I have never been a fan of horror movies or remakes because they are usually not good. But when done right, they can be special movies. Invasion of the Body Snatchers happens to be both a remake and a horror movie, so I  had my doubts. Luckily, this is a really good movie. This film is based off the 1956 film of the same name, and I hear it is a good movie. So when a remake at least equals the quality of the original, then that means you did something right. Most people seem to agree that this movie equals the same horror tone as the original, but it passes it in terms of conception. There are many themes this movie expanded on. Such themes include paranoia, the idea of dehumanization whether it’s mentally or quite literally in the case of this movie. You could also talk about the idea of the lack of trust of people in an increasing complicated world. The original had roots in communism as the 1950’s were known for paranoia as the Cold War escalated. You could easily see the transfer of those ideas in this film. Paranoia is rampant as these invisible alien creatures take over human bodies and minds. These ideas really created the tension and horror that the movie needed.

This science-fiction remake is sent in the city of San Francisco, California. One day, Elizabeth Driscoll (Brooke Adams) complains to her good friend Matthew Bennell (Donald Sutherland) that her husband has been acting very strange. Bennell originally dismisses the thought as marital problems. But when more people start complaining, he becomes increasingly concerned. When writer Jack Bellicec (Jeff Goldblum) and his wife Nancy (Veronica Cartwright) uncover a mutated corpse, Bennell realizes that the world has been taken over by an unseen force. Now it’s up to him to beat the clock before the whole city turns into mutants.

The film does have a good cast, and they all turned in solid performances. Donald Sutherland is a great actor, and he showed himself some range here. Brooke Adams made a name for herself earlier in 1978 with Days of Heaven, and she turns in another good performance. Jeff Goldblum is an amazing actor as you will see in future movies, but he is really good in one of his earlier roles in this film. One of the best performances in the film comes from the amazing Leonard Nimoy. You might know him from his iconic role as Spock in the original Star Trek television series. He is usually typecast as similar characters in his movies, but this role as Dr. David Kibner gives him something fresh, something different. He plays more of a villainous character, and it’s a welcome sight.

The production design adds to the horror elements. The look of the movie is creepy and sometimes downright scary. The pods where humans are transformed are wonderfully scary. When the movie shows how these humans are transformed is the ultimate prize when it comes to being scared. Any fan of horror would appreciate this.

Overall, I really enjoyed the 1978 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers much to my surprise and delight. It succeeds in giving me the creeps, but in such intelligent ways. It’s a thematic film touching on concepts of paranoia-which was a very popular concept considering what was going on in the world at the time. So remember if you see any pods nearby, well lets hope it is not an invisible alien making you its next prey. After all, I became a little paranoid for a few days after I saw the movie.

My Grade: B+

Richard Donner’s Superman: The Movie is one of the first major superhero movies to be a major success. The movie was released at a time where they hardly ever came out and if there were any superhero movies, they mostly sucked. Well, this 1978 feature began to change how these type of movies would be made, but it would be many years yet before a consistent track record could be made. Firstly, I enjoyed this movie very much. In introducing people this character, I always tell them to watch this film first. It really captures the essence of who Superman is. The movie has a fair amount of action, but I like how the film is built upon characterization. We learn of the different world where Superman is from, why he is sent to Earth, his childhood where he learns he is not normal, and the meaning of his existence. Director Richard Donner and screenwriters Mario Puzo and David Newman were able to successfully incorporate these themes into the movie and it really created something special. Now the DC comics featuring Superman were huge in the 40’s and 50’s, so it was a good moment when Superman got the proper treatment he deserved.

Jor-El (Marlon Brando) fails to convince the people of his world that their planet, Krypton is about to be destroyed. He resorts to his last measure in order to save his species-by sending his son, Kal-El (Christopher Reeve) to Earth. Being raised on Earth, Kal-El or known by his Earth name, Clark Kent will grow powerful skills where he will use them in the name of truth and justice. Clark Kent is raised on a farm by his elderly Earth parents (Glenn Ford and Phyllis Thaxter). When he becomes an adult, Kent becomes a bumbling, awkward newspaper reporter at the Daily Planet located in Metropolis. He also creates an alter ego which is called Superman, whose feats impresses the denizens of Metropolis. Superman/Clark Kent also finds himself a newspaper reporter to fall in love with-the hotheaded Lois Lane (Margot Kidder). Meanwhile, “the world’s greatest criminal” Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) and his henchman Otis (Ned Beatty) are up to no good as they plan the greatest real estate swindle of all-time. Can Superman save the day or is Lex Luthor really the world’s greatest criminal?

