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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Grade: A-

Here is a good trivia question to ask. That question is, “What was the first sports movie to ever win Best Picture at the Oscars?” The movie with that special honor is 1976’s Rocky. This movie is an American classic and it’s widely known to be one of the most influential sports movies of all time. This movie spawned many sequels and a spin-off movie. The character of Rocky Balboa remains to this day a heavy cultural presence. In fact, if you travel to the Philadelphia Art Museum, you’ll be able to see a statue of Rocky at those famed steps. There is nothing special about the story itself. It’s a by-the-numbers underdog story, but it’s the underlying themes that make this movie so special. The themes of heroism and being the underdog really elevated this movie.

The making of this movie is part of that underdog theme, and it took a very long time for this movie to make it to the big screen. Sylvester Stallone wrote the screenplay and it was widely acclaimed in the movie industry. The studios felt it could have been a star vehicles for the likes of Robert Redford. But Stallone only wanted the movie to happen if he can act in the movie as the lead role. The studio executives thought that wouldn’t work because of his lack of acting experience. But with a very low budget, MGM/United Artists was able to get the movie made with Stallone in the lead role. This is an example of those classic underdog stories that I love to see.

Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone)  nicknamed “The Italian Stallion” is a boxer who is struggling to make the big-time. He earns some money by collecting debts for a debt collector. He gets his lucky break when heavyweight boxing star Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) arrives in Philadelphia to set up a match for show. In order for “nobody” to become a “somebody.” Apollo Creed chooses Rocky Balboa because of his nickname. Of course, Apollo believes he will win. But with the help of his trainer Mickey (Burgess Meredith) and his oft-quiet girlfriend Adrian (Talia Shire), Rocky seizes this opportunity to leave his struggles and bring a name to himself.

The film is an American classic in part due to its iconic performances. Sylvester Stallone wasn’t a name before this movie, so that makes it even more amazing the success of this movie. I previously seen him in 1971’s Bananas as one of the hoodlums on the subway. But here, with his heavy physical presence and his instant recognizable voice, he brings himself into the public spotlight and forever, Stallone will be known as Rocky Balboa. Stallone drew inspiration from the likes of Joe Frazier and Mohammad Ali. He created such a tender performance in my eyes. He may act tough in the ring, but he had such a good heart otherwise. A classic example is where he would visit the very shy Adrian in her pet store job just to visit her. Speaking of Adrian, Talia Shire delivered a good performance as Adrian. Her character is vastly different than her Connie Corleone character from The Godfather and I appreciate that. Carl Weathers does a great job as Apollo Creed. The look on his face when he realized Rocky was trying to beat him was just a priceless look. Burt Young, who portrays Adrian’s brother Paulie, also does a solid job. He was a very abusive brother and the scene where he destroys the house with a baseball bat because he was not pleased with Adrian, added more drama to the movie and it showed the kind of man Paulie is. Last but not least, I must mention Burgess Meredith in his incredibly powerful performance as Mickey. Meredith was cast against type and despite being an old man, he helped Rocky get into the ring against Apollo Creed.

The movie has many iconic scenes to it. There is the training scene where Rocky is punching the meat carcasses. I loved that scene, but here’s another trivia. That scene was actually influenced by the training of Joe Frazier. Then who can forget about the iconic scene of running up the steps of the Philadelphia Art Museum and punching the air to the tune of Bill Conti’s “Gonna Fly Now.” I loved that scene and I loved that music-both which remain cultural influences to this day. It’s just worth watching Rocky just to see these awesome training scenes.

Overall, I enjoyed watching Rocky very much. Admittedly, I am not much of a boxing fan. However, I was able to get engaged in the movie because it’s not just a story about boxing. It’s story about being a underdog, a true American hero. The story itself is a simple story and nothing that hasn’t been seen before, but it does draw you in and it keeps you engaged. I enjoyed the underdog aspect of the film. To see Sly from collecting money to facing the heavyweight champion, a feat that most people can only dream of. If you watch this movie, you can see why this film remains such an inspiration for many-especially athletes. Keep an eye on the performance by Stallone. A very incredible performance. One that was so good, that Roger Ebert compared him to Marlon Brando. The film lacks originality, but it makes up for it in everything else. John G. Avildsen directed a wonderful engaging sports film and one that will live on and on.

