In 1971, the era of the grand epics were over. The last great epic leading up to this year was 1965’s Doctor Zhivago. Every once in awhile, an epic will come along trying to repeat the glory of the past. 1971’s Nicholas and Alexandria is an example of that. Does this movie succeed in returning to it’s former glory? Not quite….but I very much enjoyed this movie, more so than many people it seems. The film has its issues which I’ll explain momentarily, but this was a valuable history lesson to those who know little about the Russian Revolution or Czar Nicholas II-the last Czar in Russian history.

This movie tells the story, the tragic story of Czar Nicholas II (Michael Jayston) set against the backdrop of the Russian Revolution. This movie goes inside the private life of Nicholas and his wife, Alexandria (Janet Suzman) as well as their daughters and only son. Their son spends most of his childhood crippled with sickness, so the family hire the mysterious Rasputin (Tom Baker) for help in curing him. On the political side of things, Nicholas is very unpopular and is the root cause of seven million deaths because of their involvement in World War I and domestic problems such as starvation. All of these problems has Nick and his family paying the ultimate consequence.

This is the second of two movies to have the Russian Revolution as the backdrop. The first film was the big musical hit, Fiddler on the Roof. That movie occurred pre-Revolution. But this film focuses on the causes of the Revolution and the immediate aftermath. Or so it’s supposed to. My biggest problem with the film is that it treats the Revolution itself as an afterthought. There are cameos by very important characters such as Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin-but they hardly had any effect on the film. I wanted to know more about the Revolution itself and how Lenin took over Russia. I can’t be too upset because this film is about the life of Nicholas after all. I wish I wasn’t tantalized with the scenes of Lenin however.

I divided up this epic into two sections. The first section is what I find to be the more glorified, beautiful part of the film. Many epics rely on vast landscapes, but this epic does something a little different. It relies upon vast interior decoration designed to take your breath away. The Russian architecture, especially on the inside is certainly something to behold. The art direction and the production design certainly are incredible in this film. The first part mainly tells us how life is like for Czar and his family despite all the war and suffering going around them. The second half is a different kind of story. It’s a sad, painful story that shows how life of the Czar fell apart after the Revolution which culminated in a very sad, but brilliantly-made ending scene showing the execution of Czar Nick and his entire family. Of course as a student of history I knew what happened, but that scene had tears coming from my eyes. Nicholas was not an innocent man, but he tried his best with what he got-but he couldn’t get any better.

This film was brilliantly-acted. That impresses me because the two lead actors (Michael Jayston and Janet Suzman) never worked in film prior to this film. They were seasoned British stage actors but they made the transition to film really well. If you can get used to Jayston’s overreacting facial expressions, you probably will appreciate what he brought to the role as the czar. A man who had a good soul, but is largely blamed for the death of millions. Suzman does an incredible job as his wife, Alexandria who had a role in why Russia was in such bad shape. She sometimes controlled her husband to the point where it seemed like he was a puppet. They had great chemistry with each other, so I was impressed what they did with this film. Tom Baker gives a good performance as the mysterious Rasputin. There is one thing that bothered me about this character. There is a scene where all of the sudden he becomes a homosexual. I’m not sure if history supports that notion, but the way the film showed it out of the blue kind of bothered me. The supporting cast all do well in their roles. Any movie that features Jack Hawkins, Laurence Olivier, Ian Holm, and Brian Cox in the same cast is a good one by my book.

Nicholas and Alexandra is quite a fascinating epic. The first half is a movie about style, about grandeur during a time where peasant living conditions were terrible. The second half of the movie is a haunting story of the Czar’s downfall. I loved the production design and the film was given an authentic feeling. It must be nice being so rich like the Czar was. The second-half is my favorite section of the film and that final scene is a powerful, very emotionally-driven scene. The story itself was good, but it could have been much better if the actual Revolution was not used as an afterthought. But given this movie seems to be the only one in existence about Czar Nicholas II and his final days, I am very satisfied with this film. Maybe my grade is high because of the powerful last few minutes, but there is no denying this is a good epic that came out in an era where these kind of movies were seen as dead.