Part of what makes this film so good is the cast. Christopher Reeve is the quintessential Superman. No one can capture the image or persona as Reeve did. This is how Superman is supposed to be in my mind. He also makes a damn fine Clark Kent. With his charm, the overlarge glasses, his klutzy body, well it’s just perfect. He channeled Cary Grant when doing this role, so he gave Superman a golden-age charm. Marlon Brando is one of the most difficult actors to work with and this film proved to be no exception. After all, he originally pitched Jor-El as a green talking suitcase. He was only on in the beginning, but his scenes were really powerful. Margot Kidder makes for a good Lois Lane, although it took me awhile to warm up to her. Someone please tell the lady to spell words correctly! Gene Hackman and Ned Beatty made for a fine duo of criminals, living in the underground lair at Metropolis. They added many of the humor, but sometimes the humor would go into campy territory. But these are two fine actors, so I really can’t complain. There are also fine supporting turns from Jackie Cooper (who played Perry White, the hot-tempered editor of the Daily Planet), Valerie Perrine (who plays Luthor’s love, Eve Teschmacher), and Terence Stamp (who cameos in the beginning as super-villain General Zod).

Keep in mind that this film was made in 1978, so everything was made with practical effects. But the look of this film is beautiful. From the looks of Krypton to the arctic caves where Jor-El imprinted a memory of himself that would explain everything to his son-it just looks beautiful. The production design team did a wonderful job with Metropolis, turning it into its own unique city. When Superman is flying, it looks very realistic and that was one of my main concerns before I was able to see this movie.

Another highlight to me is another iconic score by John Williams. He seems to create many iconic scores, huh? Just like Star Wars or Jaws or Close Encounters of the Third Kind, he really created something special. Something that you can relate with when thinking about the film. It wasn’t a serious score because of the film’s tone, so he adapted something that was light-hearted. Good job, Maestro Williams!

Overall, Superman:The Movie is one of the first good superhero movies ever to be made. It is fun, action-packed, and full of wonderful performances. The film does not take itself too seriously, which added to its sense of fun. The casting of Christopher Reeve is pitch-perfect as Superman. Rotten Tomatoes perfectly sums up this movie, “Superman deftly blends humor and gravitas, taking advantage of the perfectly cast Christopher Reeve to craft a loving, nostalgic tribute to an American pop culture icon.” I whole-heartedly agree. Superman is one of the characters defined with America, and this is a perfect film for that.

My Grade: A

1978’s The Deer Hunter is one of the more polarizing movies to come out during the 1970’s. It was the first movie with the deeply controversial subject of the Vietnam War to both become a critical and commercial success. However, there were several people who expressed dissent ranging from its portrayal of the Vietnam War to the controversial involvement of Russian roulette to the singing of “God Bless America.” I remember not being too impressed with the film the first time I viewed it. I felt it was too long and violent. Years later, I am singing a different tune. It’s a difficult film to sit through because of its violence and the effects of PTSD (post-trauma syndrome). But it is a highly engaging and effective film and I regard it as one of the more influential American movies of the 1970’s. Not the best, but the most influential because there will be more successful films tackling the Vietnam War on the horizon.

You can call this movie a symphony of some sort. I sort this film into three major segments. The first segment is the longest because of its lengthy and effective characterization. We meet three Pennsylvania factory workers: Michael (Robert De Niro), Steven (John Savage), and Nick (Christopher Walken). They enlisted in the army to serve in Vietnam. Steven decides to marry before going off to war and this wedding also serves as the farewell party. This section is eerily reminiscent of the opening act of The Godfather. There is lots of partying and dancing. And we essentially get to know these characters. These men are hard workers who get drunk at the party because they deserve a night for themselves. After the party, the trio of friends along with another friend Stan (John Cazale) go into the mountains to hunt for deer for one last trip. Hence the title of the movie. I found this section to be incredibly effective in character-building. Director Michael Cimino took his time with his part because it was important to understand these men before they go into the horrors of war.

