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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Grade: A+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Grade: B+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Grade: B-

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

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

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

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

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

My Grade: A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbZfh-5QsAw

My blunt response for 1966’s A Man for All Seasons is that it’s a great movie. The Academy voters seemed to agree with me back then because it was the Best Picture winner at the Academy Awards that year. The movie appealed to me because of a variety of reasons. I love the history background, and I learned some things about a time period I’m not too familiar with. Quite frankly, not many people know much about the events during the 15th and 16th centuries, and the topic of this movie is a major event. The film is about a man named Sir Thomas More who died because he believed in his principles on how to live a Catholic life, and unfortunately those principles clashed with the ideas of England’s ruling figure, King Henry VIII. I also loved the performances in the film, especially from Paul Scofield who delivered an immense, emotional performance as More. Like all films trying to recapture the time period, I loved the look of the film. They seemed to have caught the basic grasp of what England looked like in the 1500’s. Finally, the themes are worth watching this movie. It shows that a person should not be afraid to speak their beliefs, even if that results in persecution. The theme has always existed in reality and even more so in today’s world with political beliefs, racial beliefs, and even sexual beliefs.

To delve into the historical background of the movie is the same as describing the plot of the film so here goes. Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield) is a very popular figure in England. The chancellor has a loving family which includes his wife, Alice (Wendy Hiller) and his daughter, Margaret (Susannah York). His king, King Henry VIII (Robert Shaw) is determined to break from the Roman Catholic Church because he wants to divorce his wife and remarry a different woman. More disagrees with the king’s decision, and he respectfully resigns his chancellor post in hopes to live his life out as a private citizen. But the King has other ideas, and he wants a public announcement from More saying he agrees with the King. But More refuses, and his silence may be his biggest punishment of all.  But also his silence shows that it can sometimes be louder than words.

Fred Zinnemann’s feature has excellent performances all across the board. In researching the making of the film, I discovered that the director, Zinnemann had to fight to get Paul Scofield to play Sir Thomas More. The producers originally feared he wasn’t a big enough name for the general audience. It is a good thing they changed their mind because Scofield delivered the performance of the decade, and he had previous acting experience as the chancellor. He originally played More in plays at London’s West End and on Broadway, earning him the Tony Award. Scofield went on to win an Academy Award for his portrayal of More. I enjoyed Robert Shaw’s colorful performance as King Henry VIII. Some people say he overacts at time by screaming. It’s true that Shaw screamed often in his limited screentime, but that was how the King acted in real life. Wendy Hiller does a fine job as More’s loving wife who is also suffering due to her husband’s silence. This film also opened the eyes of the pubic to John Hurt, who was an unknown at the time. Hurt played Rich, an assistant of Thomas More but later on double-crossed him. Orson Welles delivers a brief, but good performance as Cardinal Wolsey, the head cardinal of England.

I really enjoyed watching the film and see all these fine performances take shape. The second half of the film is emotional. Those who knows their history knows that More was executed for his beliefs. His execution doesn’t take place on the screen, but the persecution More faces due to his silence is heartbreaking. Back then, people were not given the freedom of speech or expression as we are lucky to have it today. More never objected to the king’s actions. He just never said a word and he paid the price. In a sense, he was seen as a martyr. He could be one of the main influences on why humans today have the right to speak their mind.

As a biography film, I am happy the film only explained the final seven years of More’s life. I love biography films, but usually they tell the story from birth to death. But if a biography can focus on only a main event or two, the story is more flavorful and the filmmakers do not have to rush telling their story in the constrained time limit. This film is a good example as it struck more of an emotional chord as it singled out the event from the life of More that lead to his downfall, but led to influence of the future. We are never told of the chancellor’s duties or how he got married or what his childhood was like. Quite frankly, we do not need to know.

A Man for All Seasons is an excellent film for all the reasons I have mentioned in the review. The movie is more of a character-driven film thanks to the snappy screenplay adaptation by Robert Bolt, so do not expect much in the way of action. The screenplay is dialogue-driven, and I loved the words or in some cases, no words at all. It delivered a fresh breath of air to More and it informed modern audiences what happened 500 years ago and why it’s important to know what happen. It’s full of wonderful performances, especially the much-heralded performance of Scofield. The movie looks great, sounds great, and is just overall a great movie. Remember, never be afraid to speak your beliefs. You can believe whatever you want to believe, and that is what Sir Thomas More told the world in 1530.

