https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-3pAKeR9H8

I was not the biggest supporter of Martin Scorsese’s first studio film, 1973’s Mean Streets. That film had moments of brilliance and it proved the man would go on to have a magnificent career. That was more evident by his next feature, 1974’s Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore. While still not a masterpiece, it’s definitely a very engaging film and Scorsese does an excellent job in getting the best out of his actors in his movie. What I really liked is how the film get you feeling at certain parts. Some parts of the film are incredibly funny (especially the scenes between mother and son), while others are intensely dramatic and tear-jerking. Scorsese does an excellent job in balancing those two tones, so it does not feel like the movie is all over the place. We get some magnificent performances out of everyone, especially from Ellen Burstyn who deserved her Oscar win for her portrayal of a mother trying to find independence and self-sufficiency.

Before we delve deep into plot details, this film came out with a very important message: the representation of women in American society. Women, at the time, was still seen as housewives and not workers. They must obey their men without question and it is okay for men to beat or abuse them. That was pretty much the mindset of this era. Scorsese, screenwriter Robert Getchell, and Ellen Burstyn set out to make a film that shows women as man’s equal. They deserve to have careers, to be paid as much as men do, to do anything a man can do. I think they succeed in bringing a clear message across. Even in today’s world, where women are treated better, there are still some obstacles preventing women from achieving the status of men do. But this movie conveys a very important message about women, and about family. I liked the beginning of the film as it goes along with the themes of conceived concepts of what society thought of womanhood. There is this fake sunset and fake sense of happiness as it shows the women should be happy as the family’s domestic servant. I almost thought I was watching The Wizard of Oz by mistake, but this scene gets its point across easily.

Alice Hyatt (Ellen Burstyn) finds herself an independent woman after many years in domesticity when her abusive husbands dies in a tractor-trailer accident. She decides to move to California with her eleven-year-old son named Tommy (Alfred Lutter) so she can begin a singing career. On their travels, they make lengthy stops in Arizona. They first stop in Phoenix, where she gets a job at a piano bar and dates a man named Ben (Harvey Keitel) who actually turns out to be married. They travel to Tucson where she puts her dreams of singing off to the side and becomes a waitress. There she meets a new friend, a fellow waitress named Flo (Diane Ladd), and more importantly a relationship with a farmer named David (Kris Kristofferson).

The performances are all wonderful. Ellen Burstyn is totally deserving of all her accolades. She plays an ordinary mother with the decent looks and prosperous dreams (she’s actually a terrible singer). But after years in domesticity, she finally finds herself in a position of independence. Her performance is very natural and realistic. Alfred Lutter was virtually an unknown and he never had much of an acting career after this film, but he was decent here. He could have been great, but sometimes he was annoying. Diane Ladd was wonderful as the waitress friend who is frank, honest, and loves sex. I liked Kris Kristofferson (or the Jeff Bridges lookalike) as the gentle farmer who is a handyman and he loves Alice from first sight. He loves her so much that he does anything he can to convince her to love him back and to show he’s not a fake. Finally, Harvey Keitel, a mainstay for Scorsese, is only in the movie for brief but he does a good job in being one of those idiot men who cheats on their wives.

Not only is the film about women, but it’s about other relationships. There is the relationship between Alice and Flo that works out well. They have this completely honest discussion during this beach scene and it’s a terrific scene to watch. There is the interesting relationship between Tommy and David. David tries to become a mentor in Tommy’s life, but is unable to reach out to him. He tries his best to act like a father figure, but that is all but ruined during a catastrophic birthday party scene. There is also the relationship between Tommy and Audrey (played by the young Jodie Foster.) Audrey becomes a friend to Tommy, but she is an outcast and she convinces Tommy to break the law (when it comes to stealing candy bars, etc). All these relationships have effective dynamics to them and are truly believable.

Alice Doesn’t Live Here Before has had its supporters and critics within the feminism movement. Some people say this film is overly feminist while others support the messages of the film. I, myself do find the themes to be powerful. Sometimes it feels like I’m being beaten over the head with these feminism issues in the movie, but they are very important. It has gotten better for women, but it is still not good enough. Fortunately, I am a man who believes every woman is my equal. This is not Martin Scorsese’s greatest film, but it’s a remarkable improvement over his last feature. The performances are all excellent, and the film is written very well. The pacing needs to be a little better, but overall it’s well-directed. Martin is learning very fast. Just wait till you see the remarkable Taxi Driver. I loved how he interjected a soundtrack full of rock’n’roll tunes. It’s nice to hear songs from Mott the Hoople and Elton John. This is a solid road-trip dramedy that highlights a very important issue.

