I said it before and I’ll say it again, but Steven Spielberg is a freakin’ movie-making genius. Even in the infancy of his career, you could see he was destined for big things in Hollywood. Well, he struck gold with Jaws (see my review), and now he returns with his science-fiction feature Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Along with Star Wars, you can credit this movie for bringing sci-fi back into the realm of filmmaking. That is just one of the variety of reasons why I love this movie. It is an honest, mysterious movie about extraterrestrial life. The film gives off a sense of aura of mystery and wonder that will stay with you long after the movie is over. Unlike most aliens in movies, I love how Spielberg created these beings as peaceful, friendly aliens, and that Spielberg gave his human characters that sense. In other words, no one is hell-bent on annihilating these aliens. With a wonderful cast and crew behind him, Spielberg created one of cinema’s richest, influential movies about aliens.

So this movie has two important segments that are interwoven with each other. Each segment is a connective tissue for the other segment, and Spielberg (who also wrote this film) incorporates his magic very well. Our first segment has a bunch of scientists investigating mysterious objects that appear out of nowhere in the desert regions and these scientists are perplexed until French scientist Claude Lacombe (Francois Truffaut) uses knowledge of music as a basis of communication with these objects. The responses they get are confusing until cartographer David Laughlin (Bob Balaban) figures out the meaning of these responses. Meanwhile in the small town of Muncie, Indiana, electrician Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) and single mother Jillian Guiler (Melinda Dillon) lives are connected when they experience a bunch of flashing lights in the form of UFOS. Their lives become affected in every way as Roy starts having visions about what is occurring and is obsessed with finding out what is going on, and Jillian needs to figure out the connection between these mysterious UFOS and her three-year-old son, Barry.

The cast and the crew do a wonderful job in putting this film together. After a huge blockbuster, Spielberg gained the right to make any film he wanted , and he chose this film to do. Somewhat of a passion project for him. Not to my surprise, Spielberg did an amazing job as director. He created a tight, effective story and he leaves the audience clamoring for more. The look of the film is really good, thanks to the amazing work done by cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond. There are two scenes that just show the majesty of his camerawork. The first scene is where Barry opens the door to this orange flashing light of the UFOS, The use of color here is amazing, and in return we get one of the most iconic shots of the film. The final scene I want to mention is when a whole bunch of UFOS fly over the town. There is a high-angle shot of a large UFO shadow hanging over a pickup truck. Brilliant camerawork!

Now this film wouldn’t have worked as well if it wasn’t for the amazing score by John Williams. He previously worked with Spielberg on Jaws and created one of the most iconic scores ever made thanks to the use of only two notes. Well, this time he works with only five notes. These five notes is the main communication method of the mother alien ship and then Williams incorporated it into the main theme. Like many of William’s works, this score is an all-time great.

Now the film is very well-acted. I really loved Richard Dreyfuss’s performance. After his roles in American Graffiti and Jaws, I was not sure that he could have done a better performance. Well he did just exactly that. His obsession became quite enticing to watch even as it was negatively messing up his life. I liked the way he figured out clues-really loved that scene with the mashed potato sculpture of Devil’s Tower. The other performances are solid, even if they’re not exactly memorable. Sure, we have the likes of Francois Truffaut, Melinda Dillon, and Teri Garr (who played Roy’s wife), but I think this was mostly a one-man show for Richard Dreyfuss. Although the kid who played Barry did a good job.

Overall, Close Encounter of the Third Kind is a very worthy follow-up to Jaws. I love what kind of science-fiction movie this is. One that delivers a sense of awe and mystery throughout the entire film. See, I love looking up at the night sky and wondering if there is any life out there at all. This film asks that question and more. It also asks if there was life, what kind of beings would they be? Well the film’s jaw-dropping finale tells us the answer. I loved how the film introduced us to these aliens, but also how it dealt with first contact in the confines of Devil’s Tower. The ending will blow your mind away. Give credit where credit is due, but those visual effects are quite polished for a 1977 feature. I highly recommend this movie because it is one of the greatest sci-fi films of all time. Not many films reach the heights this film does. Thank you for this expertly-crafted movie, Mr. Spielberg.

