Gloria-1980

Gloria-1980

Director John Cassavetes

Starring Gena Rowlands

Top 250 Films #32

Scott’s Review #166

60000794

Reviewed September 9, 2014

Grade: A

Gloria (1980) is an action/thriller film that features the standard action-crime thriller elements, including shoot ‘em up, guns-blazing, clichéd fare, but contains an interesting and appealing leading character, a gritty atmosphere, and witty dialogue.

It is a significantly better film than most indistinguishable action films.

Directed and written by independent film master, John Cassavetes, who wanted to make a more conventional, mainstream film than was typical for him- think the very left of center, brilliant A Woman Under the Influence, also starring Gena Rowlands, and Gloria was the perfect film for him to create with Rowlands as the focal point.

Made in 1980, Gloria perfectly portrays New York City at the time.

New York City was gritty, dirty, rough, crime-infested, violent, and chaotic, and the film frequently travels throughout Manhattan, the Bronx, and New Jersey, with many scenes shot directly on the streets of New York.

Several other scenes are set in dingy apartments, hotels, seedy bars, and rundown streets, and are highly effective in portraying a gloomy atmosphere. The cinematography in the film is perfect.

The heart of the film lies with Rowlands (Cassavetes’s wife), who gives a mesmerizing performance as a former mob girlfriend who, by circumstance, must protect a young Hispanic boy from execution by the mob because of an informant’s book he clings to for dear life.

No other actress could have played this role of a tough-talking, brash New Yorker as well as Rowlands does. The boy’s father, played by Buck Henry, is a scared accountant with ties to a company fronted by the mob.

He fears his entire family will be murdered and hands his kid over to Gloria. Julie Carmen gives a brief but effective performance as Phil’s frazzled mother.

I wish Henry and Carmen had been given more screen time and fleshed-out characters because both had huge potential. The film belongs to Rowlands- she is no-nonsense, tough, and so convincing in the part.

I also enjoyed the casting of John Adames as the kid, Phil. His performance was inexplicably panned by many critics and I’m not sure why.

I also love the unique opening credits as intense folk/jazz music plays over watercolor portraits that turn into the skyline of New York City and the music has a melancholy and eeriness to it.

Amid the violence, there is a sweet bond that develops between Gloria and Phil that is not too sentimental or cheesy.

A great, compelling, late 1970s/early 1980s film that has some definite Godfather and Dirty Harry influence in texture and characters, especially with some of the mobster characters.

The appeal of the film is that it has a heart but never delves into schlock. Surprisingly rated only PG, it is gritty, but not lewd or harsh and seems dirtier than it is with barely any filthy language.

The chemistry and heartfelt connection between Gloria and Phil are darling without being too sappy or safe. Gloria is a fast-paced, action gem that is both appealing and tough.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Gena Rowlands

The Wizard of Oz-1939

The Wizard of Oz-1939

Director Victor Fleming

Starring Judy Garland, Ray Bolger, Frank Morgan

Top 250 Films #33

Scott’s Review #34

70039535

Reviewed June 17, 2014

Grade: A

The Wizard of Oz is a magical film and one of my all-time favorites. Made in 1939, it still holds up amazingly well, and the nuances continue to be admired, especially given the period in which it was made. 1939 and Gone With the Wind belong to this film, as both were and are true classics.

This film is so deeply embedded in people’s minds that it can be challenging to examine it objectively. I fondly recall watching this gem annually as it aired on television each holiday season—traditionally around Thanksgiving if memory serves.

It’s a marvel from start to finish and masterfully artistic. How creative to show the first portion in black and white with dusty muted colors, not to mention the astounding twister sequence- done using a stocking.

Then, we are introduced to a magical world filled with luscious colors and the mind-blowing depth of art direction. Munchkin-land, Glinda the Good Witch, and Emerald City are beautiful, lavish, and treat.

Who does not become teary-eyed during Judy Garland’s rendition of “Somewhere Over the Rainbow”? The poignancy is given by the tragic (yet successful) life the star would lead.

Margaret Hamilton’s performance as the Wicked Witch/Elmira Gulch is deliciously nasty. She almost sneers at the camera as she mocks Dorothy, who whimpers in tears while missing Auntie Em. One can tell she thoroughly enjoyed this role.

And The Wizard of Oz is not simply a pop culture hit- it has merit and creativity. The special effects hold up tremendously well and were simplistic back then. There was no CGI in those days, but it was, in many ways, better than today’s CGI.

Audiences of all ages must see this film at least once, preferably on Blu-Ray. Judy Garland, later a tragic, troubled, and lost figure, captures an innocence that has been sadly lost through the years.

The characters (The Cowardly Lion, Scarecrow, and Tin Man) are perfectly cast and uniquely created without being too over-the-top.

Very few films are timeless, and this is one of them.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Outstanding Production, Best Song-“Over the Rainbow” (won), Best Art Direction, Best Special Effects

The Conformist-1970

The Conformist-1970

Director Bernardo Bertolucci

Starring Jean-Louis Trintignant, Stefania Sandrelli

Top 250 Films #34

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 during the Italian Fascist era (1922-1943).

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 in support of 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

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory-1971

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory-1971

Director Mel Stuart

Starring Gene Wilder, Jack Albertson

Top 250 Films #35

Scott’s Review #206

60020949

Reviewed December 18, 2014

Grade: A

More than just a children’s movie, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) is a terrific, imaginative, fantasy film that is timeless and meant for all ages to enjoy.

The mastery and creativity of the sets and art direction are astounding, and the story is sweet, whimsical, and captivating. Often, with children’s movies, we are treated to stories that are either dumb or contrived, which will entertain five-year-olds but bore or cringe adults.

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is none of the above. It is intelligent, filled with magic, and has a heart.

Charlie Bucket is a poor child whose mother earns a living by washing clothes. Along with his four bedridden grandparents, they lives a meager existence in a small cottage somewhere in Europe.

Particularly close with his Grandpa Joe, the two of them become obsessed with a contest held by mysterious Willy Wonka, the owner of an enormous chocolate factory nearby.

The contest consists of five “Golden tickets” being hidden in Wonka bars. The five lucky winners will receive a lifetime supply of candy and a tour inside the long-since-closed chocolate factory.

After a series of circumstances, Charlie obtains one of the tickets and the adventure begins.

The build-up to the trip into Willy Wonka’s factory is gripping- mainly because the viewer knows that a magical treat is in store and is filled with curiosity- what will the chocolate factory look like? What is Mr. Wonka like?

The four other winners- Augustus Gloop, Veruca Salt, Violet Beauregarde, and Mike Teevee are all unique and creatively written characters- all spoiled brats in their way, so Charlie is the “normal” child and has a true rooting value to him.

As the five children, along with a designated parent- or in Charlie’s case, Grandparent, begin their journey throughout the chocolate factory the audience is treated to a psychedelic experience with fantastic sets- a river made of chocolate, an entirely edible garden, lickable wallpaper, a bubble room, and a frightening riverboat.

The film is bright and colorful within the walls of the factory which perfectly contrasts Charlie’s dreary existence in the outside world.

As the four bratty children meet their fates in joyfully imaginative ways- gum chewer Violet blows up like a blueberry after chewing experimental Wonka gum that she is warned not to, Veruca is deemed rotten after throwing a fit and topples down a garbage chute.

The film is breathtaking and imaginative, filled with wonderment.

Gene Wilder plays the role of Wonka as over-the-top and it works tremendously.

All of the child actors play their roles competently as each character is distinguished from the others.

