sensibilities in all of his films. He sadly passed away earlier this year, but he left behind a legacy of well-known works. The Graduate is his first feature film and boy what a way to introduce yourself to Hollywood. He does an amazing job directing this film and it’s no surprise he won Best Director at the Oscars for his first film directorial effort. He told the story in a very crisp away and he never slowed down.

The film works as a comedy and a drama, but its not funny in a way you would think. The comedy is more subtle, and that makes it refreshing. However, not everything meant as comedy I found funny. You can blame me living in a different generation for that. The movie also offers some unforgettable scenes. The very last scene with Elaine and Ben in a bus…..just a classic scene and quite funny. Just watch the movie, and you’ll see what I mean.

Despite how much I enjoyed The Graduate, not all is perfect. The film feels outdated. What worked in the 1960’s doesn’t always work well today. Some jokes are not as funny and on the technical side of the film, it doesn’t hold up well. As one would say, the movie has rusty pipes. But those pipes still work perfectly fine. Thanks to the music, the performances, and the themes, The Graduate is a lesson that all young people should learn and it’s a movie that still appeals to the older generations. I enjoyed this film, even if other people enjoyed it more than I did.

My Grade: B+

I’m torn in what to think about In Cold Blood. On one hand, it’s a smart thriller that gives a taste of authenticity, being that it is based off a true story. The film was shot in the real locations the murder took place and it makes good use of black-and-white photography to give off a sense of realism. On the other hand, the pace of the film was excruciating slow. Except for the final half hour of the film, I was twitching non stop in my seat and every once in awhile, I caught my eyes drooping. A very good story to tell, but I wonder if the execution of the film was properly done.

Anyhow, this thriller received unanimous praise for its authentic storytelling and how this film could have been passed off as a documentary. The film is based of a murder of a family that took place in a rural Kansas town in the early 1960’s. The film is told almost exactly as the real murder went down. The black and white camera work was a good idea because it adds a realistic feeling to the film. The house where the murder took place was actually used to replicate the murder scenes for the film. Even people who were associated with the murders such as neighbors, friends, etc were played by themselves and I thought it was really cool. The performances from everyone came across as natural thus transforming their characters to a near life-like state.

This film is about a pair of ex-cons named Perry Smith (Robert Blake) and Dick Hickock (Scott Wilson) who are meeting in Kansas, thus breaking the terms of their parole. They plan a robbery based on information from a former cellmate of Dick’s in regards of ten thousand dollars worth of cash. Once they robbed the cash, they plan on moving down to Mexico to escape from the law enforcement. However, things don’t go as planned. They end up killing all four members of the Clutter family only coming away with a measly 43 dollars in cash. Now they are truly on the run from the law. But if Detective Alvin Dewey (John Forsythe) has a say, Perry and Dick will find their way at the end of hangman’s noose before all is said and done.

The film is a very small film and the cast is near unrecognizable (However, some of you might recognize Scott Wilson who played Herschel in the popular The Walking Dead series). Despite the relative unfamiliar faces, the performances come across as natural. It’s good the film does not feature any star power because it would have undermined what director Richard Brooks was trying to do. He was trying to recreate the events that happened as real as he could and having big name stars would not have helped his cause. I really enjoyed these performances. Robert Blake performed Perry very well. Perry was the more sensitive character but he can be violent. Dick, played wonderfully by Scott Wilson is more of the manipulator, the man who gen get people to bend to his will. He is also a dreamer, as he dreams for money and escape from America. The two actors had great chemistry with each other, which added on to the natural tone of the characters.

This film is not for everybody. It was certainly made very well. I had a huge problem involving the pace of the film. It seemed to move only at a snail’s pace especially during the second act. The film also has a sense of trickery to it, which may tick some people off. The first minutes of the film shows the first half of the murder before it dwindles to the next act. I started wondering if we were ever going to see the second half of the murder, when it suddenly happened towards the end. Those scenes were hard to watch, but they were undoubtedly powerful. The beginning and the end of the film are the best sections of the movie. The murder act itself and the aftermath/sentence of the two men were two scenes that were well-done. Also, I had mixed feeling about the score composed by Quincy Jones. On one hand, the score itself was great and is often thrilling. But on the other hand, the music is what you would hear in a Hollywood horror film and that’s exactly the opposite of what Brooks was trying to do-not to Hollywoodize his film. Personally, I accepted the use of the music after much thing but just barely.

The film does provide some themes to ponder about. The two guys are from different cultures and backgrounds, but they were attracted to each for the same goal. To rob money. The film also shows how emotion goes into the thinking. Because of the result of getting 43 dollars, it became an unfortunate turn of events for the Clutter family who were about to lose their lives due to bad information. The film is eerie, sad, and sometimes quite boring. This story was actually researched by Truman Capote and this research was turned into a screenplay by Richard Brooks. The screenplay was a very well-written one at least.