My Grade: A

The James Bond franchise is one of those franchises that will never die. It has been going strong since the first movie rolled out in the early 1960’s, and new James Bond movies are still produced today. What makes this series unique is they use multiple actors to play the titular character over the years. They all bring their own gravitas to the role, and each Bond is a different man when compared to each other (although the martini, shaken not stirred and the beautiful women among other things remain a constant.) So my first James Bond review for this blog is 1977’s The Spy Who Loved Me. This wasn’t my first look at the series, but it was my first look at the older movies. I really liked what I saw. This is an old-fashioned story that combines a spy drama and an action-packed war movie into one package. Like many of the older Bond movies, the story can get borderline preposterous. The cheesiness of the plot did come to grow on me after awhile, even if the main villain is Russian (remember, this came out during the Cold War) and wants to destroy the world. Also like older Bond (or 007 if you prefer) movies, this movie is invested in its gadgets. There is nothing quite like seeing Bond use these cool-looking devices that can do powerful things.

James Bond (Roger Moore) is back for a new mission! This mission involves finding a Royal Navy submarine holding sixteen nuclear missiles that suddenly vanished without a trace. Bond must team up with Major Anya Amasova (Barbara Bach) to take down the mastermind of the plot named Karl Stromberg (Curd Jurgens) and his henchman named Jaws (Richard Kiel), whose biggest weapon is his metal teeth. The clock is ticking as Bond must find the nuclear weapons before they are fired.

There are two questions to ask when watching a James Bond movie. Who are the villains? Who is the Bond girl? Both very essential to a Bond movie, as they can make or break the movie. In this case, we get two (mostly) effective villains, and a good-looking Bond lady. While Stromberg is the main villain with the plan, he is not too strong of a villain. I am more interested in Jaws. Jaws is actually labeled as one of the best villains in any Bond film, and I would wholeheartedly agree. He is quite a menace. He may be a little clumsy, but goodness once you see the teeth he has, you might rather face the shark that Jaws is named after. There are scenes here that can be quite gruesome when you see the teeth come into action. As for the girl, I think Major Anya is a good Bond lady. She is an undercover Russian agent, so the political side of that was an interesting concept given the time period.

I think the film was well-acted. I believe Roger Moore is one of the weakest Bonds, but he does a solid job. He plays a little older Bond, but his sense of humor and savvy attitude fits this film very well. Richard Kiel is the man who brought Jaws to life (sorry, Spielberg) and well he was terrifying as the sharp-teethed villain. Barbara Bach does a good job as Major Anya, and I liked the rivalry she brought to Bond. Curd Jurgens was a good villain, but his goals are similar to other villains of essentially every other action movie, so his role did not move me in one way or the other.

The Spy Who Loved Me is a fun, entertaining action flick and a worthy addition to the James Bond franchise. I liked the realistic tone the film was going for, given the tone of previous films. There is still cheesy parts, but what’s a James Bond movie without the cheesiness. I am rather impressed with the visuals of the film. This was filmed on location in the ancient, majestic parts of Egypt and they had some really cool underwater sets and quite frankly, I loved the visuals of Stromberg’s lair in the middle of the ocean. There is lots of action, although I feel the final act of the film chooses to do the obligatory action conclusions that many action movies do these days. However, the fights involving Jaws is just worth watching this movie for. If you are new to the franchise, this is a good beginning.

My Grade: B+

An admirable effort. That is what I can call this 1977 Richard Attenborough feature A Bridge Too Far. This movie had all the ingredients to become a war classic. A great director, an all-star cast (and that is putting it lightly), a World War Two story that no one seems to know about, and the promise of Nazis being destroyed. The thing is, the film does not live up to its full potential. In that sense, the movie is a slight disappointment. I wanted to really enjoy the movie, but I mostly got mild entertainment. Based on from what other people say, my opinion seems to be what the majority thinks. A good war movie, but it could have been much better.