“More is a man of an angel’s wit and singular learning. I know not his fellow. For where is the man of that gentleness, lowliness, and affability? And, as time requireth, a man of marvelous mirth and pastimes, and sometimes of as sad gravity. A man for all seasons.

-Robert Whittington (1520)

My Grade: A

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to travel in the human body? Have you ever thought what the human body would like on the inside? If so, then Fantastic Voyage might just be the film for you. The film is a really fascinating look at what the filmmakers perceived the human body to look like in the 1960’s. But on the whole, this movie is a wonderful, original science-fiction film ripe with some unique ideas. I really loved the premise of the film. I found the idea of humans being shrunk so they can explore the inside of the human body and stop disease is a very cool and rather unique idea (at least at the film’s release date).

While I found this to be an enjoyable film on the whole, I was not particularly fond of the visual effects. Believe it or not, the film actually won an Oscar for the visual effects. But 49 years after the film’s release, they look very outdated and sometimes downright lame. When first released, the film was heralded for its groundbreaking visuals, which I can understand. Despite me not liking the visuals too much, I do like how the filmmakers imagined the human body. It was quite interesting to see the blood cells or the hair linings and I was particularly interested how they created the heart and brain and it was really cool. I did like the score and the sound effects better than the visual effects. It’s interesting because the music composed for the film were essentially sound effects. I would originally be annoyed, but the music actually works very well for the film in that context.

So what is this film all about? In addition to being a learning experience about the human body, the film is also another one with a “Cold War” theme. Obviously, we were in a middle of an arms race with the Soviet Union at the time of release and I believe that was an influence on the plot. In the movie, both nations had the formula for miniaturizing humans. However, a human could only be miniaturized for a short amount of time. There is this scientist named Jan Benes, who found the secret for keeping humans miniaturized for an indefinite time period. With such secret information, that means people working for the Soviets could be after Benes. Benes escapes from them with the help of a CIA agent named Grant (Stephen Boyd). However, their convoy is attacked on the transfer and Benes is struck in the head, causing a life-threatening blood clot in the brain. Grant is now added to a task force led by Dr. Michaels (Donald Pleasance) to be miniaturized and to stop the blood clot by traveling inside Benes’s body. Now they only have an hour to complete the task before they grow big and destroy Benes because of that.

As for performances, it seemed like everyone had a fun time starring in the movie. Stephen Boyd, known mostly for being Ben Hur’s rival in 1959’s Ben-Hur, does a rather good job in the lead role as Grant. He was the man from the outside learning valuable information for the first time, just like the rest of us audience. I also enjoyed the performance of Donald Pleasance who portrayed the team leader of the expedition, Dr. Michaels. His character seemed pretty menacing at times, but he also provided a good amount of scientific information which proved to be interesting. However, not all characters I found particularly enjoyable. There was only one woman in the film and that was the character of Cora played by Raquel Welch. Cora is the main assistant of Dr. Michaels. She is supposedly one of the main character of the films, but she doesn’t act the part. Welch’s performance is not bad per se, but her character has no personality. It seemed to me her character was just added to the film to be eye candy, and not to provide any depth. I was rather disappointed in that. This is probably the biggest issue I had with the film, other than the outdated visual effects which I can appreciate though.

Fantastic Voyage, directed by Richard Fleischer, is a very entertaining movie and it can be quite a learning experience. Despite it being a fictional movie, I learned some things about the human body. There is no doubt this sci-fi film is campy like other similar films of the time period, but I had a very fun time watching it. I had my issues with the visual effects, but they are colorful and they do bring the screen to life in portraying different sections of the body. I really liked how the film is also interested in turning some of the human parts into “bad guys.” What I mean is that there are some sections of the human body they might want to stay away from. Outdated visual effects and a disappointing female lead are what kept me from calling this a great film. But I was very entertained and in that point, the movie succeeded.

My Grade: B+

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvIL_A0UsJk

The 1940’s to the 1960’s was the era that was famous for the production of numerous epics, famous for its lavish production design, colorful performances, and a story that can be told on a large canvas usually with some sort of historical background. Unfortunately, the era of epics began to die down around the release of this movie, Doctor Zhivago in 1965. In fact, many film scholars call this film the “last great epic of this era.” That is not entirely true as films similar as Doctor Zhivago or Lawrence of Arabia or Ben-Hur springs up every once in awhile. But there is no denying, that epics began to die off as the Hollywood studios began to change the content into more of a modern America cinema.