The second movement of our symphony is the actual war. Just like that with a loud noise, the film instantly changes its tone. From the foggy mountains of Pennsylvania to the tropical war zone of Vietnam we go. In one of the most terrifying sequences ever made, the three men are taken prisoner and are forced to play Russian roulette while their captors are betting who will win and who will die. Just seeing the men’s faces as they are waiting their turn in the rat-infested cages are undeniably scary. One of the film’s controversies is that roulette was not actually played in Vietnam. According to Cimino, he read articles saying they did play roulette although any of this has not been confirmed. But it’s one hell of a way to add tension to the movie. You can also take this as a symbol for the war overall. Roger Ebert puts it perfectly in his review, “Anything you can believe about the game, about it’s deliberately random violence, about how it touches the sanity of men forced to play it, will apply it to the war as a whole.” Essentially, this violence stands for the war itself and what these men face. Amongst the themes shown here is how these men react in times of pressure or peril.

Now our final act of the symphony is what happens after the horrors of the prison camp. Michael becomes a prominent character here as he returns home and is welcomed as a hero by his townsfolk and his girlfriend Linda (Meryl Streep).  But Michael does not feel like a hero. Steven is in the hospital after losing his legs and Nick is somewhere in Vietnam still. Michael eventually goes back to find Nick who happened to take his roulette experiences to heart by playing this game professionally. This section is incredibly sad and moving as here we see what exactly war can do to strong-willed men. It was horrible to watch this transformation onscreen. To see these characters we got to laugh with in the first part to seeing them play with death in the final act is sad to see. We also get to see an act of patriotism (or is it?) when the survivors join in a ragged rendition of “God Bless America” in the very end. A tune that I thought fit the movie well, but other people thought differently.

These characters were portrayed strongly by the actors. This movie has a very strong cast, although the only star at the time was Robert De Niro. De Niro instantly became the film’s leader and he played Michael very well. He became a bona fide star after his work in The Godfather: Part Two, and he put that stardom to work here. Christopher Walken had some of the strongest scenes in the movie because of his involvement with the deadly game of Russian roulette. Meryl Streep is one of the greatest actresses ever to grace our screens, and this was one of her first big roles. We end this paragraph with a sad note. This would be the last movie John Cazale would play because he was suffering from terminal cancer and he died before the film was released. He was very good as Stan, but you can tell in the movie that he was really sick.

Michael Cimino’s The Deer Hunter is a incredible movie about the horror of wars and it effective covers themes ranging from PTSD to male bonding and friendship. It was one of the first movies to successfully cover the Vietnam War, although I’d say this film may not be the most accurate regarding the actual war. I do commend its effort on conveying the themes of general war though. This film was nominated for nine Oscars and it won five of them including Best Picture. Walken took home the statue for his amazing and tense performance as Nick. The film may be controversial and it may be hard to watch, but it’s one you’ll remember forever. I feel bad for Michael Cimino though. He directed an incredible film, but his next film Heaven’s Gate would end his career because it was a disastrous bomb. But at least he has The Deer Hunter.

My Grade: A-

Alan Parker’s Midnight Express is a powerful movie based on the real-life experiences of Billy Hayes and his brutal stay at a Turkish prison in the early 1970’s. This film paints a portrait on how awful life in prison can be especially as a foreigner. It doesn’t help that the Turkish guards are nasty brutes reveling in the fact that they can do whatever they want to their prisoners. Especially the head guard. Wow, what a sadistic man! I’ll tell you straight up that this film can be hard to watch sometimes because of the brutality of the prison scenes. They are very violent and the head guard’s favorite punishment is painfully beating the soles of the feet. This film is also a portrait on the corruption of the Turkish political and criminal system (Hayes was sentenced to over 30 years for attempting to smuggle hashish out of the country just to set an example). This film is also a wonderful portrait on the descent from normality to madness. Hayes is seen at first as a man fighting to be free, but we later see him as a shadow of himself, high on opium, with little chance of seeing the outside world again. There are many issues at play regarding themes, and Alan Parker does a magnificent job making them relevant. This could have been a simple prison escape movie, but this film was more than that by tackling very important themes relevant to the time period.