I love the scary riverboat tunnel scene as it is frightening, psychedelic, and magnificent. I also love the contrast between the enchanting colorful second half to the bleakness of the first. The sets are some of my favorites in their lavishness.

Specifically, the relationship between Charlie and Grandpa Joe is wonderful. Grandpa Joe is a father figure to Charlie, but so is Willy Wonka in a completely different way.

The greed of the children is also interesting and one hurrahs as each one gets his or her comeuppance.

The songs from the film are remarkable and quite cutting edge- each time one of the lucky five golden ticket winners meets their doom, the Oompa Loompas sing a tune that visually has weird shapes and colors-psychedelic and very hippy, of the late 1960’s-early 1970s era.

Other numbers such as “I’ve Got a Golden Ticket”, “Cheer up Charlie”, and “The Candy Man” are memorable.

A film for the ages, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) is a celebration of creative film and quite cerebral at times and is far superior to most children’s fantasy/musical films.

Skip the 2005 remake starring Johnny Depp and enjoy the original.

Oscar Nominations: Best Scoring: Adaptation and Original Song Score

Friday the 13th-1980

Friday the 13th-1980

Director Sean S. Cunningham

Starring Betsy Palmer, Adrienne King

Top 250 Films #36

Top 40 Horror Films #8

Scott’s Review #115

525111

Reviewed July 17, 2014

Grade: A

Friday the 13th (1980) is one of my favorite films (horror and otherwise) of all time, as I have such fond and scary memories of watching it at too young an age!

My highlight was watching this film alongside the star, Betsy Palmer, herself, in a movie theater in later years.

I can watch this film countless times and never tire of it. Is it high art? Hardly. Is it brilliant filmmaking? Not a chance. However, for whatever reason, this film holds a special place in my heart, and I love it.

The premise involves seven young adults, all squeaky clean and All-American looking, who flock to Camp Crystal Lake for a summer involving counseling, partying, and frolicking around the lake.

They engage in strip poker, smoke pot, and play jokes on each other, but share a good spirit.

Through flashbacks, we learn that two brutal camp counselor killings occurred years ago and the camp has been unsuccessful at reopening since that time due to strange events like bad water.

The residents of the town are convinced that there is a curse involving the lake and warn the teenagers to stay far away, specifically, one loony townsperson named Ralph, who frequently shows up proclaiming messages from god and other rants of doom.

Inevitably, the teens begin to be systematically hacked to bits one by one in creative fashion such as a slit throat, ax to the head, a dagger through the neck, and other good, old-fashioned horror kills.

The film has many standard horror elements- a dark, ominous storm, a mysterious hidden killer lurking in the shadows, giving first-time viewers a suspenseful whodunit.

Could the killer be crazy Ralph, one of the counselors? Or Steve Christie, the man opening the camp?

As each victim is killed one begins to narrow down the remaining suspects to the crimes and at least one red herring comes into play, which leads us to try to figure out the conclusion, which, critically speaking, is an enormous surprise.

The looming killer, whose feet and arms/hands are the only parts shown throughout is successfully ominous. As the killer angrily watches the counselors swim and goof around, one of them gets a sixth sense of being watched and is sure she sees someone in the trees, but quickly shrugs it off.

Another ominous scene involves one counselor setting up an archery game for the kids as another counselor jokingly shoots an arrow nearby.

They both laugh, but the foreshadowing of what is to come is fantastic.

Betsy Palmer and Adrienne King add so much to this film, which would not be nearly as good if not for them.

The conclusion involving a knockdown drag-out, mud fight is my favorite sequence, in addition to the final thirty-minute chase scene around the camp and its vicinity.

The final character hides in closets, storerooms, and bushes, and a cat-and-mouse game climaxes. Great stuff.

The big twist at the end almost rivals, and is very similar to, the shocking ending to the 1976 horror classic Carrie.

The sound effects are spectacular- the distant loons and the creepy sound effects add a ton to making Friday the 13th a classic fright-fest.

The line “kill her mommy, she can’t hide” is undoubtedly permanently etched in horror fan’s minds.

Friday the 13th (1980) has successfully held the test of time and is now a highly regarded classic within the horror genre.

A highly entertaining, mainstream, cut above the rest, and a fun must-see for all horror fans.

Shadow of a Doubt-1943

Shadow of a Doubt-1943

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Joseph Cotten, Teresa Wright

Top 250 Films #37

Scott’s Review #117

60010878

Reviewed July 17, 2014

Grade: A

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) is a black-and-white Alfred Hitchcock film set in a quaint California town, where a killer lurks. The town is idyllic and wonderful: People attend church on Sundays and meet at the drug store for ice cream sodas.

The film was shot on location in a small town in California, rather than on a soundstage, adding considerable authenticity.

The Newton family is at the center of the thriller, led by Charlie (Teresa Wright), a young woman who idolizes her recently visiting Uncle, also named Charlie (Joseph Cotton). They are very close- almost like father and daughter.

When Uncle Charlie is suspected of being the notorious Merry Widow Murderer, Charlie is conflicted. Could her Uncle be the murderer?

Shadow of a Doubt is one of Hitchcock’s more straightforward films, and the town itself is a huge plus. It’s quiet and family-oriented- what could go wrong? But evil pervades the city, and events slowly begin to turn dark.

A scene in which the family sits down for a quiet meal that turns into a conversation about death is famous and influential. The train sequence is nicely shot. There is also a fantastic side plot involving two friends playing an innocent game of “How would I murder you?”, unaware of the irony of the game itself.

The film is not as flashy or complex as other Hitchcock films, specifically Vertigo (1958), but that aspect works to its credit.

Hitchcock adored the idea of a small town with foreboding secrets, and this film is quite a gem.

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) is a good, old-fashioned thriller and a must-see for Hitchcock fans.

Oliver!-1968

Oliver! -1968

Director Carol Reed

Starring Mark Lester, Oliver Reed, Jack Wild

Top 250 Films #38

Scott’s Review #203

822391

Reviewed December 10, 2014

Grade: A

Oliver! is a 1968 film based on Charles Dickens’ novel Oliver Twist, which was later adapted into a successful stage musical. The film surprisingly won the Academy Award for Best Picture that year.

Surprising, not because Oliver! is poor, it is magnificent, but it was not predicted to take home the honor.

Telling the tale of the woeful orphan Oliver, the film comes across as a dark musical with a wholesome, happy-ending feel, primarily because of its musical compositions, which inevitably lend a cheerier tone.

When the film begins, Oliver lives in a despicable orphanage outside of London. A drawing of straws forces meek Oliver to ask for more gruel.

After being deemed a problem child, he is sold for cheap to an undertaker, where he is bullied. Defeated, Oliver makes his way towards the big city in hopes of finding his fortune.

He then meets sinister characters such as Fagin, the Artful Dodger, and Bill Sikes, as well as the sympathetic Nancy and Mr. Brownlow.

I love the musical numbers in the film, and for me, they are the strongest aspect of Oliver. The film would have been much darker had it not been for the musical.

Numbers such as “Consider Yourself”, “Food, Glorious Food”, and “As Long As He Needs Me” stick with audiences for days.

The entertaining songs lighten the somber moments- as noted earlier, when meek Oliver dares to ask for more gruel, the enchanting “Food Glorious Food” cannot help but be hummed along to, which lightens the mood of the scene.

I also enjoy how the film contains the long-ago popular trend of containing two acts with an intermission in between- very grand and classy, and an aspect of the film I wish would return in today’s movies.