My Grade: A-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QegNUOg2ajE

I was a little late to the game when it came to Fiddler on the Roof. It seemed to be a movie every single person has seen, but now I have joined the party. Based off the very famous stage play, this film takes place in a pre-revolutionary village in Russia where there is a mixture of the Jewish and Christian people whom each have their own traditions. This film has a major theme in tradition, told from the view of the Jewish peasantry. The message regarding tradition is that times change and sometimes tradition has to be changed to keep up with the changing times. This film particularly talks about traditional marriage within a Jewish family, and how some events changed the very old traditions. Not only is the film about tradition or culture, but you can learn some history. This movie has a setting in pre-revolutionary Russia just before the Russian Revolution of 1918. The Jewish people are being exiled from their home over the course of the film to places like Israel or even Chicago. One of the iconic figures in the movie was the fiddle player-hence the title name. The fiddle player is shown in two very iconic shots-one at the opening and one at the end. This is a symbol for the tolerance or the forbearance of the Jewish people in the movie.

This film, which is well-directed by Norman Jewison, is a musical that takes place in pre-revolutionary Russia (just barely). This is a country that struggles to modernize. Maybe a reason is because of the Jewish peasantry, whom hold dear to their traditions. One of the traditions is having a matchmaker pair up matches for people who are of age to marry. There is Trevye (Topol), who is a poor milkman who has five daughters of his own-three ready to marry. The matchmaker, of course, pairs his daughters up. But instead of arraigned marriages, the daughters find love. The eldest daughter falls in love with a poor furniture-maker and his second-eldest falls in love with a Marxist, causing anguish in Trevye as he sees tradition falling apart. Meanwhile, revolution is spreading across the country forcing all Jewish people to leave their homes and their country.

This film, just like the stage play, is a musical. There are a lot of songs and dancing. I liked most of the songs, but two that stood out to me were “Tradition” which was the opening number as Trevye discusses the tradition of his people and “If I Were A Rich Man” which as Trevye lamenting his life and wondering how different it would be if he had money. From what I heard, the music is very faithful to the play. But there were a couple new songs added specifically for the film. It shouldn’t be a surprise how good the music is because the legendary John Williams is at the helm as composer-one of his very first gigs in the film industry. As for the dancing, there is a good amount of choreography. I liked that Jewison made the dancing appropriate for the movie audience, not the play audience. Older musicals had problems where I felt I was watching a play, not a musical. Anyhow, there is a rather strange dislike about the dancing of Trevye. He moves his hands in such a weird fashion. I was like, “Dude, don’t make me tie your hands up when you are dancing!”

The film is reasonably well-acted. When I saw the cast, I haven’t heard of a single name. Topol apparently is a well-respected Israeli actor and other than those distracting hand movements, he did a wonderful job. His singing was emotionally-charged as everything around him changes. He is a man nof tradition, but even he can be persuaded. When asked by his daughters about marriage, he goes on a rant each time with God pleading why this has to happen to him. They are powerful scenes that rightfully nominated him for an Oscar. Leonard Frey as Motel, the lover of the eldest daughter does a solid job. I love his scene where he builds a sowing machine with giddy delight and holds it as if its his own baby. As for the daughters, I can’t recall any names. They are just there to fall in love and play daughter to their father. They didn’t have much characterization.

Nominated for eight Oscars and winning three of them, Fiddler on the Roof is a very faithful adaptation of the Broadway musical. I didn’t go nuts over the film, but it’s perfectly enjoyable. It’s nice to learn about the history and culture of a group of people (from Russia) I did not know too much about. I studied the Russian Revolution, but not so much what happens before. The music is mostly enjoyable and keep an eye out for the fiddle player. The film is very lengthy, but this is an adaptation that pleased fans of the play and general musical fans over the years.