My Grade: B+

Over the years, people have called Chinatown one of the best movies ever. I don’t quite agree with that statement, but there is no denying that the movie is a masterpiece. I may not find it one of the best films all-time, but I do find it as one of the best films of 1974. This noir film harkens back to the days where similar films were produced left and right. But starting from the 1960’s, this genre slowly began to fade away. The film may come across as really taking its time to tell the story, but the thriller has lots of tension that builds up to its climatic ending. This film brought public awareness to some issues people may not have really known about. Water is a commodity for human survival and whoever controls the water, controls the money. This movie is a complex series of events surrounding the control of water and that people can die over this issue. Ah, the wonders of being a human being! The movie is a complicated follow, so don’t lose yourself in any train of thought, or you might lose what will happen plot-wise. Boasting one of cinema’s all-time greatest screenplays by Robert Towne and a powerful lead performance by Jack Nicholson, you are in for a fantastic time.

As I mentioned briefly, the film’s plot can be complex as the film will turn down a completely different path in a heartbeat. Jake Gittes (Jack Nicholson) is a private investigator who specializes in matrimonial affairs. One day, he gets a visit from a woman claiming to be Evelyn Mulwray. She tells Jake that her husband is cheating on her and she would like Jake to investigate her claims. He does his job by taking photographs of him and he catches him with another woman. That ensues a scandal and Gittes is confronted by the real Evelyn Mulwray (Faye Dunaway). When the husband shows up dead, Gittes is led deeper and deeper in a web of deceit, lies, and murder.

This movie is given its voice by a variety of elements such as Robert Towne’s fantastic screenplay or Roman Polanksi’s visionary directing style. But let’s not forget about the wonderful performances including the tour de force performance by screen legend, Jack Nicholson. Nicholson’s performance is nothing short of excellent as he portrays Jake Gittes. I loved how the movie gave in-depth characterization to this character. Gittes may not be the nicest man in the world, but he’s a man of honor and honesty. The movie is all about lies and that forms a rather bleak mental state for Gittes. All we wants to do is find the truth and move on, but that seems impossible to do with all the lies and murder. Nicholson was nominated for an Oscar for his performance, and some might say he should have won. Who can forget that scene at the river bed where he is slashed in the nose by this random creep. Faye Dunaway also delivers an amazing performance. On the outside her character makes you believe she is good, but she has some fishy motives about her. Gittes falls in love with her, but he can’t take her sneaky lies. Then we have the performance of John Huston, the legendary director who plays Evelyn’s father. His character, Noah Cross is the antagonist of the film one would say as he wants to use his wealth to control the water. That dinner scene between Noah and Jake is quite something. Noah and his mean, beady eyes are put to good use.

This film was directed by Roman Polanski, before he was extradited to Europe and could only make films there. This movie has him returning back to the director’s chair, only a few years after the brutal murder of his wife and unborn child. I loved his sense of direction and he really captured the noir feeling you would find in the films of the 1940’s. His conflict with the screenwriter Robert Towne became somewhat famous. Towne had the film end with a happy ending, but Polanksi went against that. The ending is not a happy one as we get some unfortunate deaths from the wrong people, but it was an effective ending nonetheless. No matter what, Robert Towne written one of the best screenplays of all time and that will endure for many, many years into our future.

Chinatown was another instant success for Paramount studio. Between this and The Godfather, this studio was having a decade to remember up to this point. The noir genre has essentially been dead for years by the time 1974 rolled around, but this movie was able to revive the genre, only if it was for one picture. This film is labeled by film historians as a neo-noir. The basic elements of a noir film was here such as the emphasizing of cynical attitudes and sexual motivations. The ending is almost like a noir film where the revelations happen and the plot is explained. This is one of the most acclaimed neo-noir films and it would fit right at home with the noir films of the 40’s and 50’s.

Even though Chinatown is a fictional movie, it’s based of the Los Angeles water grab of 1908. This is a city that formed in a desert and it should be impossible for water to exist, which makes the control of the water ever more so fundamental. Towne did a great job adding his own 1930’s spin to the story. This movie is undeniably a great film. The pace crawls at times, but the content of the story kept me captivated. This is not an action thriller, but it’s one of those slow-burn thrillers focused on telling a top-rate story. The film fires on all cylinders because of it’s wonderful acting and solid direction. But we also have a great but sad, trumpet-infused score from Jerry Goldsmith and cinematography from John A. Alonzo that captures the L.A of old in a very effective way. Let’s not forget about the award-winning screenplay from Robert Towne. Nominated for 11 Oscars, this film is worth a watch. This is a fantastic thriller that relies upon excellent storytelling.

My Grade: A-

If you have never seen The Sting before, my recommendation is to see it immediately. This is such a fun, wonderful movie and it’s another example why 1973 was a great year in movies. The film is very stylish to look at and it gave me the authentic 1930s feeling although I get a feeling the art designer went a little beyond the authenticity. That being said, the production design and the costumes are excellent features of this movie. But not only is this film stylish, it also has a deep plot. Credit goes to director George Roy Hill for making this movie understandable and enjoyable for the mass audience. The movie does have a tendency to get overly complicated at times because of all the twists and turns that come out of nowhere-and to great effect. The first time I watched the movie, I fell in love with it but I was completely lost by the ending in the final showdown. My second viewing had me understand what was going on and that is all because of the excellent directing by Hill.