The London art direction is magnificent, revealing a cold, industrial feel, mixed in with a warm, sunny atmosphere when Oliver stays at the palatial estate of Mr. Brownlow.

The bright and enchanting musical number “Who Will Buy?” is the perfect backdrop for this setting and my favorite number.

Nancy (Wallis) is one of the most complex characters- a prostitute, she happily sings, in denial about her life, in “It’s a Fine Life”, secretly wishing her life was better than it is.

Later, conflicted over helping Oliver or standing by her man, she sings a melancholy number, “As Long As He Needs Me”, which cements her role as a tragic, sad character.

However, as she leads a drunken barroom in a dance of “Oom-Pah-Pah”, the drama is thick when she attempts to help Oliver at the risk of putting her own life in severe jeopardy.

Shani Wallis fills the character with heart and feeling.

Oliver! is a much darker film than one might imagine.

Curiously rated G, the film should have at least been rated PG. The film’s heart is that of a children’s movie- to me personally, a turn-off, but the film is much stronger than that.

Some subject matters (like pedophilia) are toned down from Dickens’ novel, but not completely toned down.

Examples- the novel made clear overtones of child abuse by the thieves by Fagin, yet there is none of that in the film. Contrasting this, the film blatantly shows the beating death of Nancy, albeit out of camera range, but the audience gets enough of a glimpse to ascertain what is happening.

The shooting and swinging death of Bill Sikes borders on brutality.

A glaring flaw of the film is that Oliver’s voice is dubbed by a female singer rather than actor Mark Lester. To me, it’s pretty apparent the voice is not male.

The character of Bill Sykes is convincingly played by Oliver Reed, nephew of director Carol Reed.

Perfect around holiday time, Oliver! (1968) is a terrific musical drama, to be enjoyed for eons to come.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Carol Reed (won), Best Actor-Ron Moody, Best Supporting Actor-Jack Wild, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Score of a Musical Picture-Original or Adaptation (won), Best Sound (won), Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

Black Christmas-1974

Black Christmas-1974

Director Bob Clark

Starring Olivia Hussey, Margot Kidder

Top 250 Films #39

Top 40 Horror Films #9

Scott’s Review #309

70057846

Reviewed December 29, 2015

Grade: A

Black Christmas (1974) is one of my all-time favorite horror films and, in my opinion, an underappreciated classic.  Somehow, it is just not the first, second, or third film mentioned when most discuss the influential horror films of years past.

My hubby and I make sure to watch it every holiday season.

It largely influenced Halloween (another of my passions), particularly from the killer’s point of view, camera shots, and the seasonal element.

It is pretty horrifying in several key scenes, in fact, and I am proud to list it as one of my favorite films.

Black Christmas is a must-see for fans of the horror genre.

The setting (a cold and snowy Christmas) is perfect, and the film is shot quite darkly. There are Christmas lights and carolers to create a significant winter holiday atmosphere. Most of the film takes place at night, and the location is primarily inside a vast, somewhat creepy, sorority house. The ambiance is well thought out.

Several sorority girls, led by boozy Barb (Margot Kidder) and sweet-natured Jess (Olivia Hussey), prepare to depart for the holiday season by having a small farewell Christmas party. Recently, the girls have been harassed by a prank caller spouting nonsensical gibberish daily.

As in true horror fashion, the girls are systematically offed one by one as events turn dire. Two subplots that ultimately merge with the central plot include Jess’s pregnancy with her suspicious boyfriend, Peter, and the search in the park for a missing young girl.

The best part of Black Christmas is that it is an honest, raw film, made on a small budget, that eschews gimmicks and contrivances.

It has authenticity.

A disturbing film for sure,  one victim being posed in a rocking chair continuously rocking back and forth next to the attic window, while said victim is bound in plastic wrap, holding a doll, mouth, and eyes wide open, is one of the most chilling in horror film history.

The nuances of the killer also scare and the brilliance of this is that his motivations are mysterious and unclear (in large part the success of Michael Meyers as well). We never fully see the killer except for his shape and eyes, and that is the brilliance of the film.

The one slight negative to the film is the decision to make the cops appear incompetent. The desk sergeant, in particular, is a complete dope- one wonders how he got his job- as a sexual joke by one of the girls goes over his head while the other detectives laugh like fools.

Why is this necessary? I suppose for comic relief, but isn’t that the purpose of Mrs. Mac, the overweight, boozy sorority mother?  Her constant treasure hunt for hidden booze (the toilet, inside a book) is comical and fun.

Her posing and posturing in front of the mirror (she is a very frumpy, average woman) are a delight and balance the heavy drama.

The conclusion of Black Christmas is vague and fantastic and works very well. Due, once again, to the police errors, the final victim’s fate is left unclear as we see her in a vulnerable state, unaware that the killer is looming nearby.

We only hear a ringing phone and wonder what happens next.

My admiration for Black Christmas (1974) only grows upon each viewing as I am once again compelled, to notice more and more ingenious nuances in the film.

Can’t wait until next Christmas to watch it again.

The Boys in the Band-1970

The Boys in the Band-1970

Director William Friedkin

Starring Kenneth Nelson, Frederick Combs

Top 250 Films #40

Scott’s Review #658

Reviewed July 4, 2017

Grade: A

An excellent counterpart to the equally brilliant and equally unpleasant Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) The Boys in the Band is also a stage production made into a feature film.

As such, shot very much like a play and seemingly in one long take, the film is highly effective and delicious in wit and dark humor. With a macabre and bitter element, the characters snipe and ridicule each other during a birthday party.

The Boys in the Band is a groundbreaking film on many levels, as it is one of the first LGBTQ+ films to feature gay characters in prominent roles. Furthermore, it has the dubious honor of being the first film to use the word “cunt”.

Regardless, the film is fantastic and a must-see for anyone intrigued by LGBTQ+ film history. All of the actors appeared in the stage production and reprised their roles for the film version.

The setting is the Upper East Side of Manhattan in the late 1960s.

Michael, a writer, is hosting a birthday party for his good friend, Harold. When Michael receives an urgent call from his straight and married college chum, Alan, he begrudgingly invites him over at the risk of having his lifestyle exposed.

One by one, the guests arrive for the party. Emory is quite effeminate and loud, Hank and Larry are masculine and a couple, but with monogamy issues and Hank’s marriage as obstacles.

Bernard, a black bookstore clerk is an amiable, nice guy.

“Cowboy”, a dim-witted hustler, and Harold, the sarcastic, bitter, guest of honor, round out the attendees.

As the night wears on, the party turns into a free form of insults, bad feelings, and vicious conversation. Alan and Emory get into a fistfight, and later a hurtful telephone game forces everyone to call the one person they truly love which results in anxiety and sadness for most of the guests.

The key aspect of The Boys in the Band is that it is shot like a play would be, with a highly effective result. In this way, especially mid-way through the film when the guests are all in the same closed room, the action becomes suffocating and stifling as the fangs are bared by a few of the guests.

Director, Friedkin, uses many close-ups of his characters to further portray their raw emotions.

My favorite characters are Alan and Hank as these characters are the most complex.

Both are married, and both hit it off famously, although Alan’s sexuality is never completely revealed. He is married but troubled, and the audience never learns why, although we could wager a guess that he is, indeed, conflicted by his sexuality.

What will become of him? Will he accept his sexuality or live a repressed existence?

Hank, during a divorce from his wife, lives with Larry as a couple. Hank is complex because he is transitioning from a straight life to a gay lifestyle and that must have been very difficult in the late 1960’s- for this reason, I find the character of Hank quite brave.