Ironically, Doctor Zhivago was the first epic I have watched from this era and it was the film that brought my attention to these popular films. For the most part, I very much enjoyed it. It took place in a historical period I am interested in-the Russian Revolution that took place in 1917. The film used this revolution as a source to tell a great story. In the past, critics have been vocal in their points that the film fails to talk about the history with too much detail. But that is precisely the point. The film effectively uses the history as a background in order to tell the main story-the sweeping romance story. I am usually not the one to enjoy a romance film, but this film is beautiful, both literally and figuratively. The film features beautiful cinematography and the landscapes are gorgeous which is not surprising because the film is directed by the great David Lean (Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai), and he is precise when it comes to art direction. It’s a known fact that the film was made in locations such as Spain and Canada because Russia was off-limits because of obvious reasons (Cold War, the source of the story, etc).

Based off the bestseller 1958 novel by Boris Pasternak, this film is about love at the height of turmoil in Russia. The movie begins with a stern Soviet officer, Yevgraf (Alec Guinness) describing some events to this worker girl, who may be related to the people told in the officer’s story. Here is how the particular story goes. Lara (Julie Christie) is romantically attached to a man named Pasha (Tom Courtenay), one of the Revolution’s leaders. She cannot keep up with his demands for the revolution. Also, her mother and herself were being victimized by this scoundrel named Komarovsky (Rod Steiger) who is a very political man. As Lara goes to shoot Komarovsky at a party in an act of revenge, that is where she meets the true love of her life, Zhivago (Omar Sharif), who happens to be happily married to his wife, Tonya (Geraldine Chaplin). Nonetheless, Zhivago falls in love with Lara. That inspires Zhivago to write poetry, mainly about his love of Lara. Meanwhile, all of this is happening during the events of the Russian Revolution where there is lots of blood and violence as the Russian peasants plan to overthrow the Russian monarchy.

One of the film’s strengths is the masterful performances from all the actors involved. Omar Sharif was seen in Lean’s previous effort, but now he is a star thanks to his career-best performance as Zhivago. It is amazing what Sharif was able to as the title character. He was able to give his character a soul. Julie Christie put herself on the map in her marvelous turn as Lara. She gave her character depth and created a believable portrait of a woman who fell madly in love. Despite the strong lead performances, don’t count out the supporting performances which may be even better than the lead ones. I loved Rod Steiger’s performance as the rascal, Komarovsky. He really seemed to make his character soulless. We get a good performance from Alec Guinness, as the Soviet officer who narrates the story and he also happens to be the half-brother of Zhivago. I loved Tom Courtenay’s performance as Pasha, the man devoted to a new Russia. Finally, I thought Geraldine Chaplin was okay as Tonya, but I felt Tonya was the only offbeat character in the film. She knew what was going on between Lara and her husband, but she takes that romance way too well to give such a believable performance. There is no way she could have been that understanding in reality.

As mentioned earlier in my review, this film was based off a novel by Boris Pasternak. It was a very well-received novel that stood for a defiance of the Soviet Union. In fact, the pages had to be smuggled out of the country in order for the story to be published. Of course, it was banned in the Soviet Union and so was the movie. The movie wasn’t screened to the public until the early 1990’s, almost 30 years after the film’s release!

In addition to the sweeping shots of beautiful landscapes, this film features a magnificent score by Maurice Jarre. When first released, there were people who hated the main theme known as “Lara’s Theme.” It’s a beautiful theme, but I believe it wasn’t well-liked at first because it played constantly over the course of the 200-minute long film and the repetition can gradually become annoying, depending on who the audience is. But the fact remains is that it’s one of the best themes and most well-known themes of any film in history.

David Lean directed this film and it’s clear that this is not his greater effort. Lawrence of Arabia and Bridge on the River Kwai are masterpieces. Doctor Zhivago will just have to settle on being a great film. The visuals, the score, and the performances are perfect, but the story has some issues. The film is a bit clunky at times and there are moments where the romance goes to far. I would have loved to see more of the history added into the film, but I’m not too upset because the way it was used as a background to the story was excellent. I also wonder about the end shot, and so apparently have many others. I wasn’t too sure if it fit into the context of the movie and if it was meant to be some symbol. But watch the film, and you can make the decision yourself. Not a masterpiece, but it’s very close in being so. Featuring breath-taking cinematography, fine performances, and a sweeping romantic story, Doctor Zhivago is another film of David Lean’s to add to your collection.