One thing that interested me is how the Turks are portrayed in the movie. It did not bother me as it bothered many others, but all Turkish people are viewed as corrupt. Whether they are the prison guards, lawyers, judges, prisoners, or just citizens-all of them are viewed as bad people. In reality, many Turks are great people. Maybe it was the time period of the film’s release, but it was clear that Parker and screenwriter Oliver Stone were either judgmental or ignorant. It’s a sad fact that I did not notice until a while after the viewing of this film but regardless, my viewpoints of the film do not change.

Billy Hayes (Brad Davis) is an American college student in Turkey on vacation. But on October 6th, 1970, he is arrested for trying to smuggle hashish out of the country. He is originally given a light sentence, but the Turkish courts changed the sentence to over thirty years to make an example out of him. The prison environment is awful thanks to the sadistic torture from head guard Hamidou (Paul L. Smith.) For Hayes, there are only two options for release. He can wait for help from his family and friends back home and the American government or he can take the “Midnight Express” which stands for escaping the prison.

The performances are brilliant to say the least. The acting is the main reason why the film is so powerful. Brad Davis does very well as Billy Hayes. His performance gave me the chills because it showed what it was like to be dehumanized. He did end up saying some very powerful courtroom speeches before he got sent away to prison. Paul L. Smith absolutely crushes it as Hamidou. He is a brutal man, and Smith does a good job convincing us so. There are two other performances worthy of a mention. John Hurt as a British prisoner named Max who is the drug supplier and Randy Quaid as the free-spirited American prisoner named Jimmy Booth bent on escape. Hurt’s supporting turn stuck with me most of all. There is a disturbing scene where his cat is hung and killed by one of the Turkish prisoners and Hurt’s pain made his performance resounding and realistic. In fact, he was nominated for an Oscar because his performance was so good.

Controversies aside, Oliver Stone’s script and Alan Parker’s direction stood out to me. Stone would eventually become a great director himself, but he really developed himself as a screenwriter. Stone always had a passion for politics, so it’s no surprise he would tackle the subject of global justice corruption. He really captured the essence of prison life from the view of an outsider (in which Hayes was). Stone also sympathizes with Hayes. Hayes is known to be not too nice of a guy, but it did not really seem like it here. Alan Parker has a keen eye for politics as well. Not just this movie, but you’ll see in future movies. Parker’s style is to get you hooked right away, and boy did he do that here. The opening scene has Davis walking through the Turkish airport with his girlfriend……and drugs taped to his body. The sweat dripping down his face, the intimidating guards, what a way to open the movie!

I really, really liked Midnight Express. Nominated for six Oscars and winning two of them (for Stone’s screenplay and the wonderful score by Giorgio Moroder), Hollywood also really liked the movie. It did not come without its controversies, but this film really ended up being a tense watch from beginning to end. SPOILERS!!! For those who know the story, Hayes did manage to escape prison. But it was a pain-staking process for him. Life in Turkish prison is harsh and the film is very successful is showing that thanks to the brutal torture techniques from Hamidou. This story is about morality, violence, and sadism…..and yes you may be terrified.

My Grade: A

When done right, mystery movies can be very fun and engaging movies. One of the best mystery authors of the twentieth century was Agatha Christie, and many of her works were adapted to the big screen to varying levels of success. The biggest hit movie was 1974’s Murder on the Orient Express. Following in that film’s footsteps, Death on the Nile was released four years later with the same formula. The story is essentially the same, but with a different location and brand new set of characters. While the movie is fine, it is also somewhat forgettable. It has not been awhile since I seen this film and I usually remember my films, but I’m having a hard time trying to figure out what exactly happened. That being said, it is a decent watch. The scenery is fun to see and the costumes are cool to look at. The cast is filled to the brim with veteran British actors and they all deliver fine performances.

We are aboard the S.S Karnak as it travels down the great Nile River in Egypt. However, there are many people who want the rich heiress Linnet Ridgeway (Lois Chiles) dead. Her riches are sought after by the elderly Mrs. Van Schulyer (Bette Davis), Salome Otterbourne (Angela Lansbury) is an author who has a libel lawsuit brought upon her, Salome’s daughter, Rosalie (Olivia Hussey) wants to keep her mother happy, Andrew Pennington (George Kennedy) has been stealing from her family, and an old friend Jacqueline De Bellefort (Mia Farrow) is upset that her fiancé was stolen away from her. After Ridgeway is murdered, it’s up to the famed detective Hercules Poirot (Peter Ustinov) to figured out the culprit behind the murder.