The film does not explore this angle as much as it could have, but a character such as Hank fleshes out the cast in a positive way. Alan and Hank are multi-dimensional characters whereas some of the others contain gay stereotypes.

I would have enjoyed a deeper dive into the personal lives of some of the characters, but the film is really about the emotions many of the characters possess and feelings of love, some unrequited, and there are too many characters for each to receive his due focus.

Plus, the main focus of the film is the back-and-forth banter between the characters.

The Towering Inferno-1974

The Towering Inferno-1974

Director John Guillermin

Starring Paul Newman, Steve McQueen, Faye Dunaway

Top 250 Films #41

Scott’s Review #194

1059232

Reviewed November 15, 2014

Grade: A

The Towering Inferno (1974) epitomizes the disaster film craze heaped on audiences throughout the 1970s (Airport, Airport ‘75 and ‘77, The Poseidon Adventure (1972), and Earthquake (1974) to name a few).

I am (guilt-free) a huge fan of this 1970s movie genre, though some certainly look down on it, I am not one of them and feel The Towering Inferno is one of the greatest.

The film is enormous and has such a sense of adventure and danger.

The grand film tells of the trials and tribulations of an enormous cast of characters trapped inside an inferno-flamed skyscraper – led by Paul Newman and Steve McQueen (fun fact- the two actors reportedly despised each other).

An incredible skyscraper is erected in San Francisco, at one hundred and thirty-eight floors it is professed to be the tallest building in the world and incredibly state-of-the-art. At the ribbon-cutting ceremony, an elaborate party is held atop the building overlooking the gorgeous Pacific Ocean.

Due to faulty electrical wiring, the building catches fire and the cast of characters faces one challenge after another to escape the grips of death.

The stellar cast features stars like William Holden, Faye Dunaway, Fred Astaire, Robert Wagner, Jennifer Jones, and O.J. Simpson in addition to Newman and McQueen.

The film is quite a soap opera style- numerous characters are introduced, many having affairs with each other or suffering some sort of conflict.

Wagner having a torrid office romance with his secretary played by then up-and-coming star Susan Flannery is deliciously sexy and I yearned to know more about both characters.

Holden’s son-in-law is responsible for the faulty electrical system yet blames his father-in-law for cutting budgets.

Another subplot involves Astaire’s character attempting to swindle Jones’s character but then falling in love with her. The plots are so melodramatic that, given the period of the film, it has a definite primetime television soap opera style to it- think Dallas or Dynasty in a state of peril.

I enjoyed the enormous cast and trying to guess who will be killed off next and in what elaborate way the film will burn them to death is a joy to watch- several victims fall or jump to their deaths, which eerily (and sadly) bring back morbid images of jumpers from the World Trade towers on 9/11.

The beginning of the film shows a dedication to firemen everywhere and the film has a definite moral and heroical quality to the firemen sent to rescue the people in the building. They are portrayed as heroes and intended not to be forgotten amid all the drama encompassing the story. This is admirable.

The special effects are elaborate and quite impressive- the glass elevator rescue scene is amazing! The beautiful set designs are a treat to watch as each lobby, apartment, or lounge in the skyscraper is exquisitely designed at the height of the 1970s style.

Every sofa or carpet featured is plush, colorful, and sophisticated. The skyscraper, made of glass, is an amazing element of the film, and the aerial views of the building, especially while ablaze are impressive, to say the least- remember- 1974 was long before CGI. I am assuming small replicas of the building were used, but what an achievement from a visual perspective.

The effects certainly champion the syrupy story elements.

My only small gripe with The Towering Inferno is, assumed to be 138 stories high, the action taking place at the top of the tower- the rooftop as well as the party scenes on the top floor- do not feel that high- The scenic outlook overlooking the water and some land feel about twenty-five stories high, not one hundred and thirty-eight.

Some find The Towering Inferno (1974) to be nothing more than schmaltzy drama- I say schmaltz was never done better.

Enjoy this feast of a big film.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Fred Astaire, Best Original Dramatic Score, Best Song-“We May Never Love Like This Again” (won), Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography (won), Best Film Editing (won)

Dirty Harry-1971

Dirty Harry-1971

Director Don Siegel

Starring Clint Eastwood, Harry Guardino

Top 250 Films #42

Scott’s Review #443

445522

Reviewed July 4, 2016

Grade: A

Dirty Harry (1971) is a classic crime drama that became a signature role for Clint Eastwood as the title character, a role he has played four more times.

Dirty Harry set the tone for the plethora of crime thrillers and police action films that filled theaters throughout the 1970s and 1980s. This film still holds up very well and is a masterpiece of the cat-and-mouse/detective genre.

Quiet and controlled, but filled with anger below the surface (we learn a drunk driver killed his wife), Harry Callahan is a tough cop in San Francisco who has seen it all. He is a red-blooded American good guy, though he is brooding and has a mind of his own, oftentimes disagreeing with his superiors and their rules.

He epitomizes good versus evil.

A vicious killer named Scorpio (based on the real-life Zodiac killer) is on the loose, having killed two people already. His motives are unclear, but that is rather unimportant. What is important is that he threatens to kill one person per day unless his demands of $100,000 are met.

Harry is immediately assigned to the case despite his reputation for being difficult and violent. This leads to a cat-and-mouse game between Harry and Scorpio in Harry’s pursuit of the criminal.

Scorpio is played by Andy Robinson, who is a fantastic villain- perhaps one of the most frightening in film history. His dirty blonde locks, yet angelic face, combined with maniacal facial expressions make his portrayal quite frightening.

He is a sniper so he is continually perched on rooftops seeking his next victim. As he watches a couple eating ice cream in the park or a woman swimming in a rooftop pool, we feel a sense of voyeurism and dread.

His disturbing sense of humor and sadistic personality make him quite scary.

The film succeeds in large part because of its grit and violence.  And it is a very masculine film. Harry is a take-no-prisoners kind of guy and he is hell-bent on stopping Scorpio from killing- no matter what.

In a very effective scene, Harry chases Scorpio to a vast football field and uses torture to elicit a confession from Scorpio. It is a bloody and intense scene, but quite necessary to who Harry is.

Of course, this tactic backfires as Scorpio is released from the hospital and set free. This leads to a further feud between the two men.

A bonus of Dirty Harry, and one aspect that gives so much authenticity, is the on-location setting of San Francisco. From the Golden Gate bridge to the illustrious mountains outside of the city and the Pacific Ocean, these elements give a dash of realism to an already gritty film. Chinatown and Dolores Park are also featured.

Highlighting all of this is a sequence where Scorpio forces Harry to go from locale to locale on foot in part of a wicked game to save a victim.

Harry’s famous lines as he points his gun at the perpetrators and mocks them by asking them if five or six bullets in his gun are now legendary as is his “Do I feel lucky? Well, do you, punk?”

On the surface a bit silly and gimmicky, these catchphrases somehow still work.

The school bus finale as Harry and Scorpio once again square off is great. As Scorpio hijacks a bus filled with grammar school students, he tricks the students, unaware of his intentions, by engaging them in children’s song sing-alongs as the harried bus driver drives out of the city.

When one child catches wind of the situation, Scorpio turns nasty, scaring the children into a frenzy.

Dirty Harry (1971) is a classic cop film that I never tire of watching. For the genre, it is as good as it gets and holds up well. After all of these years, it is tough to disassociate Clint Eastwood from the role of “Dirty Harry”.