If you only had two words to describe the plot, the best two words to use would be “revenge con.” After all, this story is about revenge but not in the typical violent way. Revenge is got in the way of performing a big con. Anyway, Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman) and Johnny Hooker (Robert Redford) are two con men who meet up due to the murder of a mutual friend. Henry is an older, more accomplished con man while Johnny is a young man, but despite his great talent, he can be rash and cocky. They get together to avenge the death of their friend, which was caused by the mob boss, Doyle Lonnegan (Robert Shaw). Featuring a poker game, a fake wire room for horse bets, the involvement of the police, and many twists and turns, this story will take you for a fun ride.

The writing and direction are big reasons why this film was successful, but another reason was the acting. Paul Newman and Robert Redford are not actors I would normally call funny, but here they inhabit their characters with some comedy and it works out perfectly. Newman brings a veteran presence in this movie and as always, he does a magnificent job in the role as Henry. He made Henry a drunk, but a very competent and skilled con man who turns into almost a father figure for Johnny. Robert Redford is a star on the rise and this movie, which nominated him for an Academy Award, helped him achieve stardom. He was very charming here and the way he pulls of his cons make him even more charming. Robert Shaw excels at playing the villain, so its no surprise how well he does as Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw gives the mob boss an aura of menace and if you watch the poker game between Shaw and Newman, you’ll see just how effective Shaw is. Charles Durning plays the intimidating cop on everyone’s trail and does well.

The screenplay, written by David S. Ward, is one of the best screenplays I had the fortune to read. Sure his words were executed flawlessly on screen by the actors, but after all a good movie cannot exist with a bad screenplay. Ward gave his movie excellent dialogue, a fast pace, and many twists that can be complicated. That is where we come into the directing. George Roy Hill directed the 1967 classic, Butch Sundance and the Cassidy Kid (which I haven’t seen yet), but I hear how influential that movie is to modern cinema. This film needed good directing to make the story connect with the audience, and Hill does a magnificent job. This movie could have easily been a mumble jumble of a mess. The beginning scene where Redford performs a con worked beautifully thanks to Hill and the final hour where Newman and Redford had to pretend not to know each other, while taking turns to perform their beig heist on Lonnegan sounds impossible to do, but Hill did a wonderful job in making everything work.

Another part of the movie that adds to the vibrant, fun aura of the movie is the music, which was adapted by Marvin Hamslich. He makes good use of Scott Joplin’s ragtime music. His music faded from popularity by the 1930’s (the decade of this film), but his music still had the perfect kind of tone this movie had. This is another reason why I loved the movie: to listen to the great music.

I very much enjoyed The Sting. It was a very fun movie to watch from start to finish. The movie tended to get a little complicated at times, but the direction of film is why the movie did not lose me. This was superbly written and wonderfully acted. Newman and Redford looked like they were having fun and they have great chemistry together. The movie looked very stylish thanks to the art direction and costume designs. This movie gave off a fun atmosphere and that’s all I wanted. Nominated for ten Oscars and winning seven of them (including Best Picture and Director), this film is a must-see if you want an entertaining movie.

My Grade: A

1973 was a very strong year for movies. I say it’s the best year in movies produced in the modern Hollywood system up to 1973. It’s not the best year of the decade (1976 is just fabulous for excellent movies), but with the likes of American Graffiti, The Sting, and this movie, Serpico, it’s hard not to get excited about the year of film in 1973. I’ll say off the bat that Serpico is an excellent movie. I can hardly call that a surprise given the amount of talent behind the film. The story, based off real-life events, is very engaging and its brutally honest. Just like Mean Streets showed, living in New York City was not exactly all that safe. While Mean Streets covered everyday life in a New York community, this film covers the police and more specifically, police corruption. The film shows that pretty much every cop in the NYPD were corrupt to some degree whether it’s racketeering or paid murder, but one man decided to show honesty and integrity….and nearly pays with his life. This is a very powerful theme and it shows why the movie can be labeled as inspiring. It’s just one of the few things that make this movie a must-see.

This picture takes place in New York City in the late 1960’s-early 1970’s. Frank Serpico’s (Al Pacino) profession is a NYPD officer, and his motto is to become a good cop. The problem is that no one else wants to be a good cop. He refuses to extort money from the local criminals unlike his colleagues. Because of that, he is alienated from everyone else on the workforce. He is constantly put in life-threatening scenarios, and nothing seems to get done when he goes to the highest authorities. He refuses to be like everyone, despite all the danger, in hopes that one day corruption will end.

This movie relies upon some heavy acting by Al Pacino, and he certainly rose to the task. This movie also proved that Pacino was capable of becoming a powerful leading man. He impressed everyone in The Godfather, but Pacino proves he is no fluke with his incredibly powerful, believable role as Frank Serpico. I really thought Pacino was Frank every time he appeared onscreen. I love how Pacino can make himself disappear in roles so easily, and that’s why he is one of the greatest actor’s of all-time. I also loved the physical transformation Pacino takes throughout the film. He gradually grows lots of hair and a beard, and it’s a very noticeable transformation. I thought that was really cool to point out.