As you can obviously tell, the film has a large cast full of brand names. So it’s no surprise that they all deliver good performances. No one delivers career-best performances, but this is not the kind of film that requires such performances. However, my standout performance goes to Peter Ustinov as the detective. If you read any of Christie’s stories, you will be able to tell that he captures the essence of what the character is supposed to be. It’s also cool to see an actress from the Golden Age of Hollywood in the movie. I’m talking about the legendary Bette Davis. She delivers another great performance, and it’s cool to note how she addressed the change of filmmaking since her heyday in the 30’s and 40’s. She called films travelogues in the 70’s and essentially they are. I would have love to work along the Nile River traveling through ancient history. All of the names mentioned above did great, but there are even more names in the movie with the likes of Jane Birkin, Maggie Smith, and Jack Warden in the movie.

So John Guillermin’s Death on the Nile is a fun mystery movie even if its a little forgettable. It is formulaic, but the performances are well worth the watch. Seeing Ustinov in action trying to crack the case is what makes this movie a fun watch. It’s hard to remember specific plot details, but that is what happens in a movie based on formula. But the film is successful in being mysterious, and that is really all that matters. I liked how the film was shot on location because we got to see exquisite scenery. Also, I really liked the costumes. Overall, this is a little fun mystery.

My Grade: B

Terrence Malick’s Days of Heaven is one of the most beautiful movies ever made. This movie is all about visual impact and this gorgeous, haunting piece of art will leave you in awe and you will wonder how on earth did this film come out in 1978. Terrence Malick, perhaps the most elusive human being on this planet, is known as a visual director and he proves it here with his second film. The story is very simple, but the story is not supposed to be at the forefront. Apparently after several days of shooting, Malick threw away the script and told the actors to wing it. Through a long and arduous editing process, Malick was able to come up with a coherent story.

Let’s talk about these visuals for a second. They are completely mesmerizing and it took people by surprise upon its release. I loved the use of natural lighting on set, which gave the film its unique colors. Malick wouldn’t allow the use of artificial light much to the dismay of many people who were not used to working this style. Much of the film was created during the hour just after sunset and just before it became dark. That is really impressive. Now many of the scenes are outdoors at a Texas prairie. Some of the best shots were just seeing the wheat swaying in the wind as night was falling. Two of cinema’s most impressive cinematographers worked on the movie: Nestor Almendros and Haskell Wexler. There was some controversy because Almendros had to leave the film after a long while due to prior commitments, but he was given the credit of the work despite Wexler being able to prove he shot more than half of the film. These visuals are complimented beautifully by the haunting score of Ennio Morricone, one of the greatest composers of all time. This combination of visuals and music created a unique form of art and something wondrous to behold.

The story is simple and relatively straightforward. The story did not become clear until the two years Malick spent in the editing room putting the film together. The film takes place right before the First World War. Bill (Richard Gere) and Abby (Brooke Adams) are a couple from Chicago. After Bill kills a man at his workplace, he and Abby pose as siblings as they escape down south to find a new life. Along with Billy’s little sister Linda (Linda Manz), they find employment on a Texas farm working the harvest. As they do the work, the farmer (Sam Shepard) has fallen in love with Abby. But Billy discovers the farmer is terminally ill and may only have one year left to live. Billy persuades Abby to marry the farmer so they can take advantage of the wealth after the farmer dies. But all may not go according to the plan.

Despite emphasis being placed on the visuals, I think the acting was fantastic. The actors here were mostly new to the business, but they would go on to have long careers. (Especially Richard Gere and Sam Shepard). Gere, Shepard, and Adams have fantastic chemistry with each other which is needed when there is a love triangle. I thought Linda Manz did a really fine job. The film is told from her point-of-view and she provides a haunting narration over the course of the movie. She is only a teenager, but she goes through experiences which causes her to be far more mature than her age.