Strangers on a Train-1951

Strangers on a Train-1951

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Farley Granger, Robert Walker

Top 250 Films #43

Scott’s Review #318

70002912

Reviewed January 2, 2016

Grade: A

A thrill-ride-per-minute film, Strangers on a Train is a classic suspense story filled with tension galore, a great Alfred Hitchcock film from 1951 that marked the onset of the “golden age of Hitchcock,” which lasted 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 featuring complex and 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 from 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 deliciously villainous character. He is devious, clever, manipulative, and even comical at times. His wickedness is mesmerizing, to the point 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, 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 Bros. 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, and a mock strangulation game at a dinner party goes awry.

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 make for a fantastic end to the film.

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

Barry Lyndon-1975

Barry Lyndon-1975

Director Stanley Kubrick

Starring Ryan O’Neal

Top 250 Films #44

Scott’s Review #211

284790

Reviewed January 4, 2015

Grade: A

Barry Lyndon (1975) is a sprawling, beautiful film by famed director Stanley Kubrick. The film is set in the 18th century.

Extremely slow-paced, yet mesmerizing, every shot looks like a portrait, and the inventive use of lighting via real candlelight in certain scenes makes this film a spectacle in its subdued beauty, to say nothing of the gorgeous sets and costumes.

The film is nothing short of a marvel to view.

The story centers around Ryan O’Neal, who plays an Irish man named Redmond Barry.

Redmond is a poor Irish man but is an opportunist. The film follows his life travels throughout Ireland, England, and Germany, as he becomes involved in duels, is robbed, impersonates an officer, is reduced to becoming a servant, gambles, marries a rich widow, and feuds with his stepson.

When he woos and marries the wealthy Countess of Lyndon, he settles in England to enjoy a life of wealth and sophistication. He changes his name to Barry Lyndon. His ten-year-old stepson, Lord Bullingdon, becomes a lifelong enemy as their hatred for each other escalates and is the focal point of Act II of the film.

The supporting cast is filled with unique characters and in particular, the three sinister characters (Lord Bullingdon, Mother Barry, and Reverend Runt) are delicious to watch especially when they square off against one another as is the case with Runt and Mother Barry.

Barry’s two love interests (Lady Lyndon and a German war widow) are entertaining to watch and Lady Lyndon’s costumes are exquisite. Furthermore, Chevalier de Balibar, a wealthy gambler who takes Barry under his wing is a delight.

As with many masterpieces, if not for the great casting, the film would not be as wonderful.

My three favorite scenes include the vicious confrontation between Mother Barry and Reverend Runt- an initially polite conversation between two selfish characters gradually spins into viciousness, the duel between Barry Lyndon and Lord Bullingdon- bitter rivals square off in an awkward yet dramatic duel, and when Barry passionately kisses his dying friend- an unexpected homoerotic scene.

Barry Lyndon delves into the issue of class and class distinction and clearly defines the haves and the have-nots and the struggles of the poor to obtain wealth by any means and for the wealthy to retain their good fortunes.

At a running time of over three hours, it may initially turn viewers off, but as time goes on the film will grip hold of the viewer and not let go.

Having now seen Barry Lyndon (1975) four times, each time I enjoy the film more and more as I become more absorbed by and immersed in the masterpiece.

It’s like a fine wine- it gets better with each taste.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Stanley Kubrick, Best Screenplay Adapted from Other Material, Best Scoring: Original Song Score and Adaptation or Scoring: Adaptation (won), Best Costume Design (won), Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography (won)

Marnie-1964

Marnie-1964

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Sean Connery, Tippi Hedren

Top 250 Films #45

Scott’s Review #180

60000769

Reviewed October 4, 2014

Grade: A

When evaluating Alfred Hitchcock’s many films, Marnie (1964) is one of the more complicated. In recent years, it has earned higher praise than it did at its release, similar to Vertigo (1958).

It features one of Hitchcock’s most complex psychological characters and is as much a character study as a psychological thriller.

Tippi Hedren stars as Marnie Edgar, a troubled young woman who travels from one financial company to another, using a false identity and her good looks to insinuate herself into a clerical job without references. Over time, she steals thousands from the companies by gaining their trust.

Eventually, she is caught by Mark Rutland, a handsome, wealthy widower and client of one of the firms, played by Sean Connery. Infatuated with Marnie, he strikes a deal with her: She will marry him, but he will not turn her over to the police.

Marnie gives most of her stolen money to her disabled mother, Bernice, in Baltimore, played by Louise Latham.

Why Bernice is crippled, avoids affection with Marnie, and why Marnie despises most men and is terrified of the color red make up the film’s mysterious nature. Diane Baker is compelling as Lil, the sister-in-law to Mark and somewhat nemesis of Marnie.

The film features three scenes I am enamored with each time I watch it. In one scene, Marnie hides and waits in the bathroom until all the employees have gone home for the night. She carefully steals money from her employer’s safe and prepares to make her escape. Suddenly, she notices an unaware cleaning woman with her back to Marnie, yet blocking the exit.

How will Marnie escape unnoticed? The surprise in this scene is excellent. Hitchcock plays the scene without music, which adds to the tension—brilliant.

In an emotional scene later in the film, Marnie’s horse, Forio, is injured, and a sobbing Marnie must choose between killing her beloved friend or letting him suffer until a veterinarian can be summoned.

It is a heart-wrenching scene.

The third scene takes place at a racetrack as Marnie and Mark are enjoying one of their first dates together. However, the date is ruined when a former employer of Marnie’s, who has been victimized, recognizes her and makes accusations.

Marnie turns from a sweet girl to an ice queen seamlessly.

A huge controversial aspect of the film is that, while not shown, it is heavily implied that Mark rapes Marnie on their honeymoon. The following day, Marnie attempts suicide but is rescued by Mark.

This scene was filmed carefully so viewers didn’t hate Mark. Perhaps saving Marnie the next morning lessens what he did the night before in the eyes of the audience? This is open to debate.

Hedren excels at portraying the complexities of Marnie’s character throughout the entire film and does an excellent job in a demanding role.

As excellent as Hedren is (and she is fantastic), I have difficulty accepting her as a poor, icy criminal, and this issue arises each time I watch the film.

Could this be a result of having identified Hedren as the sophisticated, glamorous socialite in The Birds made a year earlier so many times? This is quite possibly so.

The set of Marnie was reportedly fraught with tension during filming. This tension was mainly between Hedren and Hitchcock, who refused to speak with each other throughout the filming. This may have added to the tension, and Hedren appears anxious.

Could this be art imitating life? As the ending nears, Marnie and Mark align and form a team as they try to avoid the police altogether; Mark, more or less, becomes an accomplice.

The final reveal seems rushed. It takes place mostly in flashbacks and wraps up quickly. Marnie has blocked much of her childhood from her memory, which seems far-fetched.

Still, Marnie (1964) is a complex, psychological classic from Hitchcock’s heyday.

Goodfellas-1990

Goodfellas-1990

Director Martin Scorsese

Starring Ray Liotta, Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci

Top 250 Films #46

Scott’s Review #349

70002022

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Director Martin Scorsese adapts Goodfellas, a crime-mob film, from Nicholas Pileggi’s 1986 nonfiction book. Pileggi helped Scorsese write the screenplay.

The film is more matter-of-fact in its telling than the purely dramatic The Godfather, with added wit and humor, and excellent editing.

Featuring powerful acting by Ray Liotta, Robert De Niro, and Joe Pesci, it is a memorable classic mob film that can be enjoyed via repeated viewings.

Largely ad-libbed, the film is rich in good dialogue and contains one of the highest totals of curse words in film history.

The film is told from the first-person narrative of the lead character, Henry Hill.