My Grade: A-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdJS1iatxmY

Dr. Strangelove is my second review of a Stanley Kubrick movie. Earlier I posted a review of his 1960 film, Spartacus which I generally liked, but did not love. Spartacus was a mainstream, straightforward film that he adapted from a novel. For this movie, it is an entirely different story. I loved every single bit of the black comedy which was written by Kubrick himself (which he adapted from the Peter George novel). This is actually one of the best films to come out in the last fifty years. It was a timely movie (for 1964’s audience), and it remains hilarious for the duration of the film even though Kubrick told his actors to play it straight. It was the talent of Kubrick that turned this film into a film he wanted, a quirky black comedy.

Kubrick is known to be a perfectionist in all of his films. He is involved with every detail including sound, editing, etc. He even has his own sound equipment and his own cameras. Because he wanted to be so perfect, it created tension between him and his actors. For example, Kubrick never got along with George C. Scott who played a major role in the movie. Kubrick used some trickery to get Scott, a very hard actor to work with, to get what he wanted and Scott vowed never to work with Kubrick again. Scott, however, did admit he respected Kubrick due to his chess skills, which they played on set every day.

The movie plays out like a spoof, a spoof about the Cold War. At the beginning of the film, General Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden) goes bananas and he orders his bomber planes to annihilate the Soviet Union. He has some crackpot idea that the communist nation is conspiring to destroy the Americans via their bodily fluid. Over in America, in the “War Room,” President Merkin Muffley (Peter Sellers) meets with his advisors to figure out what to do, and they are informed by the Russian Ambassador that if the Soviet Union is destroyed, that would unleash a machine called “The Doomsday Machine” and that will destroy all of humanity.

There are some interesting themes presented in the movie. The main theme is the Cold War, which was a silent war between the United States and the Soviet Union. The early 1960’s was a tense era due to such events like the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Cuban Revolution, in which the Soviets had a hand in. The movie is particularly interested in satirizing MAD, or the mutual assured destruction. Both sides wanted to destroy each other in a nuclear standoff, but they were deterred in doing so because all human life would be destroyed regardless. Another theme presented is a sexual theme, which Kubrick later admitted. The beginning with the airplanes going in to Russia is meant to be the start of the sexual process and Kong’s (a character in the film) ride down on the missile and detonation is meant to be the ending of the sexual process.

The film is famous for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons is Peter Sellers playing three roles. He played President Merkin Muffley, who was based off an American Midwesterner and a has a balding figure. He spoke in a tone that suggested he had a cold, an underlying weakness that Sellers wanted to give to that character. Muffley was played straight by Sellers, but I felt his character was actually hilarious. Sellers also portrayed Group Captain Lionel Mandrake, the only man accessible to the mad General Ripper. Finally, Sellers portrayed Dr. Strangelove, my favorite character in the movie. Strangelove is an ex-Nazi scientist who serves as Muffley’s scientific advisor. I loved the accent Sellers used to portray the wheelchair-bound eccentric. I also loved how he had this thing called the “alien hand syndrome” I just couldn’t stop laughing when Strangelove randomly used the Nazi salute and called the President “Mein Fuhrer” several times over the course of the film. I found it hilarious the Americans would employ former Nazis in the movie. Strangelove appeared to be a menacing antagonist of the movie, and a great one at that.

There are also great supporting turns, mainly in George C. Scott’s character, General Buck Turgidson. He was the advisor who alerted the President to the news and he was really funny. I loved the use of his facial contortions to display his emotions. He reminded me of Jim Carrey, who is famous for his extreme facial contortions as part of his comedy routine. There is one scene where the General was running in the War Room and slipped, then picked himself up again as if nothing happened. According to Kubrick, the scene wasn’t planned but it worked perfectly with the movie. Sterling Hayden had a rather small role as General Ripper at the beginning, but it was a very memorable role. Finally, there is Slim Pickens who plays Major Kong-the leader of the airplane in charge of throwing a bomb on the USSR. Pickens reportedly wasn’t told the film was a comedy, and he played his role straight. With the use of the heavy Southern accent, his role was still funny. His role was actually meant for Peter Sellers, but Sellers didn’t want to do it because he had trouble with a Southern accent and he sprained an ankle and wasn’t able to sit in the cockpit of the airplane.

Whoever thought of the Vera Lynn song playing while a collage of mushroom clouds bursting at the end of the movie was genius. It was a great ending to what was a hilarious black comedy. Dr. Strangelove is seen as one of Stanley Kubrick’s best films and it is very easy to see why. Well, both this film and 2001: A Space Odyssey are his best films, and they share common themes. Manmade machines attempting to destroy humans. Nonetheless, this film was very fun to watch and it made me laugh constantly. As a Cold War farce, the movie does a wonderful job. As for my favorite character, it is Dr. Strangelove hands down. “Mein Fuhrer! I can walk!”

