Category Archives: Best Film of the Year

Far From Heaven-2002

Far From Heaven-2002

Director Todd Haynes

Starring Julianne Moore, Dennis Haysbert

Top 100 Films #53

Scott’s Review #332

60025011

Reviewed January 8, 2016

Grade: A

Far From Heaven (2002) is a gorgeous film, set in 1950’s upper-class and sophisticated Connecticut, that tackles not one, but two, separate social issues, in a wonderful story-telling fashion.

An interracial couple fraught with discrimination, and a homosexual husband hiding his secret lifestyle encompass this amazing film by acclaimed director Todd Haynes.

In years to follow, Haynes would also direct such masterpieces similar to the period (and story) of Carol (2015).

For starters, the cinematography and art direction are simply breathtaking- the beautiful and colorful small town in Connecticut, on the surface, prim and proper, is oozing with secrets and scandal just waiting to bubble to the surface.

An aerial view of the town allows the viewer to see this perfectly carved town in a sweeping motion.

Far From Heaven contains many similarities to All That Heaven Allows, made in 1955, and also focuses on a great scandal in a small, seemingly idyllic New England town.

Cathy Whitaker (Julianne Moore) seems to have everything perfectly styled and kept at home in affluent Connecticut, a successful husband named Frank (Dennis Quaid), who is an advertising executive, beauty, and a neighborhood filled with friends.

One night when Frank is working late, Cathy surprises him with dinner at the office, only to be surprised herself by catching Frank passionately kissing another man. In an awkward scene, Frank admits to Cathy that he needs conversion therapy, but instead turns to alcohol and continues to secretly see men.

Devastated, Cathy befriends her gardener, Raymond Deagan (Haysburt), a handsome black man, and slowly begins a relationship with him. Needless to say, this causes gossip and scandal amongst the townspeople.

Far From Heaven is fantastic story-telling, weaving, in essence, two main social stories together.

Frank questions his sexuality, afraid to admit he is gay and risking his reputation and career. Undoubtedly, he is a tormented individual and we see him slowly come to terms with his sexuality.

Haynes, fantastic at crafting a worthy story, carves a similar tale in 2015’s Carol, only she is a woman confident about her sexuality, but hiding it from society. Since the time in both films is the 1950s, the sexual revolution has not occurred, let alone anything gay-related.

The center story though belongs to Cathy and Julianne Moore portrays her to perfection. I would argue that Cathy is Moore’s best role- along with Amber Waves from Boogie Nights.

Hurt and betrayed by her husband, she suddenly is filled with new and dangerous emotions- falling in love with a black man in a not very open-minded time.

Moore and Haysbert have fantastic chemistry from their very first scene together.

I love how Haynes showcases the perfection of the town- the lawns are perfectly mowed, the flower beds flawless, and everyone appears cheerful and colorful. But when something in their little town becomes amiss (in this case Cathy going against the grain) the fangs come out and the animals bear their teeth.

A wonderful scene showcases Cathy and Raymond’s slow dancing in a solely black bar. They sway as one and Cathy is accepted by the black patrons. Raymond (and his daughter) are not treated the same way by the white folks of the town once they catch wind of the shenanigans going on between the interracial couple.

Far From Heaven (2002) is a beautiful film- from the way it looks and is shot, to the powerful acting performances all around. Moore may be the star and the central character of the film, but Quaid and Haysbert certainly deserve their due.

They each give layered performances as wounded and tortured men- and the conclusion of the film- perceived as open-ended- is also not a happily ever after climax.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Julianne Moore, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Cinematography

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 5 wins-Best Feature (won), Best Director-Todd Haynes (won), Best Female Lead-Julianne Moore (won), Best Supporting Male-Dennis Quaid (won), Best Cinematography (won)

Sunset Boulevard-1950

Sunset Boulevard-1950

Director Billy Wilder

Starring Gloria Swanson, William Holden

Top 100 Films #42

Scott’s Review #330

60010956

Reviewed January 8, 2016

Grade: A

I adore films about Hollywood (good ones), and Sunset Boulevard (1950) is an absolute treasure.

Directed by classic film director Billy Wilder, the film is a film noir about a legendary silent film star, Norma Desmond, who cannot cope with modern films involving sound and living a life of instability and mental illness as her career has long ended.

Handsome Joe innocently stumbles upon her mansion, forming an eerie relationship that ends in tragedy.

Sunset Blvd. is a famous street in Los Angeles and Beverly Hills, California. It is immediately featured in the film as Joe Gillis, played by William Holden, drives down the street, an unsuccessful screenwriter whose car is about to be repossessed.

Joe narrates the film, and we see a man lying dead in a vast swimming pool. Ironically, this is the film’s ending, and Wilder interestingly works backward so the audience knows tragedy will eventually ensue.

To avoid being chased by men, Joe pulls into a driveway and hides his car in a garage near a vast yet run-down mansion. He is mistaken for a coffin salesman and meets the infamous and creepy Norma and her servant, Max.

The coffin is for Norma’s pet chimpanzee, who has died. Intrigued and broke, Joe hatches a plot to re-write Norma’s terrible screenplay- and make some money from the aging Hollywood star.

Norma needs companionship. The two, with Max, embark on a weird relationship based on jealousy, passion, and rage.

The black-and-white style works exceptionally well in the film, and the lighting creates a mystique of intrigue and film noir.

Sunset Boulevard combines noir with a rich character study of Norma, and we feel her pain and isolation from being cast aside because of the times.

I love how Wilder focuses on the gloomy nature of Norma’s vast mansion—especially when she throws a New Year’s Eve party isolated with just she, Joe, and a hired band—and intersperses it with a lively party in Hollywood filled with young, energetic, up-and-coming talents.

The scenes mix perfectly and show the two different worlds and perspectives.

Sunset Boulevard is a brilliant depiction of old Hollywood at its best (and worst). A study in ambition, struggle, high hopes (Joe), and faded success and dreams shattered in reality, where delusion is the only defense (Norma).

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Motion Picture, Best Director-Billy Wilder, Best Actor-William Holden, Best Actress-Gloria Swanson, Best Supporting Actor-Erich von Stroheim, Best Supporting Actress-Nancy Olson, Best Story and Screenplay (won), Best Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture (won), Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Black-and-White (won), Best Cinematography, Black-and-White, Best Film Editing

Fatal Attraction-1987

Fatal Attraction-1987

Director Adrian Lyne

Starring Michael Douglas, Glenn Close

Top 100 Films #45

Scott’s Review #329

60010341

Reviewed January 8, 2016

Grade: A

Fatal Attraction is a film that was a monster smash hit at its time of release (1987) and has all the makings of a trashy, forgettable, slick Hollywood film from a disastrous time in the film.

Guess what? It is a fantastic, gripping, thriller that still holds up well after all of these years.

Say what you will about Anne Archer, who is very good, but this film truly belongs to Michael Douglas and Glenn Close, who made it the believable thrill ride that Fatal Attraction is.

The subject matter is adultery, which made it the water-cooler topic of its day.

The plot is quite simple- Douglas plays Dan Gallagher, a successful New York City attorney, happily married to Beth (Archer), and raising a cute young daughter, Ellen.

When Beth and Ellen are away looking at new houses one rainy weekend, Dan embarks on a torrid affair with sexy, successful businesswoman, Alex (Close), not realizing that she is an unbalanced, needy woman, who is not about to let Dan out of her life.

I adore this film in large part because it’s a film that can be debated.

Many seem to blame either (mostly) Dan or Alex, but the question of monogamy can always be a topic of conversation after viewing this film, so in that regard, it is multi-faceted, rather than solely a well-acted Hollywood potboiler.

Was it okay for Dan to cheat? Does Beth overreact or does she forgive too easily? Do we sympathize with Alex? Is she a victim?

The film is unique in that many folks were rooting for Dan and Alex, despite her being the other woman.

So many memorable lines or scenes contribute to this film- who can forget the infamous “boiling pet rabbit” scene or the wonderful line that Alex utters to Dan, “I will not be ignored, Dan”.

They are so ingrained in pop culture that it brings a smile to think of these aspects of Fatal Attraction.

The real selling point, though, is the natural and honest chemistry that Douglas and Close share. Their scenes, mainly the romantic weekend they spend together, flow so nicely that they have real rooting value and I instantly bought them as a couple.

Without this undeniable chemistry, Fatal Attraction would be a standard romantic thriller- and not much else. And the smoldering sexuality during their love scenes is erotic and intense.

Surely not suffering from the dreaded “1980s look”, Fatal Attraction is a gem that holds up very well and is a slick thrill-ride, easily watched and enjoyed time and again.

Dozens upon dozens of carbon copy films cropped up in the years to follow, but none were ever as fantastic as Fatal Attraction (1987).

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Adrian Lyne, Best Actress-Glenn Close, Best Supporting Actress-Anne Archer, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium

The Exorcist-1973

The Exorcist-1973

Director William Friedkin

Starring Ellen Burstyn, Linda Blair

Top 100 Films #39    Top 20 Horror Films #13

Scott’s Review #326

14546619

Reviewed January 5, 2016

Grade: A

Making a lasting mark on cinematic history and impossible not to be familiar with through some form of pop culture, The Exorcist (1973) is a classic supernatural horror film that transcends the genre to become a Hollywood success story.

Along with Rosemary’s Baby (1968) and The Omen (1976), these three films have similarly haunting “religious” subject matters and deal with dark and sinister topics such as “god versus the devil” and “good versus evil”.

The Exorcist is a masterpiece on every level and is adapted from the 1971 hit novel of the same name.