My Grade: B+

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfgUF86tpD8

I really loved Peter Bogdanovich’s The Last Picture Show. This was a film that was never on my radar, but then when I heard about the talent behind the film, I knew that I should check it out. Everything about the film is nearly perfect from the spot-on performances to the masterful direction to the technical side of the film. I very much enjoyed how the movie was filmed in black-and-white. It added to the surprising realism the film showed us. The film is about life and how people try to figure out the meaning of their lives in the rather desolate town of Anarene, Texas.

There is no denying how depressing the film can be. It’s certainly moody and there is no happiness to be found. The lives of everyone is like living in an empty void. People move on from one thing to the next with nothing to look forward too. This is one of the factors that make this movie so powerful. Also adding to the depression of this dying town is the changing times. The town resembles an old Western town way past it’s due date. You understand the reasons the tumbleweed rolling through town. The film points out rapidly-evolving urban centers nearby as people flock to these towns to start new lives. But for the people remaining in town, the old-timers fondly remember the happy days while the young people wonder what to do without being so bored. After all, downtown only consists of a diner, the pool hall, and an old-fashioned movie theater all owned by one man known as Sam the Lion.

Something that really surprised me is how much of a factor sex plays in the film. Of course, sex is necessary in everyone’s lives. But this film really pulls the strings with that sentence. People have sex with each other in the film because there is nothing else to do. They use sex as a way to get through their rather meaningless day. Except for a few cases, there is no sense of eroticism in the sexual activities. There is this one girl named Jacy who uses her looks to seduce every man in town and there is the relationship between our main character Sonny and the older wife of the local gym teacher, Ruth. After Sonny cheats on Ruth with Jacy, there is a very powerful scene between Ruth and Sonny (that involved chucking a coffee pot at Sonny’s head) that shows the deep, real feelings that people did have. The feeling that love actually existed inside of these people.

It’s 1951 in this small, hapless town of Anarene, Texas. The only person who seems to enjoy life is Sam the Lion (Ben Johnson), a father figure of almost everyone in town. Life does not hold much of a future in this town for the younger generation. Two kids the film keeps an eye on are the co-captains of their terrible high school football team; Sonny Crawford (Timothy Bottoms) and Duane Jackson (Jeff Bridges). Sonny is more of the sensitive kind of person while Duane is a brash, outgoing man-but they happen to be best friends. Duane also happens to be dating the best-looking girl in town, Jacy (Cybill Shepherd), the daughter of an oil baron. Meanwhile, Sonny just broke up with his long-time girlfriend who only were together for the lack of anything to do. Jacy begins a pursuit on her mother’s Lois (Ellen Burstyn) to find other men that could give her a future. Meanwhile, Sonny begins an affair with the older Ruth Popper (Cloris Leachman). These events show exactly how much of a future is left for the younger generation in Anarene.

The film has a very strong cast, whom many would go on to have strong careers. There really is not a single standout because everyone gives an incredible performance each depicting their own sense of sadness. If I had to choose the best performance in the film, I would pick Cloris Leachman as the unhappy wife who begins an affair. That forementioned scene in the argument with Sonny is very powerful. Ben Johnson would be a very close second as Sam the Lion. He’s a stern man content with life in the town, but he understands the plight of the young ones. His scene where he takes Sonny out fishing and reminisces on his younger life concerning love actually brought a few tears to my eyes. There is Jeff Bridges, who gave a very steady performance and despite his young age, he already held a commanding presence onscreen. Cybill Shepherd was an unrecognizable name at the time, but her sexual turn as Jacy opened up some eyes. Ellen Burstyn likewise as her mother.

I also must comment on the use of music in the film. Unlike many films at the time, it does not have an orchestral score. Instead, it uses some pop music as background music. The use of Hank Williams made a good, rather unique fit for the film.

Also, I have to mention the cinematography, which was used in black-and-white. That gave to the overall realism of the movie. But it is the little things on camera that showed the emptiness of the town. Whether its the tumbleweed, the dust blowing the air, the sad faces of everyone, the broken-down cars, etc. Everything that was shot, in some shape or form, showed what life was in this town.