Overall, Days of Heaven is a breath-taking masterpiece that allows the visuals to do its talking. This film was extremely rare for the time period it was created. With all the trouble that happened during production, it amazes me that this film is actually good. Malick had such a hard time with this film. In fact, he didn’t make another film until twenty years later. That is sad because he is a talented director, and he was able to push himself over the edge to create this film. I compare this film to nature. Nature is beautiful and there is gorgeous scenery in every location of this globe. Nature can be breath-taking and that is how I feel about this film.

My Grade: A

What do The Godfather, Jaws, and Animal House all have in common? The answer is that they are 1970’s classics that have influenced movies the way they are today. The Godfather inspired mafia films/television shows, Jaws began the advent of blockbusters, and Animal House began the R-rated comedies that are prominent in Hollywood today. Before Animal House, there were hardly any R-rated comedies. What this film showed was never showed on the big screen before. Lots of vomit projectiles, lots of sex, and just crazy raucous behavior. People have never seen anything like it but……most of them loved it. I, myself thought it was a very good film. There are many laughs to be had. What I found surprising that despite all the laughs, I could relate to this film because I am not too far removed from college and this film is about fraternity college life. This movie came from ideas out of a college magazine called National Lampoon, and they would eventually became a highly successful production company well into the 1980’s and 1990’s.

What did I like about the film? The script is one of the best written scripts in all of comedy. Harold Ramis excels at writing these kind of movies, and he truly created a funny and unique film. His screenplay hardly wavers and it keeps a consistent tone, although that ends up hurting the film just a tad. The cast is all wonderful. But the standout belongs to John Belushi. Belsushi was an Saturday Night Live favorite and he would become a big comedy movie star after this movie until his untimely death in 1982. But he was hilarious as the fat, obnoxious John Blutarsky. He loves being drunk and he loves starting food fights (one of the best scenes in the movie-that epic food fight!) Another standout was John Vernon as Dean Vernon Wormer. Wormer was an evil dean who did all he could to expel the Delta House fraternity. Donald Sutherland is also a scene-stealer. His performance as an early-60’s pothead English professor was spot-on. This movie features supporting turns from Tom Hulce, Kevin Bacon, Karen Allen, Bruce McGill, among others. The film is also well-directed. John Landis is in his wheelhouse with this sort of film, so you can easily tell he knows what he is doing.

Are there any negatives? No, not really. My biggest complaint is actually the consistency of the film. It may be too……consistent. What I mean is that the more jokes there are, the more some may fall flat. There were some that fell flat at times. Maybe a little more than I would have hoped given this film is called a “classic.” But that is only a small nitpick. I really enjoyed the movie for what it was.

Animal House is movie that is mostly about a war between two fraternities at Faber College. The Delta House has a reputation of taking anyone, while the other fraternity is the home of white, rich men that no one likes except for Dean Wormer (John Vernon). Wormer and his frat boys plan to kick Delta Fraternity off campus before homecoming parade. But not if the Delta boys can help it.

There are just many classic scenes to behold. There is the epic food fight that was fun to watch. I wonder how much food was wasted during the shooting of the scene. Then there was the parade, which is the end of the movie. This is the parade where the Delta show us who the real fraternity is. If you like music, you’ll like the scene where they successfully incorporate the hit song, “Shout.” Finally if you want to make Dean Wormer mad, all you got to do is put a horse in his office. Overall, Animal House is a comedy to see. It inspired many comedies in years to come thanks to raucous and endearing screenplay.

My Grade: B+

Jaws. The movie that is often given the notion of starting the summer blockbuster season. It was a magnificent achievement that Steven Spielberg’s film became a critical and monetary success. It was a tense thriller that relied upon hiding the shark until the end and its three main leads in Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfuss, and Robert Shaw. So naturally a sequel would have to be made. Understandably so, I scratch my head at the thought of a sequel. But it doesn’t matter because Jaws 2 does exist. I’ll say this. It’s the best sequel you could hope to make……but that is not saying much. The movie is sometimes enjoyable, but there are several critical mistakes in the movie.