The story centers on “demonic possession” and was quite simply a shocking subject when The Exorcist was released in 1973, scaring the wits out of those brave enough to see it (especially Christians) everywhere.

Some abhorred the subject matter and refused to have any part of the film-their loss.

Ellen Burstyn stars as Chris MacNeil, an actress of note who moves to Georgetown to film a movie. In tow is her twelve-year-old daughter Regan (Linda Blair).

As shooting on the film wraps, Regan begins acting very strangely- making noises, becoming belligerent, and peeing on the floor during a dinner party. Worried, Chris enlists the assistance of priests (Max von Sydow and Jason Miller).

Things progress from bad to worse as Regan spirals out of control and Chris and the priests determine that an exorcism is the only resolution to the problem.

The Exorcist-mainly director William Freidkin sets up the film in a clever way by using various technical elements to build the tension.

For starters, the eerie musical score is highly successful at scaring the audience and the score is similar to that of Rosemary’s Baby. The film is also lit very well, so it appears dark with dim lighting- the cinematography and the windy rustling of leaves in the exterior sets are great.

The cover art of the film should give an indication of the unique style used- black and white, a man with a hat and suitcase peers up at the second floor of a house where a glowing light is illuminating- the image is intriguing and haunting.

Enough cannot be said for Linda Blair’s performance as Regan, especially in the final act. During the “pea soup” and the “Jesus crucifix” scenes a different voice was used, but the facial expressions and the emotions that Blair uses are admirable.

As Regan is bed-ridden, angry, scared, and emotional, there is no limit to Blair’s range. Throughout a large part of the film, she is a sweet, young girl- innocent, so much so that her transformation is both shocking and disturbing to witness.

The final act of the film- the “exorcism” is riveting and a groundbreaking aspect of film history. The terrifying scene all taking place in one child’s tiny bedroom elicits fright and is nail-biting beyond belief.

The Exorcist (1973) is a very influential film that inspired filmmakers for decades to come and still resonates with audiences to this day.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-William Friedkin, Best Actress-Ellen Burstyn, Best Supporting Actor-Jason Miller, Best Supporting Actress-Linda Blair, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium (won), Best Sound (won), Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

Rope-1948

Rope-1948

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Farley Granger, John Dall, James Stewart

Top 100 Films #33

Scott’s Review #323

60020558

Reviewed January 5, 2016

Grade: A

Rope (1948) is one of my favorite Alfred Hitchcock films and a film that instead flies under the radar amongst his catalog of gems. Made in 1948, the film- set as a play (and based on a 1929 play), using one set only- and appearing to be one long take- is an understated film.

The action is inside a luxurious Manhattan apartment with a gorgeous panoramic skyline. Intelligent with subtle nuances that in current viewings are not as subtle, the tiny (nine) cast is fantastic at eliciting a fine story that never seems dated.

Starring Hitchcock stalwart Jimmy Stewart, the film features Farley Granger (Strangers On A Train-1951) and John Dall.

Granger and Dall portray Phillip and Brandon, two college students who strangle a fellow student as an experiment to create the perfect murder. Immediately after the murder, they host a dinner party for friends, including the father, aunt, and fiancée of the victim, all in attendance.

Stewart plays Brandon and Phillip’s prep school housemaster,  Rupert Cadell, who is suspicious of the duo.

To further the thrill, the dead body is hidden inside a large antique wooden chest in the center of their living room, as their housekeeper unwittingly serves dinner atop the dead body.

The film is macabre, clever, and quite experimental.

The very first scene is of Phillip strangling the victim, David, with a piece of kitchen rope, which is an unusual way to start a film. Typically, there would be more buildup and then the climax of murder, but Hitchcock is far too intelligent to follow the rule book.

Ironically, Phillip is the weak and submissive one despite committing the crime. Brandon is dominant and keeps Phillip in check by coaxing him to be calm and in control.

The fact that many of the guests have a relationship with the deceased, munching on their dinner while wondering why David is not attending the party, is gleeful irony. Plenty of drinks are served, and as Phillip gets drunk and drunk, he becomes more unhinged.

The film reminds me of some aspects of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, also based on a play and primarily featuring one set- both dinner parties with alcoholic consumptions, secrets, and accusations becoming more prevalent as the evening goes along.

The plot unfolds chillingly throughout one evening as Rupert slowly figures out that what he had previously taught Brandon and Phillip in an intellectual, hypothetical classroom discussion has been taken morbidly seriously by the two.

The homosexual context is hard to miss in this day and age, but remarkably, it was over the heads of the 1948 Production Code censors, who had no idea of what they were witnessing.

Phillip and Brandon are a gay couple who live together, and this Hitchcock has admitted to in later years. If watched closely, one will notice that in any shot where Brandon and Phillip are speaking to one another, their faces are dangerously close, so we can easily imagine them kissing.

This is purely intentional by Hitchcock.

Rope (1948) is a daring achievement in innovative filmmaking. It should be viewed by any aspiring filmmaker or anyone who enjoys robust and clever camera angles and stories and is seeking an extraordinary adventure in a calm, subtle, great story.

Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Volume 2-2003/2004

Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Volume 2- 2003/2004

Director Quentin Tarantino

Starring Uma Thurman, David Carradine

Top 100 Films #58

Scott’s Review #322

6003123660032563

Reviewed January 3, 2016

Grade: A

Despite being released as separate films (Fall of 2003 and Spring of 2004), Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Kill Bill: Volume 2 are one grand, sprawling feature.

The films were shot as one, but at a running time of over four hours, it was impossible to release them as one, so director Quentin Tarantino decided to release his masterpiece martial arts film as two sequential films.

I have decided to review them as one since Volume 2 is a clear continuation of Volume 1.

From a story perspective, Kill Bill is a basic revenge thriller. The plot is not complex nor ingenious and is rather ordinary containing B-movie components- think the really bad Kung-Fu films of long ago.

What makes Kill Bill an extraordinary masterpiece, however, is the style that exudes from the film, thanks to the direction and creation of Tarantino.

The film is brimming with good flavor and crackling dialogue of an intelligent sort.

Characters have long conversations with each other-not for redundancy’s sake- in between the endless martial arts and bloody sequences.

We meet our heroine, The Bride (Uma Thurman), in a chapel in El Paso, Texas. About to be married to her groom, the entire wedding party is suddenly assassinated in a bloody fashion by the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad.

Their leader, Bill (David Carradine), shoots The Bride after she reveals to him that she is carrying his baby.

The film flashes forward four years later- The Bride has survived the massacre but has been comatose ever since. When a hospital worker rapes her, she escapes and vows revenge on each one of her attackers- the revenge culminating with Bill.

Her path of destruction leads her to Japan.

Like most of Tarantino’s films, Kill Bill is divided into chapters and often goes back and forth from past to present.

The brilliance of Kill Bill is its pizazz. We know The Bride will get her revenge on the assassins, we just do not know in what way or how bloody the slaughters will be.

The film contains copious amounts of blood and swords and machetes are everywhere to be found.

The slow drawl dialogue as The Bride has conversations with her prey before she kills them, oftentimes ends in a big fight scene. Her first revenge, against Vernita (Vivica A. Fox), is unique in that it takes place in Vernita’s kitchen as her young daughter is happily eating her breakfast cereal.

The entire battle ensues in the kitchen and we are left watching blood and cereal.

It is Tarantino’s unique style of filmmaking and storytelling, adding violence, and long character conversations, that give Kill Bill, and all of his other classic films, his unique brand, and stamp of approval.

I dearly hope he continues to make films that challenge the norm, for years to come.

The Silence of the Lambs-1991

The Silence of the Lambs-1991

Director Jonathan Demme

Starring Anthony Hopkins, Jodie Foster

Top 100 Films #31     Top 20 Horror Films #9

Scott’s Review #320

14546747

Reviewed January 3, 2016

Grade: A

The Silence of the Lambs (1991) has the honorary achievement of being one of only three films to win the top five Oscar statuettes, having been awarded Best Picture, Best Director (Jonathan Demme), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor (Anthony Hopkins), and Best Actress (Jodie Foster) at the 1991 Oscar ceremonies.

This is no small feat, especially considering the film was released in March (not an Oscar-happy month) and is a horror film. These elements speak volumes for the level of mastery that is The Silence of the Lambs and the film holds up incredibly well as the years go by.

The film was a sleeper hit at the time of release and gradually built momentum throughout the year, becoming a phenomenon and forever a classic.

The film is adapted from the novel of the same name- written by Thomas Harris and, despite being a horror film, contains little gore. The film stars Foster as Clarice Starling, an FBI trainee, sent by her superiors to interview the infamous Hannibal Lecter.

Hannibal, “The Cannibal”, is a highly intelligent former psychiatrist who has been banished to a maximum security insane asylum after having been found guilty of killing and eating his victims.

The FBI hopes that Hannibal will aid them in a current case involving “Buffalo Bill”, a serial killer who skins his female victims.

Hannibal and Clarice embark on an intense and strange relationship in which he gets under her skin and questions her unhappy childhood in exchange for information about “Buffalo Bill”.

This relationship leaves Clarice vulnerable, though the pair develop a strong connection. As Hannibal makes more and more demands in exchange for information, he eventually escapes from custody and a chilling and bizarre escape.

The psychological elements and the intense relationship between Hannibal and Clarice are of monumental importance and Hopkins and Foster share an amazing chemistry.

Hopkins gives a top-notch and downright creepy performance as the cannibalistic killer. His mannerisms are stiff and calculating, his tone of voice monotone, and he simply embodies his character, making him a legendary and recognizable presence in film history.