Henry, now in the Witness Protection Program, recounts his years affiliated with the mob from 1955 to 1980.

We meet Henry as a youngster in Brooklyn, New York. He is half-Italian, half-Sicilian. He idolizes the “wise guys” on the streets and intends to one day join their ranks.

From there, the film describes the trials and tribulations of Henry’s group of miscreants. Henry meets and falls in love with Karen (Lorraine Bracco), and their tumultuous love story is explored through tender moments and affairs.

What I love most about Goodfellas is the love of the characters and the sense that you are part of the action. The film is a highly stylized family drama- gritty nonetheless, but the viewer feels like they are part of things and a family member- milestones are celebrated, and meals are shared.

We see Henry grow from a teenage gullible boy who idolizes the neighborhood men to being part of the group.

The other characters, such as vicious and volatile Tommy DeVito (Pesci) and Jimmy “The Gent” Conway (De Niro), are aged and mature.

Bracco’s character is interesting. Unlike most of the female characters in The Godfather films, she is not content to merely sit on the sidelines and look past her husband’s shenanigans and torrid affairs with floozies.

She is a more modern, determined woman, and Bracco plays her with intelligence and a calm demeanor. She wants to be Henry’s equal instead of just some trophy wife.

Pesci deservedly won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role; he is brutal and filthy but a mesmerizing character.

During a memorable scene, his character Tommy jokingly teases Henry, but when Henry responds in a way that displeases Tommy, the scene grows tense, and Tommy becomes increasingly disturbing.

His famous line “What am I a clown- do I amuse you?” is both clever and haunting in its repercussions.

I adore the soundtrack that Scorsese chose for the film—spanning decades, he chooses songs true to the times, such as “Layla” (1970) or “Remember (Walking in the Sand)” (1964), which are just perfect.

Worth noting is that when a scene plays, sometimes the song is mixed in with the narrative so that it enhances the scene altogether—becoming a part of it rather than simply background music.

If one is looking for the perfect mob film, one that contains music, wit, charm, and fantastic writing, Goodfellas is among the best.

I prefer The Godfather and The Godfather II, but while Goodfellas has similarities to these films, it is also completely different and stands on its own merits.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Martin Scorsese, Best Supporting Actor-Joe Pesci (won), Best Supporting Actress-Lorraine Bracco, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Film Editing

Peeping Tom-1960

Peeping Tom-1960

Director Michael Powell

Starring Nigel Davenport

Top 250 Films #47

Top 40 Horror Films #10

Scott’s Review #127

848669

Reviewed July 22, 2014

Grade: A

Peeping Tom is a brilliant 1960 horror film directed by Michael Powell.

It is a British film released the same year as Psycho. The two films share similarities in that they both feature more character-driven villains than many other contemporary horror films.

Both feature male killers with a sympathetic (to them) female.

Set in London, it tells the story of an assistant cameraman who kills his victims by using a camera with a spike on the end of it as he is videotaping the fear in their eyes, which he later plays back for his own psychological needs.

The killer has emotionally damaged himself, and the film explores this aspect in depth; his father tormented him as a child with weird, traumatic experiments used on the boy for research.

I love this aspect of the film compared with other films of the genre, where the killer typically has no sympathetic aspects and whose motivations are usually explored minimally.

The audience has sympathy for this killer, which, strangely, is absurd and shocking.

Ahead of its time, viewers were initially turned off by the film upon its release. Director Michael Powell’s (ironically playing the terrible father in videotape scenes) career was ruined.

Anna Massey (later to appear in the Hitchcock masterpiece Frenzy, 1972) plays the sweet-natured girl next door who develops a crush on the killer. Her blind and boozy mother is a fascinating character as she suspects and strangely bonds with the killer.

The film has an erotic and voyeuristic quality that has been unmatched in horror.

Peeping Tom (1960) is now widely regarded as a masterpiece, and I concur with that assessment. It is one of the most interesting and unique horror films ever made.

Notorious-1946

Notorious-1946

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman

Top 250 Films #48

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

The Seventh Seal-1957

The Seventh Seal-1957

Director Ingmar Bergman

Starring Max von Sydow, Gunnar Bjornstrand

Top 250 Films #49

Scott’s Review #497

70127971

Reviewed October 23, 2016

Grade: A

The Seventh Seal (1957) is an Ingmar Bergman Swedish masterpiece that, after three mere viewings, I am just beginning to appreciate and fall in love with.

It is not that I did not “get” the dark, artsy theme to begin with- I did, but The Seventh Seal is a savory dish meant for repeated offerings, and with each, I have loved it even more.

The subject matter of the plague and the Black Death is heavy.

It is a quiet yet powerful, dark art film about death.

The film is shot in black and white, which does nothing but enhance the cold, stark concepts of the film. The color would have certainly made the film cheery or bright- if that can be said, given the subject matter.

Instead, the filming is cold yet illuminating, and the whites seem very white, while the blacks seem very dark, which symbolizes the film’s concepts.

In the story, a disillusioned medieval knight, Antonius Block (Max von Sydow), returns home from war, disenchanted with life. He fought in the Crusades and returned home to Sweden to find it plagued by the Black Death.

He begins to play a game of chess alone- and is visited by Death- a hideous pale creature shrouded in black. Antonius challenges Death to chess- his fate is left so long as the game continues.

Throughout the film, Antonius is the only character who can see Death- the other characters cannot, making the film open to interpretations.

The other characters in the story are a troupe of actors that Antonius meets along the way to his castle, and a young, fresh-faced girl who has been branded a witch and is fated to be burned at the stake is featured.

Since she is close to death, Antonius takes a particular fascination with her.

Throughout the film, as well as the trials and tribulations of the characters, Death continuously lurks around, watching these characters, which is a fascinating part of the film. They cannot see him, so we can only assume their time in this world is limited.

What makes The Seventh Seal so powerful is its honesty—harsh as it is. The knowledge that death is coming for these people is fascinating. Many characters discuss God in length and pray, as religion is an enormous aspect of the film.

It almost contains a good vs. evil, God vs. devil component, and again, important to stress, highly open to interpretation. Great art films are.

Numerous scenes reverberate and are significant iconic moments in film history decades later. The scene of Antonius and Death playing chess on the beach is chilling and ghost-like. Death- his pale face and a black cloak would frighten anyone. This scene has been referenced numerous times over the years.

My favorite is the inevitable final shot of peasants being led to their fate by Death. They are pulled begrudgingly by a rope reminiscent of the Pied Piper titled “Dance of Death.”

The individuals are dressed in black and are atop a hill surrounded by the sky, making the morbid scene highly effective.

The Last Supper scene is powerful, and the group enjoys the final meal, unsure of what fate has in store for them the next day.

I anticipate more viewings of this brilliant piece of filmmaking.

The Long Goodbye-1973

The Long Goodbye-1973

Director Robert Altman

Starring Elliott Gould

Top 250 Films #50

Scott’s Review #830

Reviewed November 14, 2018

Grade: A

Nearly a full-fledged character study of one man’s moral fiber, The Long Goodbye (1973) is an edgy piece of direction by the famous mastermind Robert Altman.

The setting of Los Angeles’ underbelly is both fabulous and practical, as is the dim lighting and excellent camera work prevalent throughout. The film is not cheery, but rather bleak, which suits me just fine, given the dreary locale.

Perhaps a more obscure Altman offering, but the film sizzles with zest and authenticity.

The film is based on a story written by Raymond Chandler in 1953.