This film was directed by the great Sidney Lumet. He directed the 1957 classic 12 Angry Men and that movie kept him on the map. He, once again, brought his master direction techniques to this film. He was able to get the best out of Pacino and was able to give the film more of a personality. He definitely tackled the issue of police corruption very well. Police officers actually said what happened in this film was an accurate description of what really went on during the police force, and that’s still a very scary thought.

I also liked the location authenticity of the movie. This movie was filmed in actual locations of the city, and it felt like I was in 1973 New York. It’s interesting to see how these movies featuring New York in the 70’s proves how much the city changed with compared to 2016. That being said, I always love being in New York; past and present. The film was filmed in every neighborhood except for Staten Island.

Overall, I really, really liked Serpico. I would rank this film as my favorite film of 1973. I cannot think of a complaint to give the film. It feature solid, fluid direction by Sidney Lumet. The acting, led by the legendary Al Pacino, is perfect. I loved the story and the way the tricky issues were handled. It was shocking to see how bad police corruption got. So bad that they were willing to kill Frank Serpico just to keep his silence. That scene where there was a drug bust and his fellow detectives put him into the line of fire was very saddening and powerful to watch. I also liked the music, which was composed by Mikis Theodorakis. This movie is a classic and I can easily recommend it to those who love good movies. If you want to know why Al Pacino is such a big movie star, just check out Serpico.

My Grade: A+

People who know me very well know that I am a huge Martin Scorsese fan. Along with Steven Spielberg, Scorsese is probably my favorite all-time director. He made so many memorable classics that are worth watching over and over again with films like Taxi Driver and Goodfellas. However, I’m sad to report that Mean Streets is not one of those classics. At least not for me. It was a very well-received movie, but after watching it two times I couldn’t figure out why people were over the moon about the film. It’s not a bad film, but it is mostly boring. The acting is great and there are several fun scenes, but this is one of Scorsese’s lesser efforts. I can’t hold it against him because this film is his first feature project he had a say in. As a young filmmaker, this film shows he was still learning his craft. That being said, he manages to introduce the world to his style of directing and although I’m not the biggest fan of the movie, its still a solid movie debut for a first-time director.

Charlie (Harvey Keitel) feels like he does not have much of a future. He works as a small-time hood for his uncle in the mean streets of New York City’s Little Italy. His job is to collect payments and to reclaim debts. However, he doesn’t have the personality to succeed in this role because he is way too much of a nice guy. His uncle disapproves of the people he hangs around with: his lover with an epilepsy problem and a crazy friend always in debt named Johnny Boy (Robert De Niro). Johnny’s troubled soul finds near-catastrophic problems for everyone, and these problems escalate after Charlie and Johnny Boy failed to escape to Brooklyn.

One thing that really worked in this movie’s favor is the acting. I cannot be surprised because there are two actors here whom went on to have amazing careers and quite frankly, one of them is ranked among the all-time greats. Of course, I’d be talking about Harvey Keitel and Robert De Niro. Harvey Keitel made his character very believable and I felt like he was such a nice guy. He stuck by his friends despite constant pressure from his uncle, the leader of the local mafia. He really gave a deep, heartfelt performance that relies upon traditional values such as love and religion. De Niro, quite possibly, may delivered the best performance in the film. I loved his crazy, energetic performance. The man even started fights because that was just who he was. This performance shows what kind of future De Niro had in store for him.

Another thing I liked is the realism Scorsese tried to portray in the film. He grew up in the area so it was cool for him to make this movie on a more personal level. Growing up in Little Italy was not always fun, according to Scorsese. The movie often shows that it was not all fun and games. I liked how he attempted to add some honesty to this picture. Another thing that I liked is the soundtrack. The use of rock songs, and only rock songs was something rare in cinemas at this time. But films were increasingly taking this route of using rock music as their soundtracks. It’s common nowadays, but it was almost a revelation back in the day.

Despite some good intentions and more of an intimate picture, I personally did not feel like Mean Streets was a great movie. It has some good moments such as that entertaining bar fight scene, but I felt bored more often than not. Remember, Scorsese is one of my favorite directors but I felt underwhelmed with his first motion picture he had a say in. I liked the acting, the music, and the overall effort Scorsese put into the film. I felt I learned a little more about life in Little Italy. I understand many people love this film, but movies are subjective. It was not a great film, but it is certainly better than many other first-time directorial efforts. All we need is just a little experience and seasoning, and we will be in good shape.

My Grade: C+

Seeing the reviews for American Graffiti from the old-timers make me want to relive my childhood and teenage life all over again. There are memories created that will never die but it makes you long for those memories. Of course, I’m not an old man and my childhood culture isn’t the same culture set in this film. This is the generation of my parents and they know about this culture even better than I do, but the message is the same. It’s all about remembering the times you had when growing up. The year this film took place is 1963, and boy was everything so different when compared to today. Everyone back then listened to the radio, cruised amongst the highways looking for women to pick up, hung out at the local drive-in restaurant, and so forth. People either went to college or just found a local job and set out cruising. Gosh life was so simple back then! This film authenticity was created with the driving force of director and screenwriter’s George Luca’s attempt to show what it’s like to grow up in such a world. The film took awhile to come into fruition because studios felt scared of this film and the lackluster results of 1971’s THX 1138, but it was worth it because Lucas brought his childhood back to life and made me dream about living this kind of life. Lucas, after the instant success of this film, became a household name.