Two memorable lines that he utters are, “I do wish we could chat longer, but I am having an old friend for dinner.”, and “I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti”.

The character of “Buffalo Bill” is as terrifying as Hannibal Lecter.

Portrayed by Ted Levine, the character is maniacal, sexually confused, and otherwise downtrodden. A tailor, he aspires to make a full “woman suit” costume out of his victim’s skin. His current hostage, a Senator’s daughter, is kept confined in an old well and terrorized by Bill’s antics.

His famous line, “It puts the lotion on or it gets the hose again” still terrifies me.

Highly influential, mimicked for years to come, and containing multiple lines and characters permanently etched in film history, The Silence of The Lambs (1991) is a classic not soon forgotten.

The film was followed by multiple sequels, none of which come close to the power and psychological complexities of the original.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Jonathan Demme (won), Best Actor-Anthony Hopkins (won), Best Actress-Jodie Foster (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published (won), Best Sound, Best Film Editing

Strangers on a Train-1951

Strangers on a Train-1951

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Farley Granger, Robert Walker

Top 100 Films #27

Scott’s Review #318

70002912

Reviewed January 2, 2016

Grade: A

A thrill-ride-per-minute film, a classic suspense story filled with tension galore, Strangers On A Train is a great Alfred Hitchcock film from 1951, which began the onset of the “golden age of Hitchcock,” lasting throughout the 1950s and 1960s.

A British version of the film exists somewhere, but I have yet to see it.

The American version is a brilliant, fast-paced experience with complex, interesting characters, including one of the greatest villains in screen history, and a riveting, heart-pounding plot.

Who can forget the essential ominous phrase “criss-cross”?

The film begins with a clever shot of two pairs of expensive shoes emerging from individual taxi cabs. Both are men, well-to-do, and stylish.  They board a train and sit across each other, accidentally bumping their feet.

We are then introduced to the two main characters: tennis star Guy Haines (Farley Granger) and wealthy Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker). They engage in conversation, and immediately, we become aware that Bruno is assertive and Guy is more passive.

Ultimately, Bruno manipulates Guy into thinking they will exchange murders- Bruno will kill Guy’s unfaithful wife, Miriam, while Guy will murder Bruno’s hated father.  While Bruno takes this dire “deal” seriously, Guy thinks Bruno is joking.

A psychological complexity of the film is the implied relationship between Guy and Bruno. Indeed, there are sexual overtones as flirtation and bonding immediately develop while they converse on the train.

They are complete opposites, which makes their relationship compelling—the devil and the angel if you will. The mysterious, profound connection between these two men fascinates throughout the film.

Robert Walker makes Bruno a delicious villain. He is devious, clever, manipulative, and even comical at times. His wickedness is mesmerizing, so much so that the audience roots for him.

Hitchcock wisely makes the victim, Miriam (wonderfully played by Laura Elliot), devious, adding to Bruno’s rooting value during her death scene. His character is troubled and almost rivals Norman Bates and Hannibal Lecter as a lovable, evil villain.

Later in the film, when Guy is playing tennis, he gazes into the stands to see the spectators turning left and right in tandem with the moving tennis ball, and the audience sees a staring straight ahead Bruno immersed in the sea of swaying heads.

It is a highly effective, creepy scene.

The pairing of Guy and his girlfriend Anne (a seemingly much older Ruth Roman and, interestingly, despised by Hitchcock) does not work. Could this be a result of the implied attraction between Bruno and Guy? Or is it a coincidence?

Roman’s casting was forced upon Hitchcock by the Warner Brothers studio.

Hitchcock reveals his “mommy complex,” a common theme in his films, as we learn that there is something off with Bruno’s mother, played by Marion Lorde, but the exact oddity is tricky to pin down.

She and Bruno comically joke about bombing the White House, which gives the scene a jarring, confusing edge. Is she he reason that Bruno is diabolical?

The theme of women’s glasses is used heavily in Strangers On A Train. Miriam, an eyeglass wearer, is strangled while we, the audience, witness the murder through her dropped glasses. The scene is gorgeous and cinematic in black and white and continues to be studied in film schools everywhere.

Later, Anne’s younger sister Barbara (comically played by Hitchcock’s daughter Pat Hitchcock), who also wears glasses, becomes an essential character as Bruno is mesmerized by her likeness to the deceased Miriam, as a mock strangulation game at a dinner party goes wrong.

The concluding carnival scene is high-intensity and contains impressive special effects for 1951.

The spinning out-of-control carousel, panicked riders, and cat-and-mouse chase scene leading to a deadly climax is a fantastic end to the film.

Strangers On A Train (1951) is one of Hitchcock’s best classic thrill films.

Rear Window-1954

Rear Window-1954

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring James Stewart, Grace Kelly

Top 100 Films #50

Scott’s Review #317

60000397

Reviewed January 2, 2016

Grade: A

I love several Alfred Hitchcock films dearly, and Rear Window (1954) is very high on that list.

The film is a unique experience in that much of the filming is through the point of view of the main character L.B. Jeffries, played with conviction by James Stewart who is a fixture in several of Hitchcock’s great films.

Wheelchair-bound and confined to his Manhattan apartment, he has nothing more to do than spy on an apartment full of neighbors across the street.

He witnesses a crime and a cat-and-mouse game ensues.

What is great about this film is the viewer gets to know the series of neighbors L.B. watches and glimpses into their lives, some happy lives, some sad.

Rear Window is shot sort of like a play. The chemistry between Stewart and Grace Kelly is nice but secondary to the great main story.

Rear Window (1954) can be watched repeatedly and enjoyed with each subsequent viewing.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director-Alfred Hitchcock, Best Screenplay, Best Sound Recording, Best Cinematography, Color

2001: A Space Odyssey-1968

2001: A Space Odyssey-1968

Director Stanley Kubrick

Starring Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood

Top 100 Films #16

Scott’s Review #314

207856

Reviewed December 31, 2015

Grade: A

In my mind, 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) is a masterpiece, pure and simple, and simply must be seen repeatedly to let the message and the experience sink in.

It is one of those films that is comparable to a fine wine- it just gets better and better with age is palpable with deep-thought and allows the viewer to experience the good taste in film art.

The delicious quality is meant to be savored and enjoyed- the slow pace and odd elements only enrich the film. Needless to say, it is one of my favorite Stanley Kubrick films.

Simply an epic journey through space.

Made in 1968, and the year 2001 way off, the film challenges and breaks down barriers and film, as Kubrick simply makes a film that he wants to make and the results are genius.

The film contains no dialogue during the first twenty or the last twenty minutes.

The film begins in the African desert millions of years ago as the evolution of man is apparent- two tribes of ape-men dispute over a watering hole. A black monolith appears and one of the tribes is guided to use bones as weapons.

Millions of years later, we meet a team of scientists- led by Dr. David Bowman and Dr. Frank Poole- as they embark on a mission aboard the United States spacecraft, Discovery One, on a mission to Jupiter.

The ship is mainly controlled by an intelligent talking computer named HAL 9000- nicknamed “Hal”. Hal boasts that he is “foolproof and incapable of error”. As events unfold, the film dives into a study of humans versus technology in a cerebral game of mental chess.

The film is very tough to review analytically as it is so intelligent and visually stimulating- it must be experienced. It challenges the viewer to think and absorb the events occurring.

Visually it is breathtaking and still holds up shockingly well from this perspective. The use of classical music throughout- especially in dramatic scenes is effective.

The stunning scene where David and Frank converse about their suspicions regarding “Hal”, as the intelligent computer system looks on, simply an orange light, but seemingly displaying a myriad of emotions (surprise, rage) in the viewer’s mind, is incredibly compelling.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) is an enduring masterpiece.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Director-Stanley Kubrick, Best Story, and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, Best Art Direction, Best Special Visual Effects (won)

The Shining-1980

The Shining-1980

Director Stanley Kubrick

Starring Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall

Top 100 Films #20     Top 20 Horror Films #7

Scott’s Review #313

959008

Reviewed December 31, 2015

Grade: A

The Shining is one of the great horror masterpieces of all time.

Released in 1980 and atypical of the slasher craze that was running rampant at that time, the film is a psychological ghost story with frightening elements including a musical score, long camera shots, and a haunting grandiose hotel in a deserted locale.

Without the brilliant direction of Stanley Kubrick, The Shining would not be the masterpiece that it is- to say nothing of the talents of Nicholson and Duvall in the lead roles.

Based on the popular horror novel by Stephen King.

Nicholson plays Jack Torrance, an author and alcoholic, who takes his wife Wendy (Duvall) and son Danny to serve as caretakers at the vast Overlook hotel- for the winter in snowy Colorado.

The lavish hotel will be deserted for the season and Jack looks forward to months of peace that will enable him to complete his novel.

Unfortunately, the hotel is haunted by spirits of the past, and the added burden of the previous caretaker going mad and chopping his family to bits with an ax.

The real success of The Shining is that the hotel itself is a character and has nuances of its own. The hotel is deathly quiet as the Torrances take over for the season-long hallways are featured and the forbidden Room 237 takes on a life of its own.

Creepy images of two young girls and red blood gushing from the elevators take over. Young Danny can communicate with the chef without speaking to each other. Jack imagines a gorgeous nude woman in the bathtub only to discover she is a shriveled old hag.

The film’s cinematography coupled with the looming, morose, musical score perfectly go hand in hand and, in my opinion, are the reasons for the success of the film.

Throughout the film, there is a sense of dread and a forbidden presence that works beautifully.