Now why exactly isn’t this movie heralded as an all-time favorite? I actually think the main reason lies in the story itself. The story is interesting, but it is about an Allied failure. People don’t want to see that, especially since the time of this mission was occurring as the Nazis were loosening their hold on Europe thanks to the strong Allied efforts. The movie also pushes three hours long, and the movie moves very slowly at times. This war film actually holds the least action in any war film I can ever remember. That is impressive considering the running time of the movie. My main concerns are the constant repetitions and the long running time.

That being said, there are some great things about the movie. Being a history film, the creators have the liberty to change the story to make a better movie. Not here. I value the historical accuracy, and I actually found it to be what kept me engrossed in the movie. It was a story I did not know much about, so I found this to be a learning tool. I also really enjoyed the performances from the cast. If you want a great cast, just check this film out. With a cast featuring Sean Connery, Gene Hackman, Anthony Hopkins, James Caan, Laurence Olivier, Michael Caine, and Robert Redford just to name a few. At the very least watch the cast do a fine job, even if some of their roles are glorified cameos.

So let’s dive into a history lesson. This movie was about an unsuccessful Allied mission called “Operation Market Garden.” It took place in September 1944 in the Netherlands and Germany. Basically, there were two sub-operations. The first operation consisted of Airborne forces being parachuted behind enemy lines to capture several bridges. That would allow the next operation, the ground forces to advance and cut off the heart of German industry. Mainly due to bad luck, poor communication, and bad weather, this operation failed at the Arnhem Bridge when the Allied forces at the ridge was overran, thus delaying an Allied victory.

Despite some problems, I thoroughly liked A Bridge Too Far. I consider it to be a serviceable war film because it does the story justice. The movie had strong potential, but I guess it wasn’t meant to be. Strong performances are everywhere (especially from Anthony Hopkins and James Caan). The movie does have strong visual effects that thoroughly complement the story. So I guess that is another plus. I loved the admirable, ambitious attempt famed director Richard Attenborough did in trying to make this a masterpiece. I can see he tried so hard, but he does get somewhere with that effort at least.  If you want to see a quality bridge film during this era, definitely watch The Bridge of River Kwai before this film. But if you’re a sucker for war films, then this is a good one to watch.

My Grade: B-

If you ever wanted to see what The Fast and the Furious would look like in the 1970’s, look not further than this 1977 feature, Smokey and the Bandit. The movie is filled to the rim with cars, more cars, and even more cars. The movie also displays a good amount of vehicle destruction, which is common in the forementioned Fast and Furious series. The cars were quite impressive to look at, even though I am not a big fan of car watching. If it has an engine and a steering wheel, that is okay by me. But seeing these 1970’s models was actually pretty cool. The main car was a 1977 Pontiac Trans Am, and that is my kind of ride. So if you’re into cars, then this wouldn’t be a bad film to check out. When these cars are put into action….look out!

I desperately wanted to hate this movie. I refused to watch the movie for years because it did not seem so appealing. But my love for the Fast and Furious franchise got me curious to check this film out. Color me surprised when the credits rolled onscreen, because I was pleasantly surprised. I did not expect to be thoroughly entertained the entire film. From start to finish, I was involved with the action, and most importantly the characters. My two favorite characters were the main character named Bandit and the sheriff chasing after him, Buford T. Justice. I wouldn’t call these characters likable, but definitely entertaining.

Admittedly, the story is very silly. But then even silly stories can work sometimes if you have the right actors and the right material. Bandit (Burt Reynolds) and Cledus (Jerry Reed) are two truck drivers who decide to take a dare from these bigshot rich men. The dare consists of picking up beer from Texas and transporting it to Georgia. After they pick up the beer, Bandit decides to pick up a runaway bride named Carrie (Sally Field). Her husband-to-be’s father happens to be the Sheriff Buford T. Justice (Jackie Gleason). When Justice realizes what is going on, they begin a pursuit of Bandit, his new lady, and his beer. Sounds silly, right? But my gosh, I was incredibly entertained. I also learned a fact, believe it or not, from this plotline. The famed Coors beer brand was actually illegal east of the Mississippi River during this time. So even high-profile people such as Dwight Eisenhower or Gerald Ford had to smuggle the beer from the West.