The film has a variety of characters with interconnected stories. Everyone has their own story, but each character fits into the whole scheme of things. It was a very hard task to pull off, but Lucas did a great job in getting me to care for these characters. There are the two best buddies, Curt (Richard Dreyfuss) and Steve (Ron Howard) who have gotten into a wonderful college, but on the night before they leave for school, Curt has second thoughts about college. He decides to spend his night pursuing a woman he heard about on the radio who drives a white T-Bird. Steve spends the night trying to make up with his girlfriend Laurie (Cindy Williams) after he tells her they should see other people while he is at school. Meanwhile, there are two other friends who have their own adventures. John (Paul Le Mat) is forced to drive around a little girl, Carol (Mackenize Phillips) as he seeks out a hot rod racer Bob Falfa (Harrison Ford) to race. And the nerdy Terry (Charles Martin Smith) borrows Steve’s car but gets in trouble when he picks up a girl.

I loved the casting choices Lucas made. There are no big names (for 1973), and some of these names would go on to have spectacular careers and this film gave birth to the careers of future Oscar-winners. This is Harrison Ford’s first film role as he was studying a career in carpentry at the time. Ford would later make a big name for himself in Star Wars and Indiana Jones. Richard Dreyfuss used this film to shed his identity as a child actor and he does it very well. This role may have gotten him his famed role in Jaws. Little people remember that Ron Howard used to be an actor before he became a very famous director, but this movie shows that he knew how to act. Paul Le Mat was great as guy who tries to show off how tough he is, but he cannot because he has a strong heart. I loved his character’s interactions with the 12-year-old Carol who was a very funny character herself. Maybe that is what softened his heart. But I liked how Lucas made his characters representations of his younger self. For example, the Terry character is a resemblance of Lucas his freshman year in high school where he came across as nerdy and had terrible luck with girls.

This film was made on such a cheap budget, that a musical score could not be produced. However, Lucas used his artistic license to gather a great collection of old rock’n’roll to use on the film. He used great music from the likes of the Rolling Stones and Bill Haley and the Comets. That made me appreciate the film more because of its use of music. The music also gave flavor to its authenticity because this is the kind of music people listened to back in this time period. The use of Wolfman Jack (a very famed L.A DJ) showed how much he and radio meant to the people of this era.

American Graffiti is a very good film that shows how life was like for teenagers in the early 60’s just when rock music was coming to dominate the airwaves. My dad saw this film when it was released and he says it is one of his favorite movies and it’s an accurate representation of an era that has disappeared except for everlasting memories. Thanks to a energetic soundtrack and believable characters, I was able to understand each character. That being said, sometimes it feels like this film is too experimental. I’m not all too big on experimental films, but luckily Lucas found away to turn this into a very good film. Not my favorite film with growing-of-age films, but it’s still worth a watch. Especially to see early acting from the likes of Harrison Ford and Richard Dreyfuss.

My Grade: B+

The 1970’s is the decade that gave birth to the disaster movie genre. In my review of 1970’s Airport, I pointed out how that movie gave birth to disaster movies of that decade which in turn spawned disaster blockbusters of today’s age. These kind of movies are meant to be dumb, silly fun and the makers of these kind of movies embrace what these movies are meant to do: to entertain. You won’t be getting any thespian acting or a serious melodrama. Instead you’ll get an onslaught of special effects and a thin story usually about trying to survive and that is quite okay by me. Another early example of a rather entertaining disaster film is 1972’s The Poseidon Adventure. I enjoyed the film for what it was. It has a big cast of former Oscar winners and big-name movie stars, and they all seemed to have a grand ol’ time. Sure, the dialogue is cheesy sometimes but the action is what we are here to see. And in that regard, the movie clearly succeeds.

The plot remains simple and for good measure. The basic setup for the story is that a disaster strikes and the survivors must reach for safety. In this case, there is this passenger ship called the S.S Poseidon (loosely modeled after The Queen Mary) going on its last cruise before it reaches retirement. Out of nowhere, a large tidal wave hits the ship and turns the boat upside down. Now with everything in reverse, the survivors of the ship led by minister Reverend Scott (Gene Hackman) must climb to the now-uprooted bottom of the boat if they have any chance of escaping. See, this is a simple story but its a fun story regardless.

Ah, let’s talk about our characters. This movie is based off the best-selling novel written by Paul Gallico, and rumor has it that the characters are unlikable in the novel. Some of the characters are unlikeable in the film, but screenwriters Stirling Silliphant and Wendell Mayes and seasoned British director Ronald Neame did a solid job in tweaking some characters as to make them more sympathetic. Now, all the characters do what you expect them to do in this type of movie, so expect no surprises. The character development was rather surprisingly strong for some characters. As for the acting, no one gives a career-defining performance but everyone does a solid job. Gene Hackman as Reverend Scott and Ernest Borgnine as Rogo are arguably the two leads. They had a fun time, but they may have overacted especially in Borgnine’s case. Those facial expressions and the way he delivered the lines were cheesy, but fun. Check out the rest of this cast: Red Buttons, Roddy McDowall, Shelley Winters (who delivers a fantastic performance), Jack Albertson, Arthur O’Connell, Leslie Nielsen, etc. That is one heck of a cast.