The very first scene is an aerial shot of the Torrances driving along a mountainous road to be interviewed for the caretaker position. The vast land and mountains as we eventually see the Overlook immediately reveal to us the feeling of isolation, which is really what the film is about.

These exterior scenes are also gorgeous to marvel at.

The crisp, gloomy, winter scenes and the endless maze of animal shrubbery come into play during the film’s final act as Jack, now completely mad, chases Danny through the snowy paths that seemingly lead to nowhere.

The catchphrase, “Here’s Johnny!”, that is uttered from an ax-wielding Nicholson, is permanently ensconced in the relics of pop culture.

Nicholson and Duvall have such dynamic and palpable on-screen chemistry that makes the film work from a character perspective. There is something slightly off with each of the characters, readily apparent from the outset, but that has more to do with each actor being rather non-traditional in appearance.

I can imagine no other actors in these roles.

Author, Stephen King, who reportedly despised the film version of his novel, has since grown to respect the film and Kubrick’s direction, a great deal. The Shining is one of my favorite horror films in addition to being one of my favorite films of all time.

Boogie Nights-1997

Boogie Nights-1997

Director Paul Thomas Anderson

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Burt Reynolds

Top 100 Films #21

Scott’s Review #312

1180077

Reviewed December 31, 2015

Grade: A

Boogie Nights (1997) is a fantastic film about the pornography industry (The Golden Age of Porn) of the 1970s and 1980s and does a wonderful job of portraying the characters as human beings with feelings and emotions, rather than as nymphomaniacs or perverts.

They bond with one another as a family- a group of misfits striving to survive. This and many other reasons are why Boogie Nights is one of my favorite films of all time.

Written, produced, and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson (Magnolia-1999, There Will Be Blood-2007, Inherent Vice-2014), he is a champion at exploring the underbelly of society and flawed and desperate characters.

Boogie Nights is no different.

The dysfunctional family is the common theme of the film. Most of his characters are not happy people, but they are survivors and desperately look for a piece of happiness.

Many in his cast of Boogie Nights also appear in Magnolia. Mark Wahlberg (Eddie/Dirk Diggler), Burt Reynolds (Jack Horner), Julianne Moore (Maggie), Don Cheadle (Buck), William H. Macy (Little Bill), John C. Reilly (Reed Rothchild), Heather Graham (Rollergirl), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Scotty), Malora Walters (Jessie), and Alfred Molina (Rahad Jackson), round out the large cast.

The setting of the film in Los Angeles and the period runs from 1977-1984. Though only seven years take place, much happens to most of the characters during this time and we experience their trials and tribulations.

The unique thing about Boogie Nights is that I care about every character, thanks to great writing and fantastic acting. They succeeded in obtaining my empathy for them. Boogie Nights is an extremely character-driven film, which is an enormous part of its brilliance.

The cast is an ensemble one, but the main character is Eddie Adams, a high school dropout, who we meet working as a dishwasher at a nightclub. He has an abusive mother who kicks him out of the house, leading him to audition for and move in with Jack Horner.

Jack is a patriarch type, who shares a house with Maggie, the matriarch of the household, and roller girl, a fellow high school dropout always wearing roller skates. Eddie’s talent is his large “manhood”.

We watch Eddie, at first shy and polite, rise to superstardom in the porn industry, becoming rich and living a lavish, drug-fueled, lifestyle, where his ego gets the best of him. He, like many of the characters, hit rough times as the early 1980’s shift to videotape was the death of many 1970’s porn actors careers.

The musical soundtrack is very important to the success of Boogie Nights. Many scenes contain songs that were hits of the time or prior, including “Sister Christian”, “Jessie’s Girl”, “God Only Knows”, “Got to Give it Up”, “Ain’t No Stoppin’ Us Now”, and countless others- so much so that the soundtrack is almost a character of the film and we look forward to hearing what song might be featured next.

At one point later in the film, circa 1983, as things begin to spiral out of control for many of the characters- the musical score turns ominous with low bass music, a nighttime setting, the lighting becomes darker, and several stories begin to intersect on one late L.A. night on the streets.

Jack, filming a scene in a limousine starring Rollergirl and a young college jock they pick up off the streets, Dirk-forced to prostitute himself for $10 to a young man in a pickup truck, and Buck-who innocently stops to buy doughnuts for his very pregnant wife Jessie.

Each of these stories ends in brutal violence and the tone is crucial to the success of the scenes. This lengthy scene reminds me quite a bit of a Quentin Tarantino scene in its macabre tone.

Particular favorite scenes include the heartbreaking scene when Maggie loses custody of her son, the New Year’s Eve party at Jack’s house, and the ill-fated drug sale at Rahad Jackson’s.

Each is heartbreaking, powerful, fraught with tension, or otherwise empathetic to the characters, which makes them each quite powerful in different ways.

Induced in the drug sale scene is some black comedy- Rahad’s presumed Chinese houseboy has a fetish for firecrackers, which startle Dirk, Reed, and Todd, as the fear of possible gunshots fills the air. Maggie’s sob scene elicits viewer emotion as we cry with her, and the New Year’s Eve turn of events involving Scotty and Little Bill is tragic.

Boogie Nights (1997) is one of my favorite films because it contains brilliant writing, characters who are fleshed out, damaged, and human, a killer soundtrack, and a dark, mysterious industry (porn) that is both misunderstood and categorized.

Thanks to director, Anderson, we see the people within this lifestyle as real people, with issues, but also with full hearts and kindness.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-Burt Reynolds, Best Supporting Actress-Julianne Moore, Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen

Carol-2015

Carol-2015

Director Todd Haynes

Starring Cate Blanchett, Rooney Mara

Top 100 Films #90

Scott’s Review #308

80058700

Reviewed December 27, 2015

Grade: A

My comparison would be that this film is the female version of Brokeback Mountain (2005).

Carol is a story of hidden romance and secret lives in the early 1950s when it was difficult to lead an alternative lifestyle openly (or even in hiding!).

The film is a marvel in its honest storytelling, exquisite class, and gracefulness with excellent cinematography and a nice, heartwarming tale.

Carol is directed by Todd Haynes, a director known for films about doomed romances faced with societal challenges. Carol is a wonderful piece of work.

The film contains two equal female lead roles- Carol Aird (Cate Blanchett) is a gorgeous, sophisticated socialite.  She exudes confidence and style in everything that she does.

Always perfectly dressed, well made up, manicured fingernails, her mannerisms relay confidence, and control. She is married to a wealthy businessman, Harge (Kyle Chandler), who is madly in love with her, yet they are divorcing because of her “problem”.

The fact that Carol is a lesbian is known to Harge and they share somewhat of an understanding, and a five-year-old daughter. The divorce they are going through is difficult.

Therese Belevit (Rooney Mara), is the polar opposite of Carol.  Young, and naïve, she is a part-time shopgirl, fascinated by photography. She dates men and goes to parties, living out a typical young girl’s life.

When Carol and Therese meet at the store where Therese works, they are immediately enamored with one another and a friendship develops. Both seem caught off guard and the chemistry between the two actresses sizzles.

The focus is the budding romance between Carol and Therese, and the societal differences that they face, not to mention the age difference between the two women. I found the chemistry quite evident thanks to Blanchett and Mara.

Worlds apart, the two women somehow find their way to each other and form a bond. Their relationship is tender, gentle, and carefully laid out for the audience. They are neither animalistic nor barbaric in a sexual way, but rather sweet.

When Therese takes a spontaneous car trip from New York to Chicago, leaving her boyfriend, Richard, conflict develops. He wants them to run off to Paris but Therese wants to be with Carol. He breaks up with Therese and accuses her of having a crush on Carol.

Therese and Carol’s romance is finally consummated in a mid-western hotel. It is New Year’s Eve and Todd Haynes chooses to shoot this scene in a romantic, spontaneous way. They are celebrating the holiday, but both are blue and vulnerable. It makes perfect sense that they would turn to one another.

The film delves into many different emotions that Carol and Therese face- love, glee, anger, rage, confusion, rejection, and loneliness. These adjectives and the tone of the film are why it succeeds.

From an acting perspective, both Blanchett and Mara are great, but I am more partial to Blanchett’s performance. She embodies this character. From when she orders a martini dry with one olive, to how she brazenly approaches Therese, she is a woman in control. But faced with family issues she becomes vulnerable and we see her as human.

Besides the interesting story of a love faced with many challenges, the look of the film is grand. The sets, hairstyles, clothes, and makeup are graceful and rich. To summarize- everyone looks great and it portrays a perfect picture of the 1950s.

A progressive Hollywood tale, Carol showcases glamour, and great acting, and sends a powerful message of acceptance and struggle during a difficult time to be “different”, to fulfill one’s life.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Cate Blanchett, Best Supporting Actress-Rooney Mara, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Feature, Best Director-Todd Haynes, Best Female Lead-Cate Blanchett, Rooney Mara, Best Screenplay, Best Cinematography (won)

Mulholland Dr.- 2001

Mulholland Dr.- 2001

Director David Lynch

Starring Naomi Watts, Laura Harring, Justin Theroux

Top 100 Films #14

Scott’s Review #297

60021646

Reviewed December 12, 2015

Grade: A

Mulholland Dr. (2001) is my favorite David Lynch film and as far as I am concerned, a pure masterpiece in experimental filmmaking.

Championed by many; hated by others for its non-linear and very confusing storyline, to try and make sense of the mishmash of dreamlike plots is wasteful and undoubtedly headache-inducing, as the film simply must be felt and appreciated for its creativity.

My best analogy is Mulholland Dr. is to film what Pink Floyd is to music- it must be savored and experienced. It is a film to be interpreted and studied.