The characters helped elevate the mediocre, silly story into something that was entertaining. At the time, Burt Reynolds was a movie superstar. I was impressed at his tough-guy performance in the 1972 drama, Deliverance. He brings more of that persona into this role, but with a sense of humor. His character was actually funny at times in the midst of the action that is occurring. He is also portrayed at times as a drunk and a womanizer, but compared to people he is dealing with, I’d consider Bandit a hero. I also loved the character of Sheriff Buford T. Justice. His high-speed pursuit ended up in failure most often, but one thing his character is known for is his foul mouth. (He actually gave credence to the term “sumbitch”) I also thought Sally Field turned in a strong performance as Carrie. This is one of her early roles, and she gained instant fame because of this role.

Smokey and the Bandit turned out to be a much better film than I could have ever anticipated. It’s not an all-time favorite, but it is a solid, serviceable action film. Watching Bandit escape dozens of cops was entertaining for me. There are plenty of car chases, cool stunts, and enough characterization to give any action junkie a rush of adrenaline. There is also a good sense of humor. I particularly loved the scenes between Cledus and his dog. They were funny, but it helps there was a cute dog. I would hesitate to call the movie a classic as some people do. This movie may be silly and over-the-top at certain points, but I was incredibly entertained.

My Grade: B+

A cultural revolution. That is what perfectly describes Star Wars: A New Hope. Movie historians have longed said that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas gave cinema a rebirth. The early 70’s were a period for American and arthouse films, but these two men allowed movies to become fun again. According to Lucas, who created THX-1138 and American Graffiti, the purpose for this movie was just for movies to become fun again. What he did for cinema today, well we have this man to thank for it. This small low-budget sci-fi film spawned six more movies with many more to come. Star Wars has now spread across three generations, three generations of love. I love hearing stories from people who saw this when it came out in 1977. They tell me how much this cultural phenomenon impacted their lives. My father is a mega Star Wars fan, and it’s safe to say this is one of his favorite movies. How could such a small movie impact the movie business the way it did? Well, it helps that it’s a fabulous movie. The movie features an iconic villain named Darth Vader who is known for his deep breathing noises. We have two incredibly memorable heroes in Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia. The two most famous robots in movie history are C-3PO and R2-D2. We have everyone’s favorite scoundrel in Han Solo, the pilot of the Millennium Falcon and his favorite sidekick Chewbacca, a bear-like Wookiee. So what I’m trying to stay here, is the film has instantly memorable characters. This film pushed new ground with visual effects. Luca’s own company, Industrial Light & Magic worked very hard in creating never-before-seen effects from the humming of the lightsabers to the robotic language of R2-D2. The film looks impressive for a 1977 feature, and that could have attracted scores of people. Most of all, this is a fun movie. It’s simple story of good versus evil set in a space setting, and many people were looking for such a feature.

Lucas, who is the director of the film, wanted to engage the audiences in a fun, space-filled adventure. Believe it or not, the production of this film was nearly a disaster. The honest fact is Lucas is not a great director, and he had a hard time keeping the cast in line. Lucas lost the support of nearly everyone, and he suffered from anxiety issues. The cast hardly took their jobs seriously, and they often called the movie a joke. Harrison Ford, who plays Han Solo criticized a princess who has her hair in a bun and he called Chewbacca a giant, hairy monkey. The film also went over-budget and nearly over-schedule. An eight-million dollar budget ended with ten-million plus by the end of shooting. Post-production also was troublesome for Lucas. Lucas wanted an opening scrawl, which was very unconventional for its time, and everyone was against that idea. His company had to create special effects that would normally take over a year to make in just six months. The film was originally scheduled for a 1976 release, but it had to be pushed to a May 1977 release, which would end up as a godsend for the movie. With all these troubles and then some, it just amazes me how great this movie turned out to be.