We don’t see these movies for the performances, but rather for the special effects. It was amazing what this film was able to do with practical effects. The big tsunami wave that overturned a boat looked mightily impressive for a 1972 movie, but in reality it was just a large wave filmed in slow-motion off the coast of California. The production design was immense and the I love the way we see the capsized boat. Keep in mind the film was release before computers played a role in effects, which makes this movie even more impressive. If there is one thing I absolutely love, it’s the way how the movie looked and sounded and how the visual effects were implemented in the movie.

Another thing I liked very much is the score and the music. This film was composed by the young maestro, John Williams. Williams would eventually become a film legend with all the famous films he would score, but this is the movie that got him his big break. Some people go as far to call this his best score ever. I wouldn’t go that far, but it’s high on my list. The overall tone of the score is dark, but the theme is rather light and there is something about it that makes it special.

When originally released, The Poseidon Adventure received good reviews with lots of praise going for the visual effects-and rightfully so. Of course this film is a blockbuster and not meant for any award recognition, but somehow it received nine Oscar nominations mostly on the technical side though. Although Shelley Winters received an nomination for best supporting actress. The film was very fun, and very entertaining. The story is nothing special, but if you’re looking for a movie with great visual effects, campy acting, and a story about surviving then this film is for you.

My Grade: A-

Let me open this review with a little history lesson. (I know, sooooo boring right?) My hometown of Lebanon used to be a bigger town. But in the 1970’s, part of my town was leveled in order to create a reservoir. So people living in the area where the reservoir was being built had to leave their homes. So a part of our civilization vanquished for a manmade body of water. There is a similar theme in this film, Deliverance. The film takes place in the mountains of Georgia and a river which is very dear to our main characters is about to disappear because of a dam building which would flood the area. Like in my area, people have to leave their homes to escape the flooding. It is a very sad situation all around, but that theme makes this movie all the more better.

I enjoyed Deliverance very much. It has been regarded of one of the best films of 1972 and I think I can agree with that. This is just a simple adventure of four men traveling the rapids in pursuit of some adventure, but of course problems will arise. The movie works very well as a adventure film and it was interesting to see how each character develops with some of the action that goes on. This film delivers on its promise of characterization. Each of the four men bring their personality to the trip. One dude is a macho man named Lewis (Burt Reynolds). He is the tough guy of the group and this expedition was his idea. The other main character is Ed (Jon Voight) who also exhibits some toughness skills (just watch that cliff climbing scene). Then we have Bobby (Ned Beatty) who is an overweight man that is afraid of many things it seems. Finally, we have Drew (Ronny Cox) who took part in my favorite scene in the movie- “The Dueling Banjos” Scene where he squared off against a mentally-challenged boy in a contest between a banjo and a guitar before the group began their journey.

The scene that everyone talks about and that gave awareness to the movie is the scene where mountain men raped poor Bobby. It was a very well-made scene with such powerful lines of dialogue such as “I’ll make you squeal like a pig.” Regardless, it is a very brutal scene and it’s incredibly hard to watch. The sequence was a pretty long one, but it showed an example of how men can survive in a harsh, primitive environment. Kudos to Jon Voight’s character, Ed exacting revenge against the two men who raped Bobby. The film may seem like a quiet adventure film, but it becomes instantly loud the moment this scene appears. Director John Boorman does a wonderful job in creating tension and thrills setting up the scene before it actually happens.

The acting is very good and I could expect no less for a film that features wonderful character development. Burt Reynolds plays a man with a machismo personality (no surprise there), but he does it very well. Jon Voight impressed me in this film. He was so great in 1969’s Midnight Cowboy and was the best thing about 1970’s mediocre Catch-22, so he really comes into his own here. The way he scaled the cliffs in order to kill those men showed what a brave man he was. This film was not insured and to save costs, each of the actors did their own stunts. If you saw that cliff, you would be very surprised. Ned Beatty gives a wonderful performance and a pained one. That scene where he got raped (and you see all of it onscreen) is a powerful, intense scene and he gave such raw emotion. Ronny Cox arguably had the smaller role, but his scene where he is playing the banjo sticks out to me. His character seemed to be the most moral guy of the group.

The film makes good use of its cinematographer, Vilmos Zsigmond. He was the man who filmed the gorgeous 1971 movie, McCabe and Mrs. Miller. Now he delivers great camerawork in this movie. It was a tough shoot because of the location of the movie set against rapids, but Vilmos really made it work and the picture is gorgeous set amongst the American wilderness.