The main story, if one is attempting to summarize in a paragraph, goes something like this:

Part 1- aspiring actress Betty Elms (played by then-unknown Naomi Watts) arrives in sunny Los Angeles, as a perky, clean-cut girl, and stays in her aunt’s gorgeous suburban apartment while, she an actress, is away on location shooting a film.

Betty meets an amnesiac woman, the gorgeous Rita (Laura Harring), who is hiding in the apartment. Before meeting Betty, we learn that Rita was involved in a car accident on Mulholland Dr. and is carrying a large sum of cash, but she does not know who she is or even her name, making up the name “Rita” from a poster of Rita Hayworth she sees on the wall while showering.

Part 2: Betty (now named Diane) and Rita (now Camilla) are lovers and Betty, no longer aspiring, now has become a neurotic, struggling actress with no work, and is involved in a love triangle with Camilla and another man, who are both great successes and pity Diane.

Diane and Camilla go to a club named Club Silencio, where a gorgeous singer brings them to tears with her singing only to collapse and be revealed as a phony. The host warns that everything is an illusion.

Intersecting vignettes seemingly unrelated to the central part of the story- a young director forced to cast a woman after threats from the mafia, a terrified man who sees a demented man behind the dumpster of a burger joint, and a detective searching for the clues to the car accident involving Rita, all come together to relate to the main story.

Mixed in with all of these stories are recurring odd characters- the seemingly sweet elderly couple that Betty meets on the airplane, a strange cowboy who appears every so often, Coco, the landlord, played by legendary film actress Ann Miller, in her last film, Coco then doubles as a shrewish character in the alternate story, and finally, a mysterious blue key.

How do all these facets of story and character add up?

That is open to interpretation.

Some details support the theory that “Betty” is a figment of Diane’s imagination- she dreams of being fresh-faced and ready to take on L.A., and that the woman that Betty and Rita find dead is Diane.

When the plot changes direction, the cowboy utters the line “Hey, pretty girl. Time to wake up.”, which seems to support this theory, though, as mentioned before, Mulholland Dr. is meant to be enjoyed not stressed over if the puzzle does not always come together.

Mulholland Dr. (2001) is a masterpiece pure and simple. An odd masterpiece with plots that can be discussed and dissected for ages…..and not understanding the film is not a bad thing.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director-David Lynch

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Cinematography (won)

Citizen Kane-1941

Citizen Kane-1941

Director Orson Welles

Starring Orson Welles

Top 100 Films #19

Scott’s Review #296

60000605

Reviewed December 12, 2015

Grade: A

Regarded as one of the greatest films ever made, Citizen Kane (1941) is a technically brilliant film that introduces fantastic new elements into a film that has not been seen before and has not been replicated for decades. It is a timeless masterpiece that is still enjoyed and marveled at in modern times.

One can forget what the story is about, as one can sit back, not having any idea of what the story means (it can be a bit difficult to follow), and look at the film from a cinematic perspective.

The various camera angles, shadows, and use of an actual ceiling (never seen in film before) are impossible not to appreciate for any film lover.

My favorite scenes occur when director (and star) Orson Welles uses snow falling outside as the cameras look through a window to observe the winter wonderland. This quality is simply astonishing in creative technicality.

I can view this scene over and over again.

The plot is a hybrid of drama and mystery. It examines the life and legacy of newspaper legend Charles Foster Kane.

The character, played by Welles himself, is loosely based on a real-life figure, William Randolph Hearst.

The film is told mainly through narrated flashbacks, as a newsreel reporter attempts to solve the big mystery centered around the deceased celebrity- his dying word, uttered from his lavish Florida mansion, was “rosebud,” and nobody seems to know who “rosebud” is or what the word represents.

As the story progresses, we learn more about the famous Kane. The reporter Jerry Thompson learns that Kane’s childhood in Colorado was one of poverty.

His mother, discovering a gold mine on her property, sent Kane away to be educated by a famous banker, thus securing his future. Thompson also interviews Kane’s business manager and Kane’s ex-wife, who is now a drunk and owns a nightclub, but neither can shed light on the mystery.

The mystery- never solved by Thompson nor anyone else- is revealed at the end of the film, to the viewer only, in fantastic form, and Kane’s childhood is key to the entire puzzle. This angle is creative and imaginative and brilliant for the whole film.

Technically, one of the best, most creative film creations, Citizen Kane, has lost none of its marvels over the years and can be watched, studied, and introduced to new generations of film lovers eager to learn what a true movie gem is all about.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Outstanding Motion Picture, Best Director-Orson Welles, Best Actor-Orson Welles, Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Scoring of a Dramatic Picture, Best Sound Recording, Best Art Direction-Interior Decoration, Black-and-White, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White, Best Film Editing

A Clockwork Orange-1971

A Clockwork Orange-1971

Director Stanley Kubrick

Starring Malcolm McDowell

Top 100 Films #9     Top 10 Disturbing Films #7

Scott’s Review #295

383466

Reviewed December 11, 2015

Grade: A

A Clockwork Orange (1971) is a groundbreaking Stanley Kubrick film and my personal favorite in his collection, more than one of which appears on my Top 100 Favorite Films list.

Adapted from the 1962 Anthony Burgess novel and thought to be unable to make it into a film, it becomes a psychedelic, creative, and fascinating experience from start to finish.

Bizarre and extremely thought-provoking, Kubrick tells the story of a London sociopath delinquent living in futuristic London, and the strange behavior modifications performed on him after he is apprehended by the police, in an attempt to “reform” him and transition him to be a useful member of society.

The film delves into such social and insightful themes such as morality and psychology and questions these weighty topics.

Interspersed with classical music and wonderful, colorful sets, A Clockwork Orange is a masterpiece in bizarre artistic cinema.

Alex DeLarge loves classical music (specifically Beethoven), violence, and hanging out with friends. He constantly skips school, beats people up, and parties with his friends. His pet snake is his best friend, and his parents seem afraid of him.

Finally arrested after murdering an odd lady with dozens of cats, Alex is sent away to prison where he volunteers for an experimental “Ludovico” technique, which Alex assumes is a “get out of jail free” card.

What transpires next is a freakish and uncomfortable experience for Alex.

The film contains startling and disturbing scenes throughout- when Alex and his team of “droogs” become inebriated from a concoction of milk laced with drugs and embark on an evening of self-proclaimed ultra-violence, they drive to the country where they break into wealthy author F. Alexander’s house and beat him, crippling him for life.

They rape his wife while forcing him to watch, all the while Alex happily sings “Singin’ in the Rain” timing the beats of the song to acts of violence.

The brutality and creativity of this scene are mesmerizing and certainly unforgettable.

We the audience might despise a character like Alex, however, sympathy is felt for him as his “reformation” begins. A disturbing scene, which is forever embedded in my mind, involves the attaching of a contraption forcing Alex’s eyelids wide open while he watches violent scenes and is administered a drug to make him sick, thereby associating the violence with illness.

He becomes psychologically screwed up.

Alex (thanks to a wonderful portrayal by Malcolm McDowell) is charismatic and humorous and, in some warped way, quite likable to the audience, despite his devious ways.

A Clockwork Orange continues to disturb me after multiple viewings- who can forget the sinister grin that Alex wears and the creepy eyelash with mascara that he possesses?

The film sends an interesting message about human nature as Alex turns from predator to the hunted. We ask, “are human beings naturally prone to violence”?

The direction of the film is breathtaking- the weird colors, the (as traditional with Stanley Kubrick)  long-shot camera angles, and the intense musical crescendos.

And the genre of classical music is a wonderful and ominous choice- almost adding a level of sophistication to Alex and the violence.

The weird supporting characters (Alex’s parents, the probation officer, and his parent’s roommate) and the suddenly fast-forwarded sex scenes were unheard of for their time.

Immensely creative and unconventional film making with a moral message and questions about society and mankind, A Clockwork Orange (1971) is a groundbreaking and fantastic, trippy experience.

A masterpiece from top to bottom.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Stanley Kubrick, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Film Editing

Notorious-1946

Notorious-1946

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman

Scott’s Review #265

813874

Reviewed August 11, 2015

Grade: A

Notorious is a classic Alfred Hitchcock film from 1946, a period that preceded his golden age of brilliant works in the 1950s and 1960s, but it is a marvel all the same.

Perhaps not as wonderful as future works, but that is like comparing prime rib to filet mignon. Shot in black and white, the subject matter is familiar to Hitchcock fans- political espionage.

The film contains elements familiar with Hitchcock’s films- romance with suspenseful plot.

Starring two greats of the time (and Hitchcock stalwarts), Carey Grant and Ingrid Bergman, one is immediately enthralled by the chemistry between the characters they play- T.R. Devlin and Alicia Huberman. Devlin, a government agent, recruits Alicia, per his bosses, to spy on a Nazi sympathizer, Alex Sebastian (Claude Raines), who is affiliated with her father.

Her father, having been convicted and sentenced to prison, has committed suicide. Alicia’s allegiance is questioned as she takes drastic measures to prove her loyalty and complete the hated assignment.

The film is set between Miami and the gorgeous Rio De Janeiro, where much of the action is set at Alex’s mansion.

A blueprint for his later works, Hitchcock experiments with creative camera shots and angles- specifically the wide and high shot overlooking an enormous ballroom.

I also love the airplane scene- subtly, Hitchcock treats the audience to background views of Rio from the view of the airplane as Devlin and Alicia converse.

The plane is slowly descending for landing, which allows for a slow, gorgeous glimpse of the countryside and landscape in the background.

Subtleties like these that may go unnoticed make Hitchcock such a brilliant director.