Why do I love this film? Firstly, it’s a very engaging story. A simple one, but an engaging one. I love science fiction films, so this film would be in my wheelhouse. Maybe it’s because of Star Wars that I love sci-fi so much. George Lucas had to go through so much to bring his vision to cinema. He had his ideas early as 1971, but it look many years to get Alan Ladd Jr. of Twentieth Century Fox studios to back his vision. Despite the lack of great direction, the performances were still sharp as I will discuss later. Memorable performances from everyone. I mentioned in earlier reviews on this site that composer John Williams is my favorite composer. Well just listen to this mighty impressive score and you’ll see why. The movie was fun to look at and to listen to and it enhances the story in a very positive way. The planets and their landscapes are wonderful to look at. I was impressed with the scale of the desert on the planet of Tatooine. There is a scene located at an intergalactic bar and it’s just amazing how good practical effects looked with all of these aliens together. (This bar also happened to be where the controversial scene where you wonder who shot first. Han Solo or the bounty hunter, Greedo?) Believe it or not, I hated Star Wars as little kid. Luckily, that has changed as the years went on.

So without further ado, let’s go into the story of the film. It’s a very simple, but well-defined story. The characters are simple ones, but they are given such deep characterization. This film follows a young man named Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) as he sets out with his older, wiser Jedi mentor named Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness) and a scoundrel pilot named Han Solo (Harrison Ford) as they set out to rescue the Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) from the evil second-in-command of the Empire, Darth Vader. (David Prowse, but famously voiced by James Earl Jones). They also must destroy the Death Star, a moon turned into a planet-destroying weapon, if they have any chance in stopping the Empire. See how wonderfully simple this story is? It’s incredibly easy to follow, but there are layers to everything in the story.

Which such a wonderful story, there has to be good performances right? Of course there are amazing performances! Career-defining performances in fact. Harrison Ford later stated it was because of Star Wars that he had such a great career. Shoulda not talked thrash about this movie during filming Harrison, huh? Well, despite Ford talking crap, he delivers the goods as Han Solo. I loved his cocky attitude, but deep down he was a man who is caring (if you count his love towards Leia) and someone who had no love for the Empire.  Mark Hamill is great as Luke. His performance is shaky at first, but he grows as the film moves on. Carrie Fisher is great as Leia. A powerful heroine, which is something not seen in many 70’s movies. Alec Guinness added a veteran presence as Obi-Wan and he truly embodies his character. Of course then there is Darth Vader. He is played by David Prowse, but is voiced by James Earl Jones (an iconic voice for the villain). Wonderful performances all around, even from the robots. The first thirty minutes of the film is mainly R2 and C3 wandering around in the desert. These scenes were very fun to watch, even if the pacing became ploddingly slow at times during the beginning.

So to sum up my feelings about the movie, I just about loved it. I have this movie to thank for giving me my undying love for the science fiction genre. I appreciate what this film did to change the way movies were made. Starting in 1977, summer blockbusters were going to be very prominent. Star Wars is a series that will live on forever and ever. This is something that everyone loves. But way beneath the implications, the film is a low-budget sci-fi film that only wanted to deliver fun to audiences worldwide. It certainly did that. One of my favorite movies of 1977. Thank you, George Lucas, for creating Star Wars.

My Grade: A

Annie Hall was 1977’s Best Picture winner at the Oscars. I don’t think it should have been. It was a solid movie for sure, but I couldn’t buy the movie as the best film of 1977. While Woody Allen’s Bananas was a screwball comedy, this film does mark Allen’s most mature film up to this point. The comedy is still there, but the movie is deeper than in Allen’s previous efforts. Allen cited advancing age for his more philosophical views (as he turned forty in 1975 which gave him strong opinions about death.) These philosophical views involves what it means to be romantic, Jewish heritage, the ideas of getting older, the banality of life, and of course as in most Allen’s film, a love story to the great city of New York. It also has been told that the movie resembles the personal life of Woody Allen. I wouldn’t find that surprising because he did date the star of the film, Diane Keaton at one point. I thoroughly enjoyed the philosophical views that Allen had in the film.