John Boorman delivered an exquisite adventure film in the form of Deliverance. It is a movie about survival and how men from the city can survive in the wild using their primitive instincts. The movie gained some controversy because of the squealing pig scene, but it remains a very powerful scene that is hard to watch. The other scene to keep an eye on is the banjo scene. That is essentially all of the music the film has, but it is quite worth it. The film has a gorgeous, naturalistic look and it is very well-acted. If you are looking for an adventure story, look no further than Deliverance.

My Grade: A-

“I’m going to make him an offer he can’t refuse.”

-Don Corleone

When I first saw The Godfather many years ago, I initially called the film “a long, boring piece of crap.” Needless to say, but there was something immensely wrong with my teenage brain. Luckily as I have matured, so have my tastes in cinema. This film is heralded as an American classic, and now I can wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. As famed critic Roger Ebert pointed out, this movie is the one where most people can agree on its quality. Hardly a single person dislikes this movie and that is a very good thing.

Ultimately, The Godfather is still a very long movie but I have come to appreciate it more with each viewing. The film is obviously about the mafia, but this is a different kind of mafia film. Prior mafia films and even those after this one deals with perspectives from an outsider and their perceptions of violence and death with the mafia. However, this film is told within the confinements of a mafia family. The story is told within the inside and that was a unique story angle at that time. I like how the film doesn’t show corruption from the mafia family, the Corleones. There are no civilian casualties from organized crime and the only corrupt person in the film is in the form of a police officer. Don Corleone doesn’t believe in dealing with drugs, because of how they affect people. The themes of the Corleone family and the movie itself is family and loyalty. As Michael Corleone points out in the movie, “never take sides against the family.” That is when crazy things begin to happen.

The beginning of the movie is very crucial. It is basically a large wedding scene with scenes intercut of Don Corleone in his darkened office taking care of family business. This beginning is important for several reasons. We get the tone of the film and we understand who the Corleone family is. This is also where all the characters are introduced and explained. By the time the scene is over, we get the big picture of the film and we get a sense where the film is heading. The scene is a bit long, but I felt director Francis Ford Coppola did an excellent job on introducing all of his main characters in the film.

What exactly is The Godfather about? Well, it is a film about family and it takes advantage of the classic structure of handing power between generations. The patriarch of the family is Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) who is the head of one of the most powerful mafia families. His children, who play a huge factor in the family, are Sonny (James Caan), Michael (Al Pacino), Connie (Talia Shire), and Fredo (John Cazale). Also playing a huge role is the family lawyer, Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall). The aging Vito decides to transfer power to one of his subalterns, and that causes a ripple between the five Mafia families in New York. The main child here is Michael, who didn’t want anything to do with his family and instead join the military. But after Vito is shot, Mike decides to join the family business and take control.

The acting is absolutely fantastic. Marlon Brando delivered one of the best performances of his career as the aging head of the family. He is known for using his devices in the beginning such as his puffy cheeks and the cat on his lap. The way he delivered his dialogue in such a soft-spoken voice is also very memorable. Al Pacino does a very good job, taking wise advice from his father while delivering on his own counsel. This is the beginning for Pacino’s illustrious career. Robert Duvall does a fantastic job as Hagen. Duvall has had a legendary career, but the one role I think of every time I reflect on his career is his role as Tom Hagen. James Caan does a great job as the quick-tempered Sonny, who unfortunately meets his demise in the film but in a scene that is one of the best scenes in the movie.

The one thing that does irk me about the film is the use of women. It seems like women has no part of the family. Mike’s sister, Connie (played solidly by Talia Shire) is only used for a target of her husband’s Carlo anger. He treats her like a piece of filth. Although, Mike does have a special place in his heart for Connie. Mike also has a romantic interest in the film named Kay Adams (played by the eccentric Diane Keaton). I didn’t think Kay was a strong character in the film. Also, Vito has a wife but she is just an insignificant shadow only meant for the family pictures. Finally, there is a Sicilian woman we meet. After Michael goes on exile in Sicily for shooting a cop who played a role in the shooting of his father, he falls in love with this girl…..but she ends up getting blown up. My only qualm abut the film is how little importance women play in it.

Although the film is a long film about the mafia business, it is also a very violent film. Two of the most memorable scenes not only in this film, but in the history of cinema is known for its violence. The first scene is that infamous scene where a film mogul discovers a severed horse head in his bed after he refuses to cast a friend of the family, Johnny Fontaine in a role for one of his films. The other scene is that baptism massacre scene towards the end. Michael is in the church watching the baptism of his son, but he issued orders for enemies of the family to be murdered while at the baptism….and this way he can be proven innocent. These scenes are violent, but they are incredibly well-done.

Let’s now talk about how the movie looks. The movie makes good use of a darkened palette and lots of shadows thanks to the expert work done by cinematographer Gordon Willis. He expertly crafts Vito’s office with darkness and shadows against the sunny feeling of the wedding. In fact, most of the film is shadowed in darkness and it works very well for the type of film it is.