The character of Alicia is worth a study. Well known for his lady issues, did Hitchcock hint at her being an oversexed, boozy, nymphomaniac?

I did not think the character was written sympathetically, though, to be fair, she is headstrong and loyal in the face of adversity.

She parties hard, drives at 65 miles per hour while intoxicated, and falls into bed with more than one man. It is also implied that she has a history of being promiscuous.

Made in 1946, this must have been controversial during that period. The sexual revolution was still decades away.

Notorious also features one of Hitchcock’s most sinister female characters: Madame Sebastian (Leopoldine Konstantin). The woman is evil personified, and her actions are reprehensible. She is arguably the mastermind behind all of the dirty deeds and a fan of slow, painful death by poisoning.

My favorite scene is, without a doubt, the wine cellar scene. To me, it epitomizes good, old-fashioned suspense and edge-of-your-seat entertainment.

A cat-and-mouse game involving a secret rendezvous, a smashed bottle, a key, champagne, and the grand reveal enraptures this scene, which goes on for quite some time and is the climax.

Perhaps Notorious is not quite as great a film as Vertigo (1958), Psycho (1960), or The Birds (1963), but it is a top-notch adventure/thriller that ought to be watched and respected.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor- Claude Rains, Best Original Screenplay

Pulp Fiction-1994

Pulp Fiction-1994

Director Quentin Tarantino

Starring John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman

Top 100 Films #22

Scott’s Review #242

880640

Reviewed May 12, 2015

Grade: A

Pulp Fiction (1994) is one of the most influential films of the 1990s and single-handedly kicked the film industry in the ass. It led an entire generation of filmmakers, who were starved and determined to make more creative work after the largely dull decade of the 1980s.

The success of the film, both creatively and critically, helped ensure that edgier and more meaningful artistic expression would continue to occur.

The leader of the charge, of course, was director, Quentin Tarantino.

With Pulp Fiction, a black comedy crime film, Tarantino mixes violence, witty dialogue, and a 1970’s cartoonish feel to achieve a filmmaking masterpiece.

The plot is non-linear and the story contains three main focuses that intersect- a new style of filmmaking that has become commonplace in commonplace in modern cinema, but at the time was a novel adventure.

Set in Los Angeles, Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta portray hitmen named Jules and Vincent, who work for a powerful gangster, Marsellus Wallace, played by Ving Rhames. We get to know them as they interrogate four college-aged youths who double-crossed Marsellus, all the while discussing fast-food hamburgers and adventures in Europe.

On another front, Butch (Bruce Willis) is hired by Marsellus to lose a fight to another boxer. Later, Marcellus instructs Vincent to take his wife Mia (Uma Thurmon), a former unsuccessful television actress, out for dinner and a night on the town.

Finally, we meet Pumpkin and Honey Bunny (Tim Roth and Amanda Plumber), two small-town robbers plotting a heist at a local diner. As the film develops these plots relate to each other in unique ways.

The film is quite stylistic, resembling a 1970s film production in the way it looks, and the use of 1970s style sets- the diner, in particular, looks very of that time, and an automobile where a death occurs, is a 1970s, Chevy Nova.

The film, however, is set in present times.

The dialogue throughout Pulp Fiction is immensely impressive to me. Long dialogues occur between characters, usually sitting over a meal, discussing the meaning of life, religion, fast-food burgers, and other wonderfully real conversations.

I love the many food references- from Butch’s girlfriend salivating over an impending meal of blueberry pancakes to the French version of the Big Mac being discussed, to the price of a shake, these make the conversations between the characters rich and unique and oh so creative.

My favorite sequence is the one between Vincent and Mia, mostly taking place at a trendy 1950s-themed diner named Jack Rabbit Slim’s, where the staff dresses up in costume impersonating their favorite stars of the day, such as Marilyn Monroe.

After winning a dance contest (and a possible homage to Saturday Night Fever) the two go back to Mia’s place where she accidentally overdoses on heroin thought to be cocaine.

The song “Girl, You’ll Be a Woman Soon” by Neil Diamond, is both integral and haunting to the scene.

An intense and shocking scene of male gay rape is extremely violent and the hillbillies involved could be straight out of Deliverance from 1972 despite being in Los Angeles.

This scene is disturbing yet mesmerizing at the same time, and might I say even comedic in a dark way?

Pulp Fiction is not a mainstream affair and has its share of detractors and plain old non-fans, but for film-goers seeking a fun, entertaining, cleverly delicious work of art, influential to Hollywood and Independent filmmakers alike, Pulp Fiction (1994) is a film to watch over and over again and admire its style and creativity.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Quentin Tarantino, Best Actor-John Travolta, Best Supporting Actor-Samuel L. Jackson, Best Supporting Actress-Uma Thurman, Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen (won), Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 4 wins-Best Feature (won), Best Director-Quentin Tarantino (won), Best Male Lead-Samuel L. Jackson (won), Best Supporting Male-Eric Stoltz, Best Screenplay (won)

Jezebel-1938

Jezebel-1938

Director William Wyler

Starring Bette Davis

Scott’s Review #236

220px-Jesebel_movieposter

Reviewed April 18, 2015

Grade: B+

An excellent showcase for the young and lovely Bette Davis, Jezebel (1938) is a very early film role for Davis. It is similar to Gone with the Wind, a film Davis reportedly lost to Vivian Leigh.

One wonders how she would have made the character of Scarlett O’Hara her own, and Jezebel is on a journey exploring that possibility.

Acclaimed director William Wyler directed Jezebel, set in New Orleans in 1852 (pre-Civil War). Davis plays spoiled southern belle Julie Marsden, who is engaged to wealthy banker Preston Dillard, played by Henry Fonda.

After a dispute in which Julie selfishly feels her needs are unmet, she shockingly wears a red dress to a sophisticated ball where unmarried women are expected to wear white. This causes a scandal that results in Preston dumping Julie and leaving town.

Cocky Julie expects Preston to return to town and grovel for her forgiveness, but when he does return with a life-changing twist, the drama unfolds. Circumstances include a savage duel, longing for love, and atonement.

Fans of Davis will love Jezebel for the sheer excellence that she brings to the screen. Mesmerizing with those soulful, big eyes and excellent mannerisms, she exudes confidence and sophistication. Admittedly, this is my earliest Davis experience, and she shimmers on-screen.

Bette Davis is perfectly cast. Interesting to note are the innocent qualities early Davis possessed. Later afflicted with a hoarse, deep voice and ravaged beauty after years of alcohol and cigarette abuse, Davis in Jezebel is virginal and debutante-looking.

I find Julie’s wardrobe choices interesting. Her horseback riding outfit, the vixen-like red dress, the virginal white dress, and the dark raven cape at the climax of the film, as well as the various lighting techniques Wyler used to showcase Davis’s face, almost look like candlelight.

The film is similar to Gone with the Wind (preceded by a year). Julie, like Scarlett, is a rich, selfish girl who likes to manipulate men. Both films feature a love triangle prevalent in the story and broken hearts. The enslaved people in both films resemble each other, though they are a bit more glamorous in Jezebel.

The introduction of the yellow fever storyline and the sick and weak lying around in droves is similar to the wounded and dying soldier scene in Gone with the Wind, where the ill and dying lie in pain. The periods, triangle, and southern charms all heavily play in both. It is impossible not to compare the two films.

Melodrama did very well; Jezebel (1938) is to be admired as it is a film featuring a strong female character, something lacking in the film then (1938) and shamefully still lacking in cinema today! Jezebel is an actual “ambitious woman’s movie.”

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins- Outstanding Production, Best Actress-Bette Davis (won), Best Supporting Actress-Fay Bainter (won), Best Scoring, Best Cinematography

Under the Skin-2013

Under the Skin-2013

Director Jonathan Glazer

Starring Scarlett Johansson

Scott’s Review #219

70293812

Reviewed January 31, 2015

Grade: A

Under the Skin (2013) is a tough film to review- in a word it is mysterious.

The consensus is that people either love the film or hate it- it is one of those types of films. I love it and it appears on many 2013 top ten film lists.

The visual creativity alone astounds me.

To summarize, Scarlett Johansson plays the female alien presumably sent to Earth to meet young men and lure them, using her feminine wiles, into a pool of dark liquid where they are entrapped and subsequently peeled, their skin used for an unknown reason.

The oddity of the story is as appealing as it is confusing, but somehow fascinating beyond belief.

The film is set in Glasgow, Scotland, during present times. The film has a cold, dark tone to it and the city itself seems bleak.

Johansson, in an unnamed role, takes the clothes of a dead human woman and begins traversing the streets of Glasgow, picking up the men as they walk home or go to the grocery store.

She carefully selects men who will not be missed- men who are loners or family-less.

As the film goes along Johansson becomes more sympathetic. She yearns to become a human and to do what humans do- she goes to a diner and attempts to eat a delicious slice of cake and vomits the contents.

She has a strange man on a motorcycle following her, making sure she completes her assigned tasks. Some of these conclusions are surmised as the lack of dialogue in the film adds to the mystique.

A particularly frightening scene, and my favorite in the film, involves the female alien meeting a swimmer on the beach, who is on holiday in Scotland.

Her flirtation with him as she attempts to accost him is thwarted by a family in peril. A father, mother, and infant son are enjoying a day on the secluded beach.

Suddenly, their dog begins to drown as the waves become too intense. The mother struggles in a panic to swim to the dog and rescue it- the father then does the same.

What happens next is very sad and the female alien and the motorcycle man both leave the screaming infant to die without so much as a second glance.