Altman, however, opts to change the setting from 1950 to present times- 1970s Los Angeles and present a film noir experience involving deceit and shenanigans where all is not as it seems.

I think this is a wise move and I could not help but draw many comparisons (mainly the overall story) to Chinatown (1974), released the year after The Long Goodbye, but a film much better remembered.

Elliott Gould is wonderful as Phillip Marlowe, a struggling private investigator, and insomniac. He is asked by a friend, Terry Lennox, for a ride to the Mexico border one night and agrees to do the favor.

This leads to a mystery involving police, gangsters, and Eileen and Roger Wade after Phillip is questioned regarding his connection to Terry, who is accused of murdering his wife Sylvia.

The seedy side and complexities of several characters are revealed as the story unfolds and the plot gradually thickens.

My favorite aspects of The Long Goodbye are not necessarily the primary storytelling, though the writing is filled with tension.

As the film opens an extended sequence featuring a “conversation” between Phillip and his cat is both odd and humorous. The finicky feline refuses to eat anything other than one brand of cat food. As Phillip tries reasoning with the cat through talking and meowing, he is forced to venture out in the middle of the night to an all-night grocery store.

Altman, known to allow his actors free-reign for improvised dialogue, appears to allow Gould to experiment during this scene.

Phillip’s neighbors, a bundle of gorgeous twenty-something females, seem to do nothing except exercise on their balcony, get high, and request he buy them brownie mix for a “special occasion”.

As they stretch topless, usually in the background and almost out of camera range, they are a prime example of an interesting nuance of the film. The girls are mysterious but have nothing to do with the actual plot adding even more intrigue to the film.

In one of the most frightening scenes in cinematic history and one that could be straight from The Godfather (1972), crazed gangster, Marty Augustine (Mark Rydell), slices the beautiful face of his girlfriend to prove a point to Marlowe.

In a famous line, he utters, “That’s someone I love. You, I don’t even like.” The violent act is quick, unexpected, and fraught with insanity.

Finally, the film’s conclusion contains a good old-fashioned twist worthy of any good film noir. In the end, the big reveal makes sense and begs to raise the question “why did we trust this character?”

In addition to the viewer being satisfied, Marlowe also gets a deserved finale and proves that he cannot be messed with nor taken for a fool.

The Long Goodbye is undoubtedly the best film of Gould’s career. With a charismatic, wise-cracking persona, the chain-smoking cynic is deemed by most as a loser. He is an unhappy man and down on humanity but still wants to do what is right. He lives a depressed life with few friends and the company of only his cat.

While he is marginally entertained by his neighbors, he goes about his days only barely getting by emotionally. Gould is brilliant at relaying all these qualities within his performance.

The addition of the title theme song in numerous renditions is a major win for the film and something noticed more and more with each repeated viewing. The ill-fated gangster’s girlfriend hums along to the song playing on the radio at one point, and a jazz pianist plays a rendition in a smoky bar.

This is an ingenious approach by Altman and gives the film a greater sense of mystery and style.

There is no question among cinema lovers that Robert Altman is one of the best directors of all time.

In his lengthy catalog filled with rich and experimental films, The Long Goodbye (1973) is not the best-remembered nor the most recognizable.

I implore film fans, especially fans of plodding mystery and intrigue to check this great steak dinner of a film out.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?-1966

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? -1966

Director Mike Nichols

Starring Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton

Top 250 Films #51

Scott’s Review #200

1120753

Reviewed December 3, 2014

Grade: A

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

Thankfully, the Production Code had been lifted by 1966, allowing edgier, darker films to be 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 principals.

George and Martha (Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor) are associate history professors and the college president’s daughter, respectively. They live in a small town in New England.

They have a complex, often 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 a.m.

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, whose relationship is characterized by insults, neediness, secrets, and alcohol. 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 in black and white, like a play, which I found highly effective. Most scenes occur in George and Martha’s house.

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

In my opinion, this role is Taylor’s finest acting performance. She is overweight, bitter, angry, frustrated, drunk, and, at times, vicious to her husband. This performance differs from many of her other film roles and is truly dynamite.

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

Conversely, Dennis is pure, innocent, kind, vulnerable, impressionable, and somewhat naive. Having had too much brandy and spent 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. The black-and-white cinematography gives the film a hot, suffocating feel. 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), and 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 awkwardly dances at the 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 happening.

The final reveal still gives me chills.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) is one of the most significant film adaptations of a play 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

Cabaret-1972

Cabaret-1972

Director Bob Fosse

Starring Liza Minnelli, Michael York

Top 250 Films #52

Scott’s Review #975

Reviewed December 31, 2019

Grade: A

If not for the mighty and powerful The Godfather (1972) blocking its path (but who’s complaining?), Cabaret (1972), with eight Academy Award nominations, surely would have won Best Picture in its year of release.

The film thus has the dubious honor of receiving the most nominations of all time without whisking away the ultimate trophy, but no matter, the Oscars are not everything.

The production, acting, and story are inventive and envelope-pushing, both serious and fun, and proof that 1972 was one of the greatest years in cinema.

The story envelopes a circle of friends enjoying the decadence and jovial nature of the decade, although they have their struggles. Energetic Kit Kat Klub performer, Sally Bowles (Minnelli) takes a shine to British scribe, Brian (Michael York) when he moves into her boarding house.

Despite having night and day personalities, they become deeply bonded and best friends. Rich playboy baron, Maximilian (Helmut Griem) woos the pair with money and travel and beds each of them separately, eventually dumping them both.

In a supporting yet important subplot, Fritz Wendel (Fritz Wepper) is a German Jew passing himself off as a Protestant. He falls madly in love with Natalia (Marisa Berenson), a gorgeous and authentic German Jewish heiress.

Their love story is comic relief, but a dangerous aspect of the film given the foreboding political events. The safety of the cabaret serves as a haven while the outlandish Master of Ceremonies (Joel Grey) appears throughout the film performing risque numbers.

Adapted from the popular Broadway stage show, the musical drama is set in 1930s Berlin, and the story begins in 1931. Historians will realize that the decade of 1930s Germany was frightening, giving rise to the deadly and hated Nazi Party.

While the film never goes full-fledged dark, there are snippets of beatings and ridicule at the hands of the Nazis, powerful stuff and tough to take, especially given the Jewish religion of some of the principals.

Liza Minnelli has never had a better role as she simply becomes Sally. The character is vivacious, zesty, and emotional and Minnelli dives in head first and wins viewers’ hearts. Beneath her bubbly exterior Sally is wounded, yearning for love and peace of mind.

She pretends that she is close to her wealthy father, but this is far from the truth. The most powerful scene is when a pregnant Sally comes to terms with the heart-wrenching decision to abort the baby.

For both the time-period setting, the 1930s, and the year the film was made, 1972, the sexuality dynamic is powerful and worth a nod. Brian, openly bi-sexual, and at a different time certainly gay is a great character.

He beds Sally more out of friendship than anything else while delving into admiration (or lusting) for the suave and dashing Maximilian. The fact that his sexuality is embraced and explored is to be celebrated and respected. It’s also a damned interesting part of the film.

Of course, Cabaret being a musical, the performance numbers are superlative. With gorgeous choreography by the director, Bob Fosse, (and who would expect anything less from the seasoned artist), the sets and costumes are stylish.

The conclusion, featuring “Cabaret”, is done grandly as Sally performs on stage with precision and bombast. “Willkommen” and “Maybe This Time” are also dynamic favorites.

Cabaret (1972) is a spirited, intelligent experience, never glossing over the historical period, nor assuming viewers are too dumb to have a handle on those events.