That also comes to the crux of my problems I had with the film. All the philosophy is fine and dandy, but people don’t realize how much this film is talking. People call this film a masterpiece, but they fail to see that this film is 121 minutes of talking and walking. I was mesmerized by Allen’s incredible dialogue, but eventually the talk wore me out (which is hard to do). This is a major issue, but luckily for the film it was the only issue I had. Too much talk, but the words were incredibly fluid thanks to the thoughtful script by Allen. There are some memorable monologues, and I liked how Allen spoke to the camera. It is rare for a movie to have an actor speak to the camera in a successful way, but Allen made it work here. He created a romantic comedy that made people laugh, and also made people cry. It represented more of a mature side to him that people seldom saw before this. Sure his screwball antics are still here, but his maturity level was elevated by several notches.

Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) is a neurotic stand-up comedian who reflects on the demise of his last relationship. He dated a woman named Annie Hall (Diane Keaton) who was an aspiring nightclub singer. Alvy reflects over the good times and bad times over the course of their relationship and also on factors that caused this relation to happen. He talks about growing up near C0ney Island, how he had sexual desires from a very young age, and how he always felt guilty about his Jewish heritage growing up.

I’ve seen this movie twice. The first time, it took awhile for me to appreciate Woody Allen’s acting in this film. This time, I was instantly brought in to the story by his inner monologue. Allen is essentially playing himself with lots of rapid intellectual dialogue. But I enjoyed watching him piece out the information on why his relationship failed. I really did like how be added depth to his character. He may be funny, but it’s not all about the comedy this time around. Diane Keaton, whom we know from The Godfather, does very well in her role. Her character is somewhat based off herself she admitted. Her character is shy, insecure at times, but she’s sweet and honest. There are some good supporting roles here too. We get to see a young Christopher Walken as Annie’s brother Duane. We see two other women that Alvy got into relationships with and they were performed decently from Carol Kane and Shelley Duvall. Also, there are two blink-or-you-miss cameos in the film. Keep any eye out for Jeff Goldblum and Signourey Weaver!

Overall, I enjoyed watching what is probably Woody Allen’s most personal movie. He later admitted he was not happy with the film because it was not the film he intended to make. But that didn’t stop critics and audiences alike all around the world from calling Annie Hall the best movie of 1977. Unfortunately, I do not share that sentiment. I do, however, think this film is a good watch. It’s funny at times, but it is also a thoughtful film. I would even call it a semi-experimental film. It’s a film that you need to pay utmost attention to or you’ll be lost. The story is not linear because there are mnay flashbacks spread throughout. Only Woody Allen could create enough witty and strong dialogue where you wouldn’t need action to complement those words. For that reason alone, this film is deserving of its Best Screenplay Oscar win. This movie is a solid watch thanks to a strong, intelligent screenplay and very strong performances from Woody Allen and Diane Keaton. However, it falls short from the masterpiece everyone claims it to be.

My Grade: B

“I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore.”

This is the most famous line in 1976’s Network and could possibly be one of the most famous lines of the decade in film. That quote is said by Howard Beales, perhaps the most memorable character of the movie. When people think about this movie, most of them think about the antics of Howard Beale in the movie. His character is associated on a real-life scenario where some news reporter committed an on-air suicide. We shall talk more about this character later, but this film is more than just about Howard Beale. This is a scathing satire about the decline of actual news reporting. The theme is simple and it leads into today’s news reporting. They just report what people want to hear, not actual stories. If ratings are bad, you can say goodbye to reporters, newscasters, programs, etc. and they will be replaced no matter how good they are. What the movie does very well is conveying those themes to the audience. The movie wasn’t kind to the route the future of news reporting was heading.