This poses a few questions- are they, aliens, without emotions for human suffering? Do they not care? Do they revel in the misery? Do they simply not realize what is going on? The viewer will ponder these questions and others long after the film ends.

Later, the audience is confused further as the female alien meets a severely deformed man, and they bond as she drives him to, presumably, his death. She loves his hands and is fascinated by his tenderness towards her. As they talk she shows signs of caring for a human being as they begin a sweet friendship.

Why does she bond with this disfigured man instead of the more handsome men she meets? Does she relate to him due to her growing feelings of being a misfit and desiring to be human?

Visually the film is creative. Spellbinding is the sequence involving the men being submerged in the black fluid as they slowly disappear leaving only the skin. Their transformation is slow, methodical, and imaginative and one relishes what is going on.

The score is reminiscent of Rosemary’s Baby (1968) in its eeriness and visually the film must have been influenced by Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968).

Under the Skin (2013) is a fantastic journey through a weird, perplexing, sometimes confusing world, but leaves me thinking and glued to the activity onscreen.

It is an art film that breaks barriers and provokes interest and intrigue not catering to mainstream expectations. It is what art films are meant to do- challenge.

More films should take risks like these.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best International Film

Once Upon a Time in America-1984

Once Upon a Time in America-1984

Director Sergio Leone

Starring Robert De Niro, James Woods

Scott’s Review #218

60028306

Reviewed January 19, 2015

Grade: A

An epic film, the extended directors cut at more than four hours in length, 1984’s Once Upon a Time in America is a film directed by Sergio Leone, who also directed the 1968 masterpiece Once Upon a Time in the West and numerous other westerns starring Clint Eastwood.

This particular film is in a different vein and not to be confused as any sort of sequel or related to the aforementioned film- this time Leone explores the crime drama genre rather than the western and does so in remarkable fashion.

The film tells the story of a group of Jewish friends who became involved in organized crime during the 1920s in New York City.

The main story is told via flashbacks as the central character, Noodles, played by Robert De Niro, returns to Brooklyn thirty years later to reunite with his former mobster friends.

In this way, the film is sectioned- the group of youngsters and kids and the same characters as adults.

Once Upon a Time in America has been met with much controversy since it was made. At the time of its release, the film was butchered as over an hour of footage was cut by the studio heads making the film largely uneven.

Fortunately, the restored version, at over three hours in length, is available for viewing. Furthermorethe director cut clocks in at well over four hours, and is the best version to watch. Due to so many cuts, other versions appear shoddy and out of order making the viewing experience difficult.

Once Upon a Time in America is largely underappreciated except for the die-hard cinema lovers most patient with the film, and deserves mention as an excellent crime epic drama.

The film contains many similarities to The Godfather and The Godfather Part II and the role De Niro plays is not too different from Vito Corleone in Part II.

However, the greatest contrast is that Once Upon a Time in America is more visually artistic than The Godfather films.

The film centers mainly on Noodle’s perspective as he enjoys youth in the Lower East Side of Manhattan where he meets his group of lifelong friends.

The focal point is his friendship with Max, the adult character played by James Woods, and his undying love for Deborah, played by Elizabeth McGovern as an adult.

As kids, they are worry-free, but gradually fall in with a group of older mobsters, first doing their dirty work, followed by venturing out on their own.

The themes of the film are loyalty, childhood friendship, betrayal, and greed as all of the characters change (or die) in the time that the film takes place.

When a mysterious letter forces Noodles to resurface in Brooklyn, we begin to understand the back story and the history between the friends as layers are slowly peeled back.

The film drags slightly in the middle section, but the first part and last parts are very well-made and absorbing.

Leone has a way of pacing the film that works- it is methodical, and nuanced, with wonderful set pieces and each period explored- 1920s, 1930s, and 1960s seem equally as authentic as the next one does.

I especially enjoyed the 1920s art direction- it revealed such a state of genuineness and felt like truly there in that period.

The relationship between Noodles and Deborah is an interesting one worth mentioning. Falling in love as youngsters (when Deborah was played by a very young Jennifer Connelly) they had an innocent, puppy-love relationship.

As adults, due to a violent, disgraceful act, their tender relationship is subsequently ruined and one might argue one of the characters turns quite unsympathetic.

Once Upon a Time in America (1984) is a sprawling epic film sure to be enjoyed by intelligent fans of the crime epic drama genre and specifically Sergio Leone fans- an underappreciated gem.

The Conformist-1970

The Conformist-1970

Director Bernardo Bertolucci

Starring Jean-Louis Trintignant, Stefania Sandrelli

Top 100 Films #28

Scott’s Review #212

70054715

Reviewed January 10, 2015

Grade: A

The Conformist, directed by Italian director Bernardo Bertolucci and based on the 1950s novel by Alberto Moravia, is a complex film that tells the story of one man’s complicated life throughout the time of Italian Fascism (the 1920s until 1943).

Due to a traumatic childhood event, he is troubled and strives to “conform” to a “normal”, traditional lifestyle despite his underlying wounds and desires, which he struggles to repress.

The character in question is Marcello Clerici, played by Jean-Louis Trintignant, who works for the secret police supporting the Fascist government.

Marcello yearns for a quiet life that everyone else seems to have. He is set up with a beautiful new wife and is ordered to assassinate his college professor who is a leader of an anti-Fascist party.

Throughout the story, Marcello is tormented, via flashbacks, by his troubled childhood and the film delivers a marvelous, creative use of camera angles, style, and design.

It is a dreamlike film that makes full use of childhood memories from the perspective of the protagonist.

The film is a character study in the highest regard yet is also beautiful to look at making it very multi-faceted. Marcello is troubled as evidenced by his backstory. In many ways he is weak, refusing to accept who he is or admit his deepest desires.

Mixed in with the complexity of his character is a unique character named Anna (Dominique Sanda), the college professor’s gorgeous blonde wife who appears to be bisexual, enticing both Marcello and his wife, Giulia, played by Stefania Sandrelli. Marcello, in particular, becomes transfixed and obsessed with Anna.

A truly heartbreaking moment arrives later in the film and is my favorite scene in The Conformist. As the assassination attempt is made on a lonely and secluded, yet picturesque country road, the result is murder, betrayal, and surprise.

When one character non-verbally speaks to another with mostly facial expressions and emotionally and pathetically pleads for their life through a car window it is as tragic as it is poetic.

The scene is wrought with drama and sadness.

Additionally, Marcello’s troubled childhood involving a homosexual experience involving a chauffeur named Lino resurfaces years later in an unlikely way and leads to the shocking conclusion of the film.

The very last frame of the film leaves the viewer pondering what is to become of Marcello next.

Marcello’s mother and father add mysterious layers to the film. His father is securely an inmate in a mental hospital while his mother is a boozy older woman who sleeps until noon.

While these characters are not explored as completely as they might have been, it does lead one to ponder why Marcello is the way that he is and if his parents have any bearing on his persona.

In a particularly fascinating scene, Anna seductively dances with Marcello’s wife at a crowded dancehall, they do the tango, as amidst her affair with Marcello, she is clearly in love with his wife, making the dynamic confusing yet at the same time fascinating to view.

The Conformist heavily influenced storied directors such as Frances Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, and Steven Spielberg. A beautiful scene of leaves blowing in the wind almost mirrors a similar scene contained in Coppola’s The Godfather Part II.

A film that is as captivating as it is filled with influence, The Conformist is an interesting watch for both the style and the mystique that surrounds it.

Oscar Nominations: Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?-1966

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? -1966

Director Mike Nichols

Starring Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton

Top 100 Films #41

Scott’s Review #200

1120753

Reviewed December 3, 2014

Grade: A

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? directed by Mike Nichols (The Graduate), is a dark film based on the play from the early 1960s.

Thankfully, by 1966, the Production Code had been lifted, allowing for edgier, darker films to get made- think The Wild Bunch or Bonnie and Clyde from the same period.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is dreary, bleak, and with damn good acting by all four principles.

George and Martha (Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor) are an associate history professor and daughter of the college president respectively, living in a small New England town.

They have a bitter love/hate relationship.

One night they invite young newlyweds, Nick (George Segal) and Honey (Sandy Dennis), a new professor and his wife, over for drinks at 2:00 in the morning.

From this point, a destructive night of verbal assaults and psychological games ensues with damaging and sad results for all parties involved, as their personal lives are exposed and dissected.

At the forefront are George and Martha, who have a relationship based on insults, neediness, secrets, and booze. After an evening out, they return home and have a vicious fight.

When their young friends arrive, the tension is thick.

Eventually, the young couple becomes sucked into the older couple’s web of dysfunction, aided by endless drinks throughout the night.

The film is shot very much like a play and filmed in black and white, which I found highly effective- most scenes take place in George and Martha’s house.

While all four actors are great (and were all Oscar-nominated), the standouts for me are Taylor and Dennis.

This role is Taylor’s finest acting performance in my opinion- she is overweight, bitter, angry, frustrated, drunk, and at times vicious to her husband. It is a different performance from many of her other film roles and it is just dynamite.

As her anger flares up, one can feel the heat and intensity oozing from the screen. She goes from vulnerable and soft one moment to a grizzled, bitter woman the next.

Dennis, conversely, is a pure innocent- kind, vulnerable, impressionable, and somewhat of a ninny. Having had too much brandy and spending more than one occasion in the bathroom, Dennis successfully plays giddiness and innocence to the hilt.

Both Martha and Honey harbor dark secrets, which eventually are revealed.

The ambiance is just amazing- black and white cinematography, a hot, suffocating feel to the film, it feels like a quiet little college hamlet, and the setting of the eerily quiet wee hours of the morning is conveyed successfully.