My Grade: A+

To Kill A Mockingbird has always been looked upon as an instant classic because of its very important themes dealing with race during the 1930’s Alabama, a time where racism was rampant all across the United States especially in the southern states. The film itself, based on the popular and timely novel by Harper Lee, was released in 1962 which was during the civil rights movement. Some critics called this film an innocent film because of the time it was released. It was released back when people were more relaxed, but in the fifty years since then, society has gotten more uptight due to everything that has been going on. Despite a loss of innocence, this is a fantastic movie that has very important themes, even by today’s standards. This is not only one of my favorite movies from the 1960’s, but it’s also one of my all-time favorite movies.

This movie can be divided into two mini-movies. One movie is a coming-of-age story told through the eyes of a six-year-old girl named Scout. Scout and her older brother, Jem play in the hot, hazy Alabama sun every day and they have adventures with their next door neighbor, whom they just met. They tell each other tales about another neighbor of theirs named Mr. Radley, whom rumor has it chained up his son, Boo every day. I believe this part of the story was told extremely well, and it returned the memories of my childhood where I used to go off on similar adventures.

While the children play, their father named Atticus Finch goes to the courthouse every day, and that leads us on to what the other half of the film is about. This can also be perceived as a courtroom drama, an effective one to boot. The basic story goes that Finch is asked by the town’s sheriff to defend a black man who has been accused of rape. The townspeople request Atticus, who is a white man, to stop defending the black man, Tom Robinson. But Atticus believes everyone has a right to be defended, so he decided to continue along with the case.

The courtroom scene is the most powerful scene of the movie. There is no doubt about that. The speech Atticus gave talking about ideals and values to show why Tom was innocent of his accused crime is the most powerful speech you’ll hear in any movie. I won’t deny there were some tears running down my cheeks as I listened to those tender, powerful words. The movie made clear it was on Atticus’s side. Through the evidence and the witnesses in the trial, it was clear Tom is innocent, But given this is Alabama in the 1930’s, the all-white jury had other ideas. Another extremely powerful scene is after the jury gave its verdict. The black people were segregated from the white people of course, but as everyone cleared out, they all stood in silence watching Atticus. A sign of respect for what he did for their cause. It was only one man, but now it was clear that there were people out there who believed in equal rights. Not just people, but white people who believed.

The first half of the movie was all about Scout and her adventures, before it transitioned to a courtroom drama. But after the courtroom drama ended, you would expect the movie to be over. Actually, we transition back to Scout who finds herself in trouble from a racist man named Ewell, whom her father gave a hard time during the trial. Ewell is actually the father of the supposed rape victim and he was doing anything to make sure Robinson was guilty. But this is the time where the mysterious Boo Radley comes into play, where he shows he is not the person the whispers across town make him out to be. This is the part of the movie where the title comes from. If you have seen this movie, you know what I mean.

I really loved this story. It may be a clichéd story in today’s world, but it was something fresh back in 1962. Despite all the clichés, it is all about story execution. The screenplay and the direction by Robert Mulligan are rather light, but I felt for each character. I rooted for Atticus, Scout, and even Boo the entire movie. You know a movie is great when that happens. In other words, I loved the proper people and I hated the proper people. Another thing to look at in getting to know the characters is how the actors bring them to life. In this movie, the actors brought Harper Lee’s words to life and gave that life meaning. Gregory Peck won Best Actor at the Oscars for his wonderful, stirring performance as Atticus Finch. That speech is what most likely won him that prestigious award. But his performance throughout the entire film was a reserved, quiet performance. A performance that resembled the real-life Gregory Peck. Mary Badham gave a terrific performance as the young tomboy, Scout. She gave the film a sense of adventure and she was very supportive of her father, despite her limited understanding of what was going on. It’s a shame that Badham never had an acting career after her role here. She was an incredible part of this movie’s success. Also, I must note the film features the first onscreen performance of future acting legend in Robert Duvall as Boo Radley. Duvall doesn’t speak, but his actions create some of the movie’s most memorable sequences.

Overall, To Kill A Mockingbird is a very powerful, effective movie that came out at a time where hope was in the air. Hope for the black people to finally receive equal rights. Thematically, this was a very important movie. It was one of the earliest movies to actually portray black people in a positive light from the view of white people. Looking at events occurring across the world today, the themes of this movie can still be considered important. I loved this movie very much so. The acting and the story received the most praise from me. But let’s not forget about the wonderful black-and-white cinematography nor the beautiful piano score by Elmer Bernstein. This is a movie for all movie lovers should see.