My Grade: A-

Let me tell you readers something about newspaper movies. They are generally about the excitement of the events that is occurring, but seldom do these kind of movies allow the audience to know that the majority of retrieving information is dull and tedious. In 1976’s All the President’s Men, that is exactly what it’s all about. This is a newspaper movie that takes you through the finer points of the newspaper business accurately as possible with very little action and mostly dialogue. I see that as a good thing……and a bad thing. See, there are some movies that should be accurate as possible and this is one of them. This movie is about how the Washington Post uncovered the Watergate Scandal and accuracy is about the best you’ll see in any film. But does that sacrifice the entertainment value of the movie? It depends on the moviegoer you are. If you like movie with lots of exposition, then you’ll have no problem. I think it also depends on your historical knowledge of the film and the more you know, the more interesting it can be. That being said, the movie has a reputation of being one of 1976’s finest films. I may not think so, although I thoroughly enjoyed the film. The story lends some historical value and it can grow tense at times. This film needs strong acting and it received excellent performances from everyone down to the last man. We can also credit the director for the relative success of the movie. William Goldman’s screenplay is all dialogue, and director Alan J. Pakula was able to take those words and bring them onscreen while keeping the movie’s tempo at a fast pace and getting performances out of all his actors.

So to understand this movie means you need to understand what led up to the infamous Watergate Scandal. That is essentially the plot of the movie. Heading up to the 1972 presidential elections, Bob Woodward (Robert Redford)-a reporter for the Washington Post, uncovers what seems to be a minor break-in at the Democratic Party National Headquarters. He grows suspicious when he sees that top defense lawyers are on the case already. The editor of the Post, Ben Bradlee (Jason Robards) wants to run the story and he assigns Woodward and Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman) to do so. As they uncover more information, they see how high up the Republican Party is involved in this cover up.

Another reason why this movie worked is because of the charm and pedigree of the cast. The movie is given an unusually stacked cast given the time period of the film. What I really liked about this cast is how they become so immersed in their roles. I wasn’t watching Robert Redford or Dustin Hoffman, but instead I was watching Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. They truly became reporters onscreen, and that is the mark of a good actor. To become the person the actors are playing. Redford and Hoffman were outstanding and they show great chemistry with each other. Let’s not forget about the smaller characters though. Jason Robards did an excellent job as the executive editor Ben Bradlee who always shown support in his reporters even if things went south. Martin Balsam does a solid job as the managing editor, Howard Simons. Then we have Jane Alexander as the woman who provided the men with their best leads. Last but not least, we have the great Hal Holbrook as Deep Throat, the mysterious source of the men. Everyone was able to take the words from William Goldman’s screenplay and make it their own words, which it’s very hard to do in the movies.

On the whole, All The President’s Men is a fine movie. Although I feel this could have been an instant classic that could have been destined for greatness. In some eyes, it is. Given its long length, this film could have been overly dull and tedious, but the cast, Pakula’s incredible direction, and a really interesting story were able to make this a taut, entertaining thriller. We get to learn about the journalistic process given that its repeated in several cycles, which can grow tiresome at some point. I liked this movie enough to give this movie a recommend, especially if you’re interested in seeing how the Watergate Scandal came to be with the utmost historical accuracy. Also this movie is just a good vehicle for the starpower of Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman.

My Grade: B

Taxi Driver is truly the movie where director Martin Scorsese really comes into his own. 1973’s Mean Streets did not really connect with me as it did with other people and 1974’s Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore was a very entertaining road trip movie but it’s not a classic. Now Taxi Driver is absolutely the definition of an instant classic. This film, about a loner with borderline homicidal tendencies, was well-received upon release and to this day, the movie holds up incredibly strong. There are many themes that can be applied to the film which we will get more into later, so this film is one of those rare ones that will challenge you to think; to make your own personal opinions about what is occurring onscreen. Paul Schrader’s screenplay is well-written and his words are easily brought onto screen with such effectiveness. Then again, I also think Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro helped bring those words to life.