Each story told- mainly by George and Martha- is captivating in its viciousness (both usually belittling the other) that the film becomes mesmerizing in its shock value at the insults hurled.

What will they say or do next?

I loved the scene where Honey does an awkward dance at a late-night bar that the four of them go to. Also, the shotgun scene where George obtains the gun from the garage during one of Martha’s insulting tales is disturbing- what will he do with the gun?

The stories involving George and Martha’s son are sad and mysterious- the viewer wonders what is going on.

The final reveal still gives me chills.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) is one of the greatest film adaptations of a play that I have ever seen.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Mike Nichols, Best Actor-Richard Burton, Best Actress-Elizabeth Taylor (won), Best Supporting Actor-George Segal, Best Supporting Actress-Sandy Dennis (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Original Music Score, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Black-and-White (won), Best Cinematography, Black-and-White (won), Best Costume Design, Black-and-White (won), Best Film Editing

The Godfather: Part II-1974

The Godfather: Part II-1974

Director Frances Ford Coppola

Starring Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro

Top 100 Films #3

Scott’s Review #197

60011663

Reviewed: November 25, 2014

Grade: A

Frances Ford Coppola’s sequel (and technically also a prequel) to the highly regarded and successful The Godfather (1972) is one of the rare sequels to equal and even surpass the original in its greatness, creativity, and structure.

The Godfather Part II (1974) feels deeper, more complex, and ultimately richer than The Godfather- and that film itself is a masterpiece. Part II is much darker in tone. Ford Coppola had complete freedom to write and direct as he saw fit with no studio interference.

The results are immeasurable in creating a film masterpiece.

The film is sectioned into two parts, which is a highly interesting and effective decision.

The story alternates between the early twentieth century following Don Corleone’s life, now played by Robert DeNiro, as his story is explained- left without a family and on the run from a crime lord, Don escapes to the United States as a young boy and struggles to survive in the Little Italy neighborhood of New York City.

He obtains a modest job as a grocery stockboy and finally celebrates his eventual rise to power in the mafia.

The other part of the film is set in 1958 as Michael Corleone is faced with a crumbling empire, through both rivals and the FBI- investigating him and holding Senate committee hearings in Washington D.C., and a failing marriage to Kay (Diane Keaton).

Betrayal is a common theme of the film from Michael’s wife, brother, and mobster allies revealed to be cagey enemies. Michael grows uncertain and mistrustful of almost everyone surrounding him. Is Kay a friend or foe? Is Fredo plotting against him? He even begins lashing out at Tom Hagen on occasion.

What makes The Godfather Part II so brilliant, and in my opinion richer than The Godfather, is that it is tougher to watch- and that is to its credit. Now, instead of being a warm, respected member of a powerful family, Michael is questioned, analyzed, and betrayed.

New, interesting characters are introduced- Hyman Roth, played by Lee Strasburg, a former ally of Don’s, and Frankie Pentangeli, played by Michael V. Gazzo are intriguing characters and their allegiances are unknown throughout most of the film- are they loyal to the Corleone’s or deadly enemies?

The character of Michael goes from conflicted to all-out revenge-minded, including revenge sought on members of his own family. Michael is now a dark, angry character- gone is the nice, decorated war hero with his whole life ahead of him. He is much older and a changed man.

Similar to the original Godfather, the opening scene is a large celebration- this time Anthony Corleone’s first communion celebration. Also in comparison, the finale of the film involves major character deaths one after the other.

Unique to this film are the multiple location scenes- New York, Nevada, Italy, Florida, and Cuba are all featured making for an enjoyable segue throughout and a bigger budget.

The blow-up confrontation between Michael and Kay is devastating and shocking in its climax. When Michael punches Kay in a sudden rage, the audience also feels punched.

The wonderful scene at the end of the film with the entire family gathered around for Don’s fiftieth birthday in 1942 is a special treat for viewers; familiar faces make cameo appearances.

I love these aspects of the film.

The rich history of Don is the greatest aspect of The Godfather Part II simply known as “Godfather” and patriarch of the family, his life as a boy and young father are explained so we see how he became one of the most powerful men in the crime world.

I love how he remains a decent man and helps the poor and the victims of ruthless Don Fanucci, his predecessor. He loves his wife and children, but also loves his neighbors, and helps them, believing in fairness.

Ultimately, the characters of Don and Michael are worlds apart.

The Godfather Part II (1974) is one of the most complex and well-written films in movie history- studied in film school, discussed, imitated, and championed. It remains vital and should be viewed and analyzed again and again and again.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Francis Ford Coppola, Best Actor-Al Pacino, Best Supporting Actor-Robert De Niro (won), Michael V. Gazzo, Lee Strasberg, Best Supporting Actress-Talia Shire, Best Screenplay Adapted from Other Material (won), Best Original Dramatic Score (won), Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction (won)

The Godfather-1972

The Godfather-1972

Director Frances Ford Coppola

Starring Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan

Top 100 Films #10

Scott’s Review #196

60011152

Reviewed November 24, 2014

Grade: A

The Godfather (1972) is one of the most identifiable and brilliant film masterpieces of all time. It is so ingrained in pop culture and film history and was such a blueprint of 1970s cinema that its legend deservedly lives on.

The film has not aged poorly nor been soured by over-exposure. It is as much a marvel today as it must have been when originally released in theaters.

The film revolves around the Corleone family- a mob family living in New York. They are high-powered, wealthy, and influential with politicians and law enforcement alike. They are the cream of the crop of organized crime families.

The patriarch of the family is known as “The Godfather”, the real name is Don Corleone, played by Marlon Brando.

The eldest son is hot-headed Sonny, played by James Caan. Middle son Fredo, played by John Cazale, is dim-witted and immature and the weak link in the family.

Finally, the youngest son is the central character in the film. Michael, played by a very youthful Al Pacino, has just returned home from World War II, a decorated and Ivy League-educated hero.

Throughout the film, Michael wrestles with either steering the Corleone family business toward the straight and narrow or continuing the death, blood, and corruption that currently encompasses the family.

Rounding out the Corleone family is Tom Hagen, an Irish surrogate son of sorts, who serves as the family attorney. Connie- the temperamental and emotional sister, and Mama Corleone, the passive wife of Don complete the main family.

The various supporting characters are immense, from family friends, relatives, corrupt mob figures, and characters introduced when Michael lives in Italy.

The brilliance of The Godfather is the richness of the enormous amount of characters on the canvas and the structure and pacing of the film.

Even small characters are vital to the film and every scene is important and effortlessly paced so that they neither seem rushed nor dragged, and the film is immeasurably character-driven.

My favorite character is Michael Corleone as he is the most troubled and complex. Pacino plays him to the hilt as, initially, a nice guy trying to do the right thing, going against the grain, and non-traditional- he proposes to a waspy woman who has no Italian heritage.

When events develop in a particular way, Michael suddenly becomes the leader of the family, despite being the youngest son, and the complexities of the character deepen from this point.

Specifically, the revenge killing sequence is brilliant as the viewer is kept on the edge of their seat through a car ride, a meal in a restaurant, and a men’s room scene, until finally, all hell breaks loose, all the while Michael is conflicted, unsure, and intense.

Has he veered too far from being a nice guy? Can he salvage the family business without being ruthless? Michael faces a battle of good vs. evil.

The scenes are brilliantly structured- the grand opening scene alone is beautiful as the audience is introduced to the entire family- cheerfully dancing and frolicking during a bright and sunny outdoor wedding (Connie’s) at the Corleone estate, while inside a dark interior study, a man begs Don Corleone to help avenge his raped and beaten daughter by having her attackers killed.

Several scenes in The Godfather are my personal favorites- the aforementioned restaurant scene, where Michael is faced with a dilemma involving a corrupt policeman and a high-powered figure, one can feel the tension in this extended scene.

The scene in a Hollywood mansion where poor, innocent, horse Khartoum meets his fate in the most gruesome way imaginable.

Later, Michael’s beautiful Italian wife, Apollonia, has an explosive send-off.

Towards the end of the film, the improvised tomato garden scene with an elderly Don Corleone playing with his young grandson.

Finally, the brutal scene involving Corleone’s son Sonny at the toll booth is mesmerizing, brutal, and flawlessly executed.

The lack of any strong female characters and how women are treated (either beaten or passively following their husbands) is bothersome, but unfortunately, circa 1940s mafia, this is the way things were.

One could make the argument that Kay Adams, played by Diane Keaton, is the strongest female character as she questions the Corleone family’s motives and attempts to keep Michael honest and trustworthy. She has little in common with the other female characters.

Lines such as “I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse” and “Don’t forget the cannolis” are unforgettable and quote-worthy.

The finale of the film is breathtaking- a combination of bloody kills mixed in with a peaceful scene of Michael accepting the honor of becoming his nephew’s godfather. As he pledges his devotion to God and denounces Satan, the murders he orchestrated are simultaneously being executed.

The character, while complex, suddenly becomes a hypocrite.

Some view Michael as strictly a hero whose choices should not be questioned or analyzed- others view Michael as not a hero, but rather a complex, tortured, bad guy.

One simply must watch The Godfather and The Godfather Part II (1974) as companion pieces, as Part I is slightly more straightforward and easier to follow than the more complex and layered sequel.

The Godfather (1972) is storytelling and filmmaking at its absolute best and continues to influence films to this day.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Francis Ford Coppola, Best Actor-Marlon Brando (won), Best Supporting Actor-James Caan, Robert Duvall, Al Pacino, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium (won), Best Costume Design, Best Sound, Best Film Editing