“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.”

My Grade: A+

Over the course of six decades, Lawrence of Arabia have been given names such as “the epic of all epics.” People always mention this film when talking about influential movies or favorite movies. In fact, this film gave way to famous directors such as Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott, and Martin Scorsese. These forementioned directors based their films off the style of this film. No one knew it in 1962, but this film would be one of the most influential films of all time. Believe it or not, I actually didn’t think too much of the film the first time I saw it. I thought it was overlong and boring. I must have been in a bad mood that day, because I simply loved the film upon my second viewing. The scope of the film is incredible and I love the lush, gorgeous cinematography. The film is sweepingly beautiful and I still love seeing the shots of the desert sun. Everything in the film has a gentle beauty to it, even the violent battles featured in the film, so it’s no surprise the film won an Oscar for its cinematography.

The film itself is based off the historical adventures of T.E Lawrence. The movie begins with Lawrence’s death at the age of 46 due to a motorcycle accident. Then it flashbacks to 1916 with Lawrence as a young intelligence officer stationed in Cairo, Egypt. Around this time, the Arabs began a revolt against the Ottoman Empire in Turkey. Lawrence is given leave to investigate the revolt. However, he creates an army on the side of the Arabs and he uses his army to fight against the slowly-weakening Turkish troops.

Despite many people loving this spectacle, this film had its share of controversies. Mostly in the way of historical inaccuracies. For example, the Lawrence depicted in this film does not resemble the Lawrence of reality. The Lawrence in the movie, portrayed by Peter O’Toole,  is taller, skinnier, has a very boyish face, and speaks in a sarcastic way. His mannerisms also are different, and the story goes that Lawrence’s family found the film to be stupid and that it insults the memory of Lawrence. Also, new characters were introduced such as Sherif Ali, who was a Arab soldier fighting alongside Lawrence in the movie. Other notable differences were in the movie, Prince Faisal, the Arab leader was depicted as a middle-age man when in reality he was barely 30 years old. Also, General Allenby, the boss of Lawrence, was depicted as cold and mean to Lawrence. But there is enough evidence to prove they actually may have been good friends in real life. Also there have been complaints that not all of Lawrence’s exploits were mentioned in the film.

Now what is my response to all these controversies? I think it’s a load of bull. I am always for one for filmmakers to try to make their movie accurate as possible. But the bottom line is that the purpose of a movie is to entertain. If that means a film has some inaccuracies, so be it. If I needed to learn about a topic, I would watch a documentary. That being said, movies are always a good starting point to learn about a particular subject (in this case, T.E Lawrence).

This film was directed by David Lean, a master when it comes to epics. We have already seen his 1957 feature, Bridge on the River Kwai. This film is his follow-up to Kwai’s success, and it’s interesting because this film is even more successful, critically and financially. Lean is an excellent director, although he is known for his old-fashioned methods and clashing with his actors on set. There is no denying he created a powerful, influential film. He created a straightforward narrative on the outside, but he raises complex questions on the inside.

The performances are all wonderful. Peter O’Toole, although boyish-looking and does not resemble the real Lawrence much, does an amazing job. he does bring to life the eccentric ways of Lawrence. A powerful scene he brought to life is after a rather suicidal trek across the scorching desert, he goes back to help a fallen comrade and bring him to safety. Omar Sharif, a major star in Egypt, does an exceptional job as Sherif Ali. I bet if you didn’t see the cast list, you would have never recognized Alec Guinness. I wouldn’t blame you if you didn’t because he does an exceptional job as Prince Faisal, the calm leader of the Arabs.  Guinness was very immersed in his character, which isn’t surprising because he always gives his very best. Jack Hawkins does a good job as the manipulative commander in General Allenby. The whole cast does a great job; Anthony Quinn as Auda Abu Tayi, Arthur Kennedy as the American reporter who turns the exploits of Lawrence into a myth, and Anthony Quayle as Colonel Brighton.

It’s a wonder that Lawrence of Arabia was ever made. It was a 216-minute movie plus intermission. It was a film that had no love story (or women for that matter), not a lot of action, and was filmed in the desert. Usually, the big man with the money would have refused, but this film was given a chance and it was quite a chance to take. People adored this film from its release all the way to today. The performances and the cinematography are always singled out. I personally must single out the score by Maurice Jarre. He composed an incredible piece of music, and it’s one of my top soundtracks ever. The film won 7 Oscars, including the well-deserved best picture. It’s a beautiful film about an eccentric man who did a lot to help his country and to help developing nations. There are battle scenes, but the film is not about the action. It’s about T.E Lawrence.