The 1970’s was a very strong decade for movies, and people arguably agree this may be the best decade for movies. The decade was mostly known for character-centric movies such as this film. It seems like more often than not, each film brings out the best in the director, the actors, and everything else. When I saw that Sidney Lumet directed the movie, I said “of course this film would be good and it would have something important to say.” I already said Lumet was on top of the themes and he made the film very believable (for the most part). He was the director of classics like 12 Angry Men and Dog Day Afternoon. Lumet did a wonderful job creating instant classic after instant classic.

One incredible part of the movie which stood out to me is the screenplay. The film was written by Paddy Chayefsky and it was one of the four Oscar wins the film earned. He really understood the news business and he once said a quote which provided an inspiration for the movie, I believe. He said, “Television would do anything for a rating…..anything.” Unfortunately, that holds true today. If a critically-acclaimed show gets poor ratings, it will probably get canceled despite the strong reviews. It was more or less the same in the 1970’s, but more with the news. Chayefsky also brought across a point saying that you can do anything or say anything  you want on television, but if you threaten the profits of the networks they will end you. This was a very good inspired screenplay that set up the base for the movie.

So let’s discuss what this film is about. In the 1970’s, extreme violence headed by terrorists were the source of the nightly news. Meanwhile, the corporate structure of the UBS Television Network was in the midst of a drastic change. Howard Beale (Peter Finch) is an aging news anchor who has poor ratings and the network decides to fire him. Beale reacts by saying on-air that he will commit suicide. That causes his ratings to skyrocket to high levels and he is changed as he becomes a preacher of a sort. We see how this affects members of the corporate team such as Diana Christensen (Faye Dunaway) and Max Schumacher (William Holden).

As with most if not all films directed by Sidney Lumet, the performances are all great. I was wowed by Peter Finch’s portrayal of Howard Beale. He became some sort of a drunken preacher and my favorite scene is right after he said the famous quote from the opening of this review, he told his viewers to go to their windows and shout “we are not going to take it anymore!” There was a shot that had people shouting out their windows in the apartment buildings and I found that to be some comedic gold. Finch was fantastic and he won the Academy Award for Best Actor. In fact, he died shortly after this film’s release and he was the first actor to receive a posthumous victory. Even though most people remember Finch as Howard Beale, this film is centered on the exploits of Diana Christensen whom is played marvelously by Faye Dunaway who was previously in 1974’s Chinatown. This film had more focus on women, which I love to see from a 70’s film. She would do anything for ratings- even if it means meeting up with terrorists. (that scene featuring her and the terrorists in a meeting was weak, however). William Holden continues his long Hollywood career in this film as the elder executive who is mesmerized by Diana despite her ruining his news division and begins an affair with her. He was very convincing. Also convincing was the portrayal of Max’s wife, Louise whom was played by Beatrice Straight. She won an Oscar for Supporting Actress despite getting only five minutes of screentime. But she delivered a heart-wrenching, emotional speech to her husband after she found about the affair and because of that speech, I believe she earned her Oscar statue. In addition to getting caliber talent for the leads, Lumet stacked up his supporting cast very well. He was able to get the likes of Robert Duvall and Ned Beatty to make very convincing cameos.

I enjoyed Network to a large degree. It was a sensation when released it 1976 because it earned ten Oscar nominations. In terms of the themes, it holds up incredibly strong. In terms of production design and cinematography, well you can tell the movie is forty years old. What stood out to me is Paddy Chayefsky’s classic screenplay, Sidney Lumet’s fluid directing, wonderful acting performances across the board, and the messages that are very influential today. Despite the antics of Howard Beale, this film is women-focused and I love that. But also see this movie for Peter Finch’s incredible performance. This movie is angry at television and will forever be. After all, networks only care for their ratings not the content. Instead of delivering news and heart-warming stories, news are all about terrorists and violence. Nothing much has changed in that regard since 1976. While not the best movie of 1976, it is worth the watch.

My Grade: A-