So the film focuses basically on one main character. His name is Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro) and you might recognize the name because how iconic this character is. Anyhow, Travis Bickle is a Vietnam War veteran suffering from bouts of insomnia. He spends his days in porn movie theaters and his nights driving a taxi around New York City. Essentially, Travis is a man who is socially inadequate and he often thinks about what is wrong with the world-particularly in New York. He generally despises people, but he has a soft spot for Betsy (Cybill Shepherd) who works for the office of Senator Charles Palantine, whom he later wants to assassinate. Also important to Travis is helping an eleven-year-old runaway prostitute named Iris (Jodie Foster) whom Travis wants to protect from her pimp, Sport (Harvey Keitel).

So who is Travis Bickle and what does he stand for? I ask this because this movie is all about him and it is effective it getting the audience to sympathize for this character despite possessing qualities of a bad human being. We are told he is a veteran from Vietnam and that he was psychologically affected from the experience overseas. His voiceover in the beginning of the film suggests very strong opinions about people of NYC. As he cruises down the city streets, he talks about the filth of the city. The pimps, the prostitutes, the robbers, etc. He mentions if he had his own way, he would clean up these streets. We also learn that Travis is a man with a quick temper and a violent edge to him. I loved how he pretended to know everything about the political candidate, Senator Palantine just so he can get the girl. My favorite scene (or one of my favorites) is when he drives the Senator himself in a taxi pretending he knows all about his campaign. And I wont do spoilers, but there is a certain connection between Palpatine and the mohawk on Travis’s head.

This is a film that requires powerful performances if you want to make this a good movie. But with Scorsese at the helm, everyone performs amazingly. Of course, Robert De Niro did an astounding job in making Travis Bickle his own. He performed the character with ease, though this must have been tough on the actor. But I truly believed this character as a loner who is violent and has very strong beliefs. I loved the rapport he had with the young Jodie Foster. Foster began acting at such an early age, and you can see how skilled she is when she holds her own against De Niro and both have strong chemistry with each other. The rest of the cast is rounded by the likes of Albert Brooks, Harvey Keitel, and Cybill Shepherd (who is a joy to watch as Betsy).

I must say the cinematography and the score are standouts of the film. Michael Chapman filmed mostly at night and the picture has a gritty, real-time feel to it. The score was created by Bernard Herrmann, and this would be his last score before his passing. What a way to end a storied film career! His score yearns for the loneliness of Bickle’s heart. The saxophone is synonymous with the empty shell that is Travis Bickle. It’s a powerful, though often haunting score.

The film does not go without its controversies. The ending was deemed way too violent and Scorsese actually had to de-saturate the color to get an R rating. Though I believe it plays an essential role of the film, I agree the film (especially the ending) is very, very violent. Essentially, the end has Travis going on a murderous rampage against Sport so he could return young Iris to her family. The film is also home to a political assassination, which was set up very well. Though this is a characterization piece, expects lots of violence and blood. In fact, The attempted murderer of Ronald Reagan, John Hinckley Jr. based his assassination attempt off the events in this movie.

Taxi Driver, admittedly can be a hard film to watch. Though an iconic character, Travis Bickle is not a pleasant man. But one cannot help but root for him. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and I found some interesting interpretations of this character. There are religious and social interpretations. He can be described as “an avenging angel,” and I can see that point very well. I loved how Scorsese kept the movie ending up to grabs. In other words, each person may have a different interpretation on what happens in the end. The film wouldn’t have worked unless it got excellent acting and powerful directing. And that is what we get. Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro pulled off a cinematic gem. Although you might get a little depressed watching at times. Don’t say I did not warn you.

My Grade: A-