My Grade: A

It is really interesting to see why this film, Spartacus was made in the first place. Obviously, historical epics were massively successful during this time period. But this particular film was made as an answer to 1959’s Ben-Hur. In fact, it was Kirk Douglas’s answer to that movie. Douglas was originally set to star in that movie, but Charlton Heston was cast over Douglas at the last minute, giving Douglas a feeling of bitter resentment. Both films have a very common theme: one man rising against the mighty Roman Empire to fight for their beliefs. I think Ben-Hur is the better film, but there is much to admire about this film.

The movie, based off the popular novel by Howard Fast, was written by Dalton Trumbo. Trumbo is a well-known screenwriter, not only for his writing talent but because he was blacklisted because of his associated ties with communism. Kirk Douglas and director Stanley Kubrick stood strong behind their screenwriter and they publicly announced Trumbo wrote their movie, instead of Trumbo hiding behind a pseudonym. I found that to be a very courageous move on the part of Douglas and Kubrick, because that could have easily hurt the movie’s chance at the box office. Luckily, the film was a box office smash and was very popular with the critics and the audience alike.

This film has a Roman slave named Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) as the film’s central character. Spartacus is held at a gladiatorial school ran by the amusing Lentulus Batiatus (Peter Ustinov). One day, he starts a revolt because he became angered at the notion of fighting to the death for the entertainment of spoiled women. This revolt soon spread all across Italy, where thousands of slaves joined the cause. Their plan was for Silesian pirates to transport them away from Italy to new lands. Meanwhile in Rome, Senator Gracchus (Charles Laughton) schemes to have the slaves taken down by a Roman garrison. After they failed, his mentor Marcus Licinius Crassus (Laurence Olivier) decides to lead his own army against Spartacus’s slaves. Now Spartacus must face the might and power of the Roman army.

Now compared to other epics of the time, I didn’t like this film as much. It’s certainly not a bad film, not even close to being so. The problem is the movie is a tad overlong and the story drags at certain moments. Some of the dialogue was cheesy too. By today’s standards, the dialogue does not hold up very well and some of the words are laughingly bad. These complaints dragged the movie down, but only to a very small degree.

There are many things I did admire about the film. There are plenty of majestic battle sequences and I liked them very much. I loved watching how the revolt started and I was cheering for Spartacus the entire time. I liked the political backdrop of the movie. Obviously, Spartacus uprising has a major political undertone which is revolution, a very appropriate theme. We also get to go behind the scenes and see how Roman politics influenced the war. It’s a common fact that Roman senators always schemed against each other. The film also did something different, when compared to other epics. These other epics usually provide the normal happy ending. Well, that is not much the case with this film. If you follow history, you’ll know the fate of Spartacus. But I’m not going to spoil anything for those who don’t know. But the ending was very powerful and memorable. Speaking of powerful, my favorite scene was when a Roman general asked Spartacus’s army where Spartacus was. Each soldier stood up and said, “I’m Spartacus.” A very powerful scene showing the loyalty the slaves had for Spartacus and his cause.

This film was the first big film of Stanley Kubrick’s career. He was 30 when he directed the film, but he already had 4 feature films under his belt before this film. He masterfully directed the film, but it is publicly known that he disowned the film. It’s his most straightforward film, and it was nominated for 6 Oscars (and won 4 of them). But Kubrick didn’t like the film he made. He is one of my favorite directors, and you’ll see more reviews of his films down the line.

The film features fine performances from everyone involved. One of Kubrick’s strengths is getting the very best out of his actors. Kirk Douglas portrayed Spartacus as a strong man driven by perseverance. Peter Ustinov, who won Best Supporting Actor at the Oscars for his role as Batiatus, does a wonderful job. He is consistently funny and he has a great screen presence whenever onscreen. Laurence Olivier delivers a deep performance as Crassus, who is identified as bisexual in the movie. Jean Simmons does a good job as Varinia, the wife of Spartacus. She delivered some emotional performances. Just watch the ending of the movie to see why I say so. Also, keep an eye on a meaty supporting turn by Tony Curtis as Antoninus, the man who loves Spartacus like a brother. Finally, Charles Laughton is great as the soft-hearted scheming Roman Senator, Gracchus.