But let’s start with the positives. The shark has returned, and it came back bigger and stronger than ever. The shark even has an evil-looking scar to it. I really liked the look of the shark. The performances weren’t too bad, either. Out of the original cast, only Scheider, Lorraine Gary, and Murray Hamilton returned. Scheider had problems on set, but he tried his best to give a convincing performance as Chief Martin Brody. Once again, he succeeds. After all, he is now the human heart of the franchise. Next, I thoroughly enjoyed the first half of the film. The buildup and tension to the reappearance of the shark is as good as ever. You really know that the shark is there to kill. John Williams returned with another amazing score. He used the original themes to great extent, and he added darker, more complex music to enhance those themes. I don’t think this movie would work half as well without his powerful score.

Now, the negatives. I mentioned that I liked the look of the shark. I do not like how and when the shark fully emerged, which was practically right away. The whole point of the first Jaws was to keep the shark in the shadows, to build tension. Now tension was effective here, but it could have been way better if they followed the formula of the first film. So the first film was mainly a psychological thriller. While that is retained for the first half, the second half becomes a dumbed down slasher film. Essentially, the second half was the kids (including Brody’s son) versus the shark, and it played out like a worn-out teen horror flick. That is something I did not want to see. Finally, I missed the direction of Spielberg. He decided not to return, and Universal decided to attain the services of Jeannot Szwarc. He did an okay job, but he is no Steven Spielberg. You can tell there is a big difference in the directing style, and I’m not sure if I liked that change. I do miss what Shaw and Dreyfuss brought to the table, but Scheider managed to deliver a strong performance.

Now let’s talk some plot. This sequel takes place four years after the original horrors of Amity. One day, the town suddenly receives mysterious disappearances and boating accidents. Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) knows better than to call them accidents. He believes another killer shark has come to town. Just like before, he is ignored by the townsfolk and Mayor Larry Vaughn (Murray Hamilton). But once a group of teenagers, including Brody’s son, sets out to sea, Brody goes after them. Will he reach them before its too late?

So I had apprehensions for a long time watching this film because I fear it would not live up to the original classic. While it certainly does not, I won’t deny it’s a fun ride at times and I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Let’s put it this way. Jaws 2 is a decidedly inferior sequel to the original, but can be called a masterpiece compared to the two pile of dung sequels that followed (and I refuse to see). There are elements of the film I dislike, but this is good escapist cinema…..if you don’t compare it to Jaws.

My Grade: C+/B-

1978’s Grease, in many eyes, is a classic film. It is adored by all ages, and it seemingly passes down from generation to generation with love. This is one of the first movies I remember that have a sense of nostalgia. This movie plays well with the baby boomers because it harkens back to the 1950’s, when love was swamped in innocence. This movie got the feel of the 1950’s correct, I have been told. The clothing, the background music, the charm, the acting, and the overall look of the movie. The actual songs are 1970’s rock’n’roll style, and they are wonderful songs. The tone of the movie is upbeat, fun, and innocent. It may be somewhat predictable, but the movie itself was made well.

There are a variety of reasons why I enjoy this movie. From the interpretation of the 1950’s lifestyle to the wonderful tunes to the themes of true love-all of it elevates this movie into ‘classic’ territory. However, I am irked by a few things though. Mainly the age of the cast. Don’t get me wrong, I think the performances are wonderful, but I despise when movies cast people in their late 20’s or early 30’s to play teenagers. Now some films can get away with it, but not Grease. You can tell that the people in the cast are not teenagers. Check out these ages at the time of movie release. John Travolta was 24, Olivia Newton-John was 30, and Stockard Channing was 34!!! But who am I to complain. This movie gave Travolta and Newton-John the career boost they needed.

As for the story, it’s nothing new. The story is one that has been told to death, but it is all about how a story is told that can make or break a movie. This love story was told with a passion thanks to the high-spirited screenplay from Bronte Woodard and the energizing direction from Randall Kleiser. This musical starts off at a California beach in 1959. Complete opposite personalities have fallen in love. Greaser Danny Zuko (John Travolta) and an Australian chick Sandy Olsson (Olivia-Newton John). After a summer romance expecting not to see each other again, both of them attend Rydell High unbeknownst to each other. They do their own things at first. Danny is a leader of a gang of greasers called the T-Birds and Sandy joins the Pink Ladies, led by the charming Rizzo (Stockard Channing). When they run in to each other for the first time, Sandy realizes Danny is a different man from the one she met at the beach. But will that stop her from getting back with Danny? Well, just watch the movie! 😉

