Tutorials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Grade: A+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Grade: A+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Grade: A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Grade: B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Grade: A

Vertigo is one of the more complicated movies I have ever seen, and just trying to think about what exactly is happening was enough to make my head spin in opposite directions, and I mostly mean that as a compliment. It just shows what a competent movie director Alfred Hitchcock made. There are many things happening in the movie, so you will have to pay attention to keep up with what is going on. It took me two grasps to understand the basics of the plot. Kudos to Hitchcock in creating a movie that effectively employs plot twists and turns to keep the movie audience guessing.

So in a way. this thriller could be about Hitchcock himself and the way he handles women in his movies. Hitchcock is famous for his control over the production, especially when it comes to his movies. They all have the same qualities in his films, and thus end up looking foolish. Vertigo is one of his best films, because he spoofs himself in away. The men in the movie, especially the main character Scottie Ferguson, treats the women rather in a disrespectful, obsessive way. It shows how men can become obsessive over things they can’t have, especially the women.

As it is with many Hitchcock films, they are all technically impressive. A big part of the film is the term “vertigo” itself. By definition, vertigo is essentially being afraid of heights. Scottie’s backstory is explained in the beginning, and part of it shows why he was afraid of heights after going through a rooftop chase and almost falling off a roof. The way his vertigo explained was actually quite frightening. Seeing the shots from ground to sky as the camera moves away from the ground made his fear even more realistic.

So what is this film all about? Well, Scottie Ferguson (James Stewart) is a former detective who is retired because of his paranoia with heights. One day, a former colleague named Gavin (Tom Helmore) approaches Scottie with a request to follow his wife around, Madeleine (Kim Novak) because he fears she was possessed by a dead person. Scottie reluctantly agrees to do so. During his investigation, Scottie begins to fall in love with her. But due to a tragic accident, Madeleine dies. Soon thereafter, Scottie meets another woman named Judy (also played by Kim Novak), who uncannily looks similar to the deceased Madeleine. Scottie begins to grow obsessed with her and he eventually tries to groom her into a mirror image of Madeleine. Doing so helps begin what is a shocking climax perhaps resulting in a murder conspiracy.

This film is very much well-acted. James Stewart is one of Hollywood’s “Golden Age” stars and he delivers a magnificent performance. He made his fear of heights very believable and his growing obsession in the latter part of the film was incredible to watch, even though he was a treating a woman a way a man should never treat a woman-through compulsive obsession. He treated Judy like an object, and in a sense mirrors Hitchcock’s reality. Kim Novak delivered a convincing performance in her roles as Madeleine and Judy. She’s blond, icy, and often humiliated-very normal in a Hitchcock thriller. But without spoiling anything, Judy and Madeleine are two characters who are closely related and Novak was able to play both of the roles effectively.

Overall, Vertigo is a very strong Hitchcock thriller. It’s undeniably scary and creepy, with Hitchcock excels at making his films be. The beginning is very effectively scary, as we are introduced to Scottie’s vertigo. His obsession towards the women was also creepy, but at the same time, puts you to the edge of your seat making you wonder what will happen next. I won’t spoil anything, but the ending is a shocker and its something you won’t see coming thanks to the masterful direction of Hitchcock and wonderful, convincing performances from Stewart and Novak. The plot twists and turns when you least expect it, so be prepared to bring your mind to the film. You’ll need it.

My Grade: A-

The Bridge on the River Kwai is a war movie that is often very entertaining, but it sets itself apart from other war movies. Unlike those other movies, this particular film is a provocative film that asks complex questions, but doesn’t answer them easily. It is all up to the audience to believe what happened and why it happened. Of course, everyone may have different opinions and the movie seems to ask for that. Usually in war movies, they are concerned about the bigger picture such as who wins or who loses, which is all very fair questions. But the reason this film works more than most war films is because it poses questions that are deeper than the winner or loser. The movie talks about individualism. It’s not all about who wins or loses the war, but who is in that war and how does war affect the individual.