Overall, The Last Picture Show is a bleak, sad movie that is nonetheless a very powerful feature that is masterfully directed by Peter Bogdanovich and brilliantly adapted to the screen by Bogdanovich as well. He gets powerful performances from everyone in the film, and that is a rare feat for a young director. It goes to show that growing up is not all golden and wonderful as some people struggle to live because of the area they reside in. This is surprisingly a very powerful film and one of my favorites from 1971.

My Grade: A

I remember watching The French Connection for the first time several years ago. I knew people regarded it as an instant classic, so I was expecting to love it. But the power of subjectivity appeared, and it turned out I didn’t like it all too much. In discussions with cinema lovers, I was lambasted because people see this as one of the all-time greats. I watched this for a second time recently, and how about that! My opinion changed. While not calling this film an all-time great, I do respect and like it very much. The film fits the definition of a 70’s American film. It is dark, gritty, and features some heavy violence. Also, the film happens to be home of one of cinema’s greatest car chases. Essentially, the movie is a giant chase but that particular car chase is something else. I’ll discuss it more later on in this review.

This Oscar-winning film takes us onto the streets of New York City following two detectives, Jimmy ‘Popeye’ Doyle (Gene Hackman) and his partner, Buddy Russo (Roy Scheider). Popeye is infamous for taking in street-level drug dealers, and at best his policework can be described as shady. He’s violent drunk cop with low ethical standards, and his career is rapidly falling apart. But he seizes his biggest opportunity when he learns of a huge heroin shipment coming from France. Now we have an interesting contrast between Popeye and the heroin smuggler, Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey). I just mentioned Popeye has low moral standards, but he still is a dedicated cop. On the other hand, Charnier is a smooth gentleman that no one can predict he is a criminal. Now the standoff between the two men begins when Popeye does all he can to bring Charnier in.

Now going back to that car chase! It was a wonderfully executed car chase and what I like is that it is all real. There was an actual chase filmed in Brooklyn exactly how you see it on screen. It’s crazy too because the chase is about a simple car trying to outrun and outmaneuver a moving train which eventually has a dead conductor at the wheel. So then it turns into a psychologically-crazy man versus machine kind of chase. The chase also proves the recklessness of Popeye. He held no regard for the common people as he had close calls with them during the chase. He was basically using the people for his benefit….in an oddly positive way. Some of the camera techniques are very effective. They filmed in a way where the subjects are actually further away from the cars than shown onscreen….which must have been a relief for some of the actors. But yes, this is one of the biggest car chases to have ever been filmed so this film is a must-see just for that.

Speaking of actors, well yes let’s talk about the acting. Director William Friedkin famously did not want Gene Hackman in the lead role. Hackman, by 1971 was already a bankable star, but Friedkin did not think so. Luckily, they decided to cast Hackman anyway and it’s a good thing they did. Hackman is one of those actors who can do any genre and always gives his best effort. I loved his performance here and his character was perhaps the only three-dimensional character in the film because the film spends so much time on him. But I was won over by Hackman almost right away. The scene where he enters a bar and violently asks everyone to turn out their pockets in the search for drugs-well, I knew I would be in for a treat. I was happy to see his performance win Best Actor at the Academy Awards. Roy Scheider does a solid job as Popeye’s partner, but I didn’t feel the same way for him as I did for Popeye. There was nothing much to do for him except to act as a backup. Same goes for Fernando Rey. A very solid performance, but his character was also under-utilized.

The French Connection is a violent, fast-paced film. I said in my opening the movie plays like one giant chase, but I liked the frenetic pacing of the movie. My favorite scene is no doubt that car chase, but I loved the smaller scenes especially the ones where Popeye is up to no good. I also loved the actual photography of the film. Sure, the movie is over forty years old but seeing the streets of my favorite city in the world always makes me happy as it brings back some fond memories. The film has a violent nature and it may take you by surprise, but this film is heralded by many as an instant classic. I may not think so, but I did enjoy it very much.

My Grade: B+