Also playing a huge role in the film is the music. Coppola traveled to Italy to find a composer who can bring an Italian feeling to the film. His find, Nino Rota did just that. The main title is heavily influenced by Italian culture and it gave an authentic feeling to the film-as the main characters are an Italian family. It’s a shame that the Academy snubbed his music, because I felt it should have won an Oscar. It’s one of my favorite all-time scores.

Nominated for 11 Oscars and winning 3 of them including Best Picture, The Godfather is one of America’s most influential films. It is certainly the godfather of mafia films, no pun intended. The movie remains popular to this day and if you haven’t seen the film, you should see it. It’s almost three hours long, but this is a portrait of a mafia family that is all about family. Francis Ford Coppola did an amazing job directing this film from the very popular novel written by Mario Puzo. The movie is not perfect, but it’s almost perfect though. The Godfather is an instant American classic.

My Grade: A-

Stanley Kubrick is back! And he brings with him another controversial albeit delightful movie. In the 1960’s, he directed two genuine masterpieces in 1964’s Dr. Strangelove and 1968’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Both were fascinating movies that had something to say-usually things that stirred the pot. In 1972, his most controversial movie of all was released titled A Clockwork Orange. I absolutely loved this film and I am not ashamed to admit it. I loved the film’s take on a bleak, dystopian future reminiscent of a fascist society. I loved the characters in the film despite their ultra-violence. I loved the music and the use of Beethoven and Rossini. Just every little thing about this film can be called a masterpiece. There were people who despised this film because of it use of violence. The kind of violence displayed in the movie was something that was very, very rare in 1972. Even in today’s standards, this film is violent. Maybe it even glorifies it, but its hard to say.

This film centers around a young man named Alex (Malcolm McDowell) who is a leader of a violent gang and to put it quite bluntly, a sadistic rapist. He is very violent to everyone, including his own gang members. One day, he murders a lonely old woman and is sent to prison for the crime. Whilst in prison, he hears of a program which would allow him to get back on the streets. This program is a form of aversion therapy-which would create goodness in him. He agrees to this controversial program and is released from prison after the procedure. Back on the streets, Alex finds it very hard to live a good life especially with all the violence he had a hand in creating.

One of the things I admire about Kubrick is how he doesn’t rely on a huge cast and he is always trying to find fresh talent to work with. In this case, Malcolm McDowell is the newcomer here. I’m not really familiar with his works, but he does an impressive job in this film. He plays Alex as a very tortured individual who feels violence is necessary to make him feel happy. He also has a huge knack for sex-whether consensual or not. But towards the end after the aversion therapy, it’s kind of hard not to feel bad for Alex. He wants to lead a good life, but his criminal past comes back to haunt him and there is really nothing he can do. Patrick Magee does a good job as Mr. Alexander, one of the victims of Alex’s crimes. I also liked the use of the English vocabulary. This film has a very weird dialect, but it’s delightful to listen to.

So you must be wondering what does this title stand for? Well, it has to do with one of the controversial topics in the movie. He goes under this psychology treatment under the totalitarian government to stop his immoral behavior. However, Alex is more or a less a robot after this treatment. This is one of the programs being instituted by the government to ensure total control over its citizens. To be a clockwork orange means you are an organic being on the outside, but on the inside you’re just a machine. Kubrick himself called this movie a satire on such psychological programs. Nonetheless, this scene in the movie was a very hard scene to watch. It was well-done, but watching Alex break down to scenes of Nazi Germany was very intense.

Speaking of intense, most of the violence in this film is displayed at such high intensity. Some of the violence was even too much for me, and I have a very strong stomach. But the violence is necessary to show because its part of Alex’s daily life. Kubrick took advantage of a changing studio system to insert this violence in his movie. He would not have been able to make the film as it is ten years earlier. But there are some crazy scenes to watch. The beginning of the movie has a crazy fight scene between Alex’s gang and a rival gang. Alex and his buddies were beating the rival gang just for fun and showing no mercy. A very hard scene to watch is when Alex broke into Mr. Alexander’s house and raped his wife. There was also an interesting scene where it shows Alex having sex with two women in fast-motion. It’s not hard to see why this movie caused controversy. It’s a very bloody, violent movie and I’m glad Kubrick didn’t do any foolish edits to the film.

Music plays a big factor in the film. Early on, we understand Alex loves Beethoven. His ninth symphony is used throughout the film to great effect. Many of the fight scenes are set to the music of Beethoven or Rossini. Just like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick used music to speak to the audience. As with 2001, some of the music speaks louder than words. Also, this film brought an interest of Beethoven to me. He is a very good artist from the classical era.

A Clockwork Orange is a violent, brooding movie set in futuristic England and despite all of the controversy surrounding it, it is a very unique film. It is also one of my all-time favorites. It is fascinating to see how people or even nations were affected by the movie. Upon its release, this film was actually banned in the United Kingdom. They didn’t get to see it for the first time until maybe fifteen years ago. Once again, Kubrick gave us another movie to challenge our minds and thoughts. He is a very meticulous director, but his efforts are worth it. Based on a popular novel by Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange is a must-see as a visually-impressive futuristic movie about a man whose life is made out of violence. But that will be changed.

My Grade: A+

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+