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

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

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

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

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

My Grade: B+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Grade: B

At this point in time, Mike Nichols was a rising star. As you can recall, he directed the hit 1967 film The Graduate. His debut feature put him high on the map of talent and everyone had high expectations for him. People waited with bated breath as his second film, Catch-22 made its way into theaters in June of 1970. I was a big fan of The Graduate, and his second film appealed to me based on the plot and the pedigree of the cast. Unfortunately, I don’t have the greatest news about this picture. I was rather underwhelmed to say the least. As the movie faded to black at the end, I came away with a sense of disappointment. I was disappointed the film didn’t live up to my high hopes. I am not saying the film is completely awful, as there are some genuinely endearing moments, but the picture is underwhelming on the whole.

It’s kind of hard to give a good description of the plot because I felt like the film was just a conglomeration of scenes mashed together. Scenes that failed to form a cohesive narrative. But I will do my best to describe what this film is about. This film is about a military captain named Yossarian (Alan Arkin) who has had enough of fighting on the Mediterranean front in World War Two. In order to get out of the war, he decides to do anything possible to label himself as insane. That includes driving everyone else crazy.

What exactly didn’t I like about this film? Well there were several things. I briefly mentioned the plot structure issues in my previous paragraph. The movie was strung together by a loose thread it felt like and the story barely made sense. That was obvious when it came to the tone of the film. It didn’t know whether to be serious or to be funny. The first half of the film is trying to make you laugh, but suddenly the second half of the film turns into a rather dark drama and I was taken aback at the sudden change of tone. Now after Nichols sickened us with rather graphic war scenes in the second half of the movie, all the sudden we get an ending resembling the tone of the first half. It almost seemed like a ripoff of the ending of The Graduate and almost a cop out. Nichols was attempting to inject laughter in the audience that final scene, but not me. Also I had some issues with the script Buck Henry wrote. He adapted the screenplay from a very popular novel which was deemed unfilmable and that shows in the final product. The screenplay was essentially disjointed.

As for the performances, I did think they were pretty good. Let me say right now that some of the actors here suffer from cases of overacting. Sometimes it was annoying, and other times it was amusing. Firstly, Alan Arkin delivers a delightfully zany performance as Yossarian. It was amusing watching him become a head case to his superiors. His performance introduced him to the eyes of the public. If there is a positive thing to take away from this film, it’s watching Arkin being a crazy man. Jon Voight had a memorable performance as one of the soldiers in the film: Lt. Milo Minderbinder. My favorite scene of the film was his character blowing up his own base. Now that was something I was laughing at. The veterans of the cast are the ones guilty of overacting. I’m looking at you Colonel Cathcart (Martin Balsam) and Brig. General Dreedle (Orson Welles). Although Balsam’s opening scene with Arkin as Arkin is looking for a way to leave is quite funny.

When the film was released, it was not successful both critically and commercially. Critics somewhat warmed up to the film over time, but many had issues with the plot and screenplay like I did. The film was widely ignored perhaps because 1970 was a year war films were popular (or in some cases, anti-war films). This can be labeled as a black comedy dealing with thematic issues of war, but the thing is a movie with a similar tone (and a better movie) MASH was released. Between MASH and Patton, and the ongoing Vietnam War, I don’t think audiences were in the mood for another movie dealing with war even if the theme was decidedly antiwar.

Now there are some good things to like about the film. The performances are fun to watch especially from Alan Arkin. There are scenes that are great ones such as where Voight’s character bombing his own base and General Dreedle sending his own guy to be executed. The aerial sequences are also well-done. But they really don’t make up for the disappointment of the rest of the film.

I had high hopes for Catch-22, but it ultimately did not lead to my expectations. There are major plot and script issues and Nichol’s direction left something to be desired. But this film can be part of his growing pains and he will come to redeem himself with future films. He did make a valiant attempt to make a black comedy about war. He wasn’t able to pull it off as Robert Altman did with MASH. This is not an awful film, but its a rather disappointing film. But hey not all films can be like The Graduate.

My Grade: C-

Who are the Molly Maguires? Well, they are part of some little-known American history and Irish history. To keep things short and simple, they were a secret organization of coal miners in coal-abundant locations such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The name came in the 1840s during a tenant protest in Ireland, but the name didn’t stick until the 1860’s. Working conditions were very poor for the miners and worker discrimination was prevalent. Basically this very secret organization formed as a response to these conditions and the lack of reforms. The Molly Maguires often used violence or intimidation tactics mine owners and supervisors. This little-known film, aptly named The Molly Maguires tells the story about this group towards the end, approximately in 1875 when a Pinkerton detective infiltrated the organization. I went to school in a Luzerne County, Pennsylvania where supposedly these organizations existed, so I find it awesome that a movie exists telling a story about a piece of American history that no one knows about.

This is a film that not many people have seen. Whether at the time of release or today. So mark my words when I say this is a truly underrated gem. I really enjoyed the story it told and despite being a Hollywood film, I learned a lot about the subject. The film doesn’t have a large cast, but it features fine work in the lead roles by two magnificent actors: Sean Connery and Richard Harris. The film also possesses strong cinematography work from James Wong Howe. The film is beautifully shot and he somehow makes the rather dreary northeastern Pennsylvania locations seem strikingly beautiful. Also playing an emotional impact on the film is the score by Henry Mancini. Music is important in the film because the opening sequence is fourteen minutes long and we don’t hear any words spoken until the end of those minutes, so music was a substitute for spoken words. There are some very memorable themes in the music and they pack quite an emotional punch.

Martin Ritt directs a film that takes occurs towards the demise of the Molly Maguires. The leader of this secret organization is named Jack Kehoe (Sean Connery), and his intentions are good ones. He and his and of Irish-American miners fight against the oppressive mine owners for reforms but the owners are not very cooperative. They hire a Pinkerton detective named James McParland (Richard Harris) who is assigned to go undercover as a member of the Maguires and infiltrate their secret society, but McParland must hope he truly knows what side he is on.

The film doesn’t feature a big cast despite it’s rather high eleven million dollar budget (very expensive by 1970’s standards). But it does have two huge movie stars in Connery and Harris. Despite this being somewhat of a small film, they deliver amazing performances. Connery is one of the greatest actors ever to live and he brought his A-game here as the violent, charismatic leader of the Maguires. Harris, on the other hand, plays a soft-spoken detective who successfully undermines the organization and he essentially sacrifices his dignity and personality to bring the members of the organization to justice. Connery and Harris have excellent chemistry together. One of my favorite scenes with the two is in one of the final scenes in the prison cell. Just seeing the two square off under different circumstances was just great to watch.

The Molly Maguires is a criminally underseen movie, so you guys should see it whenever possible. It’s a piece about a secret organization that plays a pivotal role in the beginning of labor unions as we know them today. If you think treatment at jobs today are bad, just watch the film to see how bad they were in the 1860’s and 1870’s. I don’t condone the actions of the Molly Maguires, but I understand where they were coming from and why they used violence to help make their lives better. Anyhow, this is a very good movie and an underrated one too. It has fine acting, a great musical score, good direction, and beautiful cinematography. One final fact before I conclude the review is that some of the scenes were filmed in Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania-about ten minutes away where I went to school.

My Grade: A

“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