Overall, I liked Spartacus, but I didn’t really love it much. It runs into some boring stretches and parts of the movie such as the dialogue and costumes don’t hold up well. But I liked how the film strived to be more historically accurate than previous epics. This is a nice film to learn something about Ancient Rome. The film does feature wonderful, bold performances, great direction, good production design, and spectacular battles. Not the greatest epics ever made, but good enough.

My Grade: B

In 1956, The Ten Commandments was released to a massive success around the world. It had such a worldwide appeal due to the story being well-known everywhere. Three years later, another wildly successful epic was released in the form of Ben-Hur. This movie seems like the first cousin of The Ten Commandments. Both are stories based off biblical events, and Charlton Heston plays the lead role in both films. Heston wasn’t nominated for any major awards with his 1956 film, but he was nominated and won an Oscar for his amazing portrayal of Judah Ben-Hur, an influential man amongst his people.

If I had to choose what my favorite epic was from this era, I would have chosen Ben-Hur. It has such a fascinating story as it’s about a man who wants what is only right for his people. His people are conquered by the Romans, and he wants a better life for them. The movie goes into so much detail on the man Judah was. He was alive for the teachings of Jesus Christ, although he was not seen to be an ardent supporter. However, one of the best scenes in the movie was Judah and his family watching Jesus being marched with a cross on his back on his way to be crucified. That scene did admittedly tear me up.

Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) is a rich Jewish merchant whom resides in Jerusalem. An old childhood Roman friend of his named Messala (Stephen Boyd) arrives to become commanding officer of Jerusalem. Both men are extremely happy to see each other at first, but their friendship becomes divided over political issues. When the governor arrives during a welcome parade, a tile falls off the roof accidentally injuring the governor. Messala takes advantage of the incident and the broken friendship with Judah to send Judah into slavery and his mother and sister into prison. Judah makes a name for himself in the galleys and becomes a Roman prince. Now Judah comes back home and he vows revenge on Messala for how he treated his family.

Charlton Heston had the fortune to appear in what are the two most famous epics of all time. He was able to convince me in his performance as Moses. Now in this film, he even more so convinces me as Judah Ben-Hur. Both men want to do what is right for their people, but they are two different men. Heston does an amazing job in this role and I believe he deserves his Oscar victory. Stephen Boyd does well as Messala. Both Heston and Boyd have excellent chemistry, which makes the broken friendship even more gut-wrenching. We also get strong supporting performances from Cathy O’Donnell and Martha Scott who portrayed Ben-Hur’s mother and sister respectively. They mostly spend their time in the film battling leprosy, which is a very gruesome disease. The makeup department did a very good job in accurately showing the symptoms of leprosy. I also liked Hugh Griffith’s performance as Sheik Ilderim, who turns out to be a useful ally for Ben-Hur. He provided some comedy, especially when it came to offering Ben-Hur his daughters to marry. Finally, Haya Harareet does a fine job as the love interest of Ben-Hur, Esther.

At the time of the film’s release, it had the largest budget of any film released. It had a price tag of around fifteen million dollars, or 123 million dollars when adjusted to today’s standards by inflation. I believe the budget was spent properly. The epic is beautiful and is home too many large, grand scenes. The most famous scene is the well-known chariot scene, which would hold up well in any movie released today. The race itself was epic and it features some hardcore chariot racing. The chariot race takes time to complete, and I’m glad it does. It’s my favorite sequence of the movie and it’s arguably the most action-packed scene of the 210-minute film. When one thinks of Ben-Hur, they will always bring up the chariot scene. It is a very influential scene on future movies.

There were some other scenes I loved to such as the scene in the galleys where Judah rescues a Roman general at sea during war and he becomes an adopted son of the general. Whenever Judah and Messala appear onscreen together is always worth watching. Judah’s search for his family is also a powerful section of the movie. The movie looks gorgeous and the production design is wonderful. Ancient Rome actually looked authentic, which is hard to say of movies released during this time period. Jerusalem also looked authentic too. I also loved the score by Miklos Rosza. It was a beautiful score to listen to and it works very well with the movie.

Overall, Ben-Hur is a flat-out great epic. The movie does run into pacing problems, but that can be expected at a movie clocked around three-and-a-half hours. Everything is consistent with the film ranging from the acting to the special effects (no CGI of course) to the wonderful direction of William Wyler. Without Wyler’s consistent tonal direction, who knew if this film would work. As a history film, this film may not always be accurate. But they did get the tone mostly right. A winner of 11 Oscars including Best Picture, this is one of my favorite epics to watch.

My Grade: A