Overall, I generally liked In Cold Blood although I’m not over the moon about it as other critics are. I loved the authentic tone of the film and the performances are very natural. They bring Brook’s words to life as if they were their own words. But the film is very slow, and I found the second act to be painful to sit through. But there is no denying how effective the film is and the payoff is very powerful. I would recommend this film, but be prepared for a movie that takes its time to tell the story.

My Grade: B-

Stanley Kramer’s Guess Who’s Coming Home to Dinner is an old-fashioned, but heartfelt and endearing drama with a weighty topic (for the 1960’s and even in some regard today). That topic is the theme of interracial marriage. The 1960’s was when the African-Americans were fighting for their civil rights and eventually succeeded in getting them. But the white population were wary of them, even the liberals who supported their cause. This movie has such a strong premise, so strong that it has been known the principal actors signed on to the film without reading the screenplay. This was far from low-key because these actors happened to be major names like Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy, two of Hollywood’s greatest stars ever to be seen on the big screen. This controversial premise, interracial marriage, was seen as a positive factor in the film and that was a rarity for Hollywood productions back in the day.

Despite the use of the big theme, there is nothing new about the film hence me describing the film as old-fashioned in my opening sentence. William Rose’s screenplay is rather predictable and the characters, especially the minor ones were given the usual Hollywood stereotypes. We have the black maid who is seen as a mother figure and knows how to whip up a fine meal. There is the Irish monsignor who acts very Irish with those twinkly eyes and hearty laughs. Because the central premise is a black man marrying a white woman, of course each one’s family will vehemently oppose the marriage due to being different colors. But despite these predictable tropes and stereotypes…..the film won me over in a big way. The story is very charming and the performances are wonderful and they have even have a sense of poignancy thanks to the rapidly failing health of Spencer Tracy during production. Even the cheesy moments were charming, such as the opening song performed by Frank DeVol and the dance sequence by the milk delivery boy that was utterly pointless, but somehow brought a smile to my face.

Now the plot revolves around interracial marriage, as mentioned previously. Joanna Drayton (Katherine Houghton), a white 23-year old daughter of a liberal newspaper editor, Matt Drayton (Spencer Tracy) gets engaged during her Hawaiian vacation to a black man named Dr. John Prentice (Sidney Poitier). Everything is perfect about Prentice…..except his skin color. Joanna or as her friends and family call her Joey, decides to introduce her fiancé to her family. The problem is, they want her parent’s blessing in one night because he has to fly to Geneva for a WHO conference. Joey’s mother, Christina (Katherine Hepburn) immediately agrees and takes the situation rather well. On the other hand, Matt doesn’t take too kindly to be given a single night to come up with a decision. Christina decides its a good idea to invite John’s parents (Beau Richards and Roy Glenn), who were flying a short distance from L.A to San Francisco, to dinner. At the dinner table, along with Monsignor Ryan (Cecil Kellaway), Joey and John try to convince everyone why they should get married.

I loved all the performances in the film, which shouldn’t be too surprising because of the talent of the actors. But in a way, these performances come across as emotional not only because of the timely themes, but this would be the last role Spencer Tracy would ever do. He died only two weeks after production ended, and you can tell he was hurting during the film. But he delivered a powerhouse performance and an incredible speech at the end. He was the first actor ever to receive a posthumous nomination at the Academy Awards, but he did not win. Nonetheless, he delivered a very strong performance. He shared the screen in this movie with his long-time lover and co-star Katherine Hepburn, who assisted Spencer with this movie because of his ailing health. Hepburn delivers a mighty fine performance which was awarded with a Best Actress win. She was past her prime looks-wise, but her talent never left. One of the emotional scenes of the movie is the glistening tears she produced when Spencer gave his heartfelt speech. You could tell this would be the final hurrah for Spencer, and Katherine knew that. Miss Hepburn also got her niece, Katherine Houghton to play Joey. She did an okay job, although you could tell she hasn’t been around acting for that long. The final powerhouse performance was from Sidney Poitier, as the perfect John Prentice. His character was handsome, intelligent, has a good career, and graduated from a top school, but his skin color raised questions. Poitier, coming off massive box office successes, does incredible work here. It felt like his performance were overshadowed by Spencer and Katherine’s performance, but don’t overlook his performance. Finally, I also liked Cecil Kellaway’s supporting turn as Monsignor Ryan. The old man was funny and I loved his rogue Irish personality.

Despite all the flaws, I very much liked Guess Who’s Coming Home to Dinner. I guess timely themes and the combined star power of Tracy and Hepburn are enough to turn mediocre movies into great movies. Despite some serious undertones, the film has a light atmosphere thanks to the fluid direction of Stanley Kramer. Kramer had an idea what to do with this movie from day one and he succeeded in making that movie. The film has accomplished its purpose in taking a stance with interracial marriage. Not only that, but it is very entertaining. It is one of those films that will make you laugh and will make you cry. In that regards, that is where you can find the term “old-fashioned.” Some scenes are cheesy (dancing milk man, anyone?), and some are mighty powerful (Spencer’s speech). The film proves love has no bounds and you can marry whomever you want, no matter the skin color.

My Grade: A