The film plays best to smart audiences able to appreciate artistic merit and enjoy the robust musical numbers.

Carefully, the film is designed to never shy away from the crucial Nazi power that was creeping up and leading to a generation of despair and repercussions.

Oscar Nominations: 8 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Bob Fosse (won), Best Actress-Liza Minnelli (won), Best Supporting Actor-Joel Grey (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Scoring: Adaptation and Original Song Score (won), Best Sound (won), Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography (won), Best Film Editing (won)

Suspiria-1977

Suspiria-1977

Director Dario Argento

Starring Jessica Harper, Joan Bennett, Alida Valli

Top 250 Films #53

Top 40 Horror Films #11

Scott’s Review #339

60037424

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Suspiria is a horror masterpiece, made in 1977, by my favorite Italian horror director, Dario Argento.

A combination of complex storytelling, glossy colors, and a unique art direction makes this film a treasure and an influence in “the look” of a film attempting to achieve an interesting art direction choice.

The color red is highly prevalent throughout Suspiria, which is fitting given the film’s subject matter of witchcraft and demons. The musical score is brilliant and chilling.

This film is perfect and one of my favorites.

The film takes place in Germany, and the opening sequence is fantastic. We meet our heroine, Suzy Bannion (Jessica Harper), an American ballet student, as she arrives in blustery Munich to attend a prestigious ballet school.

The shot of the driving wind and rain as she exits the airport is a great example of the ultimate style of this film.

Suzy meets a creepy taxi driver who drives her to the school, where she witnesses a frantic student, Pat Hingle, fleeing the school. Suzy is then denied access to the school by a mysterious voice over the intercom.  The focus of the film then shifts briefly to Pat’s perspective as she meets a sinister fate when she stays with a friend.

One fantastic aspect of Suspiria is we know something is wrong with the ballet academy, we just do not know what or who it involves. With great creativity, Dario Argento builds a set that is modern, and sophisticated but laced with an underlying menace.

As we meet the supporting characters, Madame Blanc (Joan Bennett) and Miss Tanner (Alida Valli), we know something is not right with them either. Blanc is kindhearted; Tanner is a drill sergeant, but both seem to have something to hide and claim to know nothing of Pat’s terror.

There is also Daniel, the blind piano player, whose seeing-eye dog suddenly turns vicious.

The plot is complex and does not always make perfect sense, but the elements of Suspiria make it a masterpiece.  Pat’s death scene is laced with greatness as she dangles from a high glass ceiling dripping blood. Her hysterical friend is sliced to bits by the falling glass.

This is the best double-death scene in horror film history.

When creepy maggots invade the school leaving the girls feeling for safety, the film goes all out. A later scene involving Suzy’s best friend and fellow student, Sarah, attempting to flee the school via the basement, only to struggle in a pit of razor wire is splendid.

Much of Suspiria is dubbed in English mainly due to the actors either speaking German or Italian, but Jessica Harper and Joan Bennett have distinguishable voices, which lend texture and richness to the dialogue.

Suspiria (1977) is a grand horror film, not solely for its mysterious story, but for all the added components that Argento throws into the mix- strange characters, weird sets, and the heavy dose of blood-red- pretty fitting.

Women in Love-1969

Women in Love-1969

UPDATED REVIEW

Director Ken Russell

Starring Glenda Jackson, Oliver Reed, Alan Bates

Top 250 Films #54

Scott’s Review #766

Reviewed June 2, 2018

Grade: A

Women in Love (1969) is a British romantic drama film that stands out as truly one of a kind. The film is quite cerebral and requires a bit of thought, which will undoubtedly lead to good conversation with film connoisseurs everywhere after a viewing.

The four central characters are complex and flawed, and they dramatically intersect in each other’s lives, making the film a “thinking man’s” feast.

The film is adapted from a popular D.H. Lawrence novel of the same name.

In 1920, set in the Midlands section of central England, sisters Ursula (Jennie Linden) and Gudrun (Glenda Jackson) attend the wedding of an acquaintance, Laura Crich. The Crich family is enormously wealthy and owns a large share of the mining town.

During the ceremony, Gudrun and Ursula fantasize about Gerald Crich (Oliver Platt) and Rupert Birkin (Alan Bates), respectively. When the foursome cross paths again at Rupert’s pretentious girlfriend’s party, attraction and conflict arise.

The film is described as “character-driven,” but it does not begin to do it justice. Each of the four principal characters is richly written with intelligence and gusto. All of them are either flawed or insecure in some way, while the fact that Gerald and Rupert share a sexual attraction for each other is another nuance explored throughout the film.

Rupert is confident and outspoken about his bisexuality- extremely rare for a 1969 film. In this way, Women in Love is ahead of its time.

The significant themes in Women in Love are commitment and love, and how each character handles them, sometimes embracing them and sometimes running away from them.

Gudrun and Gerald are in love with each other, as are Rupert and Ursula, but only one couple reaches any bliss. The characters possess a bevy of emotions, making their happiness almost impossible, and they feel doomed to failure from the onset.

This is an example of Larry Kramer’s tremendous writing and of bringing the characters to the big screen in a memorable way.

Jackson’s Gudrun and Bates’s Rupert are my favorite characters because they seem to have a bit more depth and feel like standouts. Gudrun appears to have love-hate feelings toward Gerald and is often downright cruel to him.

As they vacation in the Swiss Alps, Gudrun purposely and inexplicably flirts with a gay artist, leaving Gerald extremely jealous, which results in tragedy.

Counter-balancing Gudrun’s anger, Rupert showers in fun and zest for life, happily bisexual and thinking nothing of it, enjoying his sexually charged affections for both men and women.

The supporting characters, specifically snobbish Hermione and mentally unstable Christianna Crich, are examples of perfect casting. Eleanor Bron plays Hermione as mocking and teetering on the edge of unhinged. As she psychologically bullies poor Ursula, even though it’s clear Rupert prefers the more innocent woman, Hermione becomes frightened.

Actress Catherine Willmer takes Christianna to a new level of creepy. Already appearing psychotic, when her daughter tragically drowns, the woman goes over the edge, unleashing vicious dogs on any visitors to her estate.

Both actresses give unforgettable performances.

Women in Love contains a scene that may very well be the most homo-erotic scene in film history. As Rupert and Gerald decide to partake in a Japanese-style wrestling match one evening, they strip completely naked and grapple in front of a roaring fire.

In this lengthy sequence, both front and rear nudity are provided, leaving nothing to the imagination. When Rupert suggests they swear eternal love for each other, Gerald cannot commit to the emotional union.

One wonders if this outstanding scene influenced 2007’s Eastern Promises.

1969’s Women in Love is a fantastic film with terrific acting all around. Taking romantic drama to an entirely different level and setting a new standard for cinematic complexity, the work of director Ken Russell is peppered with nuance, making it rich with great storytelling and character development.

The fact that one couple ends in bliss and the other in tragedy is sheer excellence.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Director-Ken Russell, Best Actress-Glenda Jackson (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Cinematography

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre-1974

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre-1974

Director Tobe Hooper

Starring Marilyn Burns

Top 250 Films #55

Top 40 Horror Films #12

Top 10 Most Disturbing Films #5    

Scott’s Review #209                                                      

15815343

Reviewed December 31, 2014

Grade: A

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) is one of the grittiest, rawest, and most frightening horror films I have ever seen, and it still holds up incredibly well in the present day.

Featuring a documentary-like look, it is horrifying due to its grainy, visual, and realistic feel. It is not psychological horror- it is in-your