Despite my concerns on the ages of the cast, I cannot deny how effective the performances are. In particular, John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John. Travolta eventually became a major movie star, thanks to this movie. He knows how to sing and dance very well for an actor. It seems like he models his character off Elvis Presley. With the hairstyle and the black leather jacket, he seems to be Elvis-lite. He exerts fantastic chemistry with Olivia-Newton John. She also sang very well and her performance as the new girl in town is excellent. I liked the supporting cast very much. Stockard Channing did a solid job as the sex-happy leader of the Pink Ladies. Jeff Conaway as Danny’s right-hand man, Kenickie. There are some veteran cast members who did a fine job particularly Eve Arden as Principal McGee and Sid Caesar as Coach Calhoun.

I was most impressed with Grease. I remember seeing it as a little kid and enjoying the music. But as a young adult, it resonates with me because it reminds me of my high school days. The music is great and most of these songs will stick in your brain for a lifetime. Such numbers to keep an eye out for are “Hopelessly Devoted To You,” and “You’re The One That I Want.” The former song actually went on to be nominated for an Oscar. This film is all about song and dance. Two of my favorite sequences include the ballroom dance scene which was being filmed for national television and it features some slick dance moves. My other favorite scene is the ending dance sequence at the school’s carnival. Very fun! On the whole, this film is upbeat, sweet, and a film to remember.

My Grade: A-

If you like preposterous, over-the-top action movies, Clint Eastwood’s The Gauntlet may just be for you. Eastwood knows how to direct action, perhaps maybe too well. While the movie is often entertaining, some of the action sequences are so unrealistic that it brings me out of the movie at points. Even though the movie doesn’t take the action too seriously, it can be jarring to watch. There are two such sequences that come to mind. The first sequence is when the characters of Clint Eastwood and Sondra Locke are at a house. They are on the run from law enforcement, but it seems like the entire police force comes out to shoot the entire house down. The second sequence is perhaps the final twenty minutes of the film. Essentially, these two characters enter town in a bus with seems like the entire police force on the West Coast gunning them down. What makes everything crazy is that these characters are not even fighting back! While all of this was fun to watch, it was very hard to suspend my disbelief. That being said, the action scenes are well-staged and there is enough action to last a lifetime. As I said before, Clint Eastwood knows how to direct an action film.

In the desert city of Phoenix, Arizona, Clint Eastwood portrays an alcoholic detective named Ben Shockley. He is given the task by police commissioner Blakelock (William Prince) to escort a witness named Gus Malley (Sondra Locke) from Las Vegas for a trial. Shockley travels to Vegas to promptly discover Gus as a college-educated hooker. She warns him that the odds are against him of bringing her to trial because she is going to testify against a very powerful mobster. As they start to travel, the mafia starts to chase them down. When Shockley calls for police help, he realizes that he was betrayed by someone in the police force.

One thing that Eastwood does very well in his movies is his portrayal of female characters. He does not seem them as decorations, unlike many directors of the time period. Despite all the mayhem in the movie, there is enough time for characterization of her character. She is a prostitute, but she is intelligent, ferocious, and has a college degree. That is very uncommon for a movie hooker. Sondra Locke performs her role very, very well. No wonder why Eastwood used her in many of his early movies. As for Eastwood himself, he does his normal character portrayal. Grumpy, has his famous scowl, and good at the action. So with all the action and mayhem in the movie, the performances manage to be perhaps the most realistic thing of the movie.

So if you are a fan of action movies, The Gauntlet is a good movie. It seems like it was a fun movie for all those involved with making it. I may not like the action being too crazy and over-the-top, I can appreciate the characterization and the story Eastwood and writers Michael Butler and Dennis Shryack created. Eastwood does have a sense of humor, so he applies that to the action and the story to a somewhat successful degree. Look, Clint Eastwood has made far better movies. I wouldn’t call this a blip on the radar, but I think it’s more of his less interesting movies. It was a kind of entertaining though watching the entire police force shoot down the bus as they made their way back into Phoenix. I guess if you go over-the-top, you must embrace it. That is what Eastwood did.

My Grade: B-