The most famous quote of the movie is actually the final line of the film. It goes “Madness! Madness!” This quote was nominated by AFI as one of the top 100 quotes of all time. Regardless of that honor, it’s a very effective quote because it sums up the entire movie. Every character is mad in one away or another. The film also has a prominent theme of obsession. The movie is about building a bridge, and Colonel Nicholson (the main character) will do anything it takes to complete the task, even though if it means the Japanese soldiers will use the bridge to try and defeat the Allies, of course which Nicholson belonged with.

This film takes place in 1943, at a Japanese POW camp during the middle of World War Two. The Japanese have captured British soldiers, led by Colonel Nicholson. Nicholson and his soldiers are ordered to build a bridge to accommodate a railway. Nicholson convinces his soldiers to build the bridge for British morality and to show the Japanese what they stand for. But over time, Nicholson develops an obsessive disorder with completing the bridge, which is being seen as collaborating with the enemy. Unknowingly to Nicholson or Saito, there is a plot to destroy the bridge. An American named Shears, a former POW who escaped the camp, is part of the team that is tasked with blowing up the bridge.

If you put the movie on about three-quarters into it, you would be forgiven if you thought Saito and Nicholson were allies. But the a good portion of the beginning of the film, it was quite the opposite. The film opens with Nicholson and his troops being led into the camp and being introduced to Saito. It became clear right away that each man’s morale opposed each other. It also became clear that Nicholson possessed a brave spirit. He endured torture for the sake of his beliefs, and he risked the chance of being killed. One of my favorite scenes in the movie was when Nicholson took out a copy of the Geneva Convention out of his pocket (to prove to Saito that officers don’t have to work on the bridge) and gave it to Saito, in which Saito used it to slap Nicholson across the face drawing blood. Then, he was dragged to “The Oven,” a hut that stands in the fierce sun. But once Nicholson was released, that is when the two men began to work together, drawing up some interesting questions.

My favorite sections of the movie was when Nicholson, played wonderfully by Alec Guinness was onscreen. However, the other half of the film is based on the plot trying to destroy the bridge. Shears was a former POW, but as an escapee and at a local hospital imitating an officer, he is coerced into the plot so his imitation as an officer wont become public. I liked the slow, grueling pace of these scenes, attempting to reach the bridge because it shows what it would be like in reality. It certainly was no picnic. It’s not nearly as convincing as the scenes in the jungle, but it’s good enough.

This film was the film that gave Alec Guinness his Oscar. He gave such an intense performance as the colonel who slowly begins a moral descent, perhaps the only thing that kept him alive. Guinness deserved his Oscar for his powerful performance. William Holden does an expert job in playing a typical American, Shears. He likes the booze and the women, but also is compelled by adventure even if the outcome seems a little murky. I also liked the performance of Sessue Hayakawa, as the strict Japanese commandant. He was actually one of the first Asian stars in Hollywood, from the era of silent film. So it was nice for the film to harken back to its beginning. Finally, the movie boasts excellent supporting turns by Jack Hawkins, as the leader of the crew headed to destroy the bridge and James Donald, the doctor of the camp and the man who questions the sanity of Colonel Nicholson. His expression on his face in the scene where Nicholson recruits sick and injured soldiers to help with the bridge was yet another powerful moment in the film.

The film is directed by David Lean, who excels at directing these kind of big, explosive films. Lean is famously hard to work with. It is on record that Guinness and Lean did not like each other during filming, but somehow Guinness was still able to deliver a powerhouse performance. Despite his personality, Lean is experienced in such films. He delivered a film that is entertaining, but still was able to put important themes and messages in the movie such as what it takes to stay alive under times of duress (such as this war).

Overall, The Bridge on the River Kwai is an incredibly powerful, expertly-made war film that shows how war can make people mad. From start to finish, I was glued to the movie taking in all the excellent performances and a excellent story thanks to the Oscar-winning screenplay by Carl Foreman and Michael Wilson. One note to mention is this film is not based on historical truth. It’s a fictional story, despite a similar event that actually happened. The only thing that is real is the harsh treatment of the soldiers in the POW camp. Everything about the film: the acting, directing, cinematography, score, and story just screams perfection. This is one of my all-time favorite war movies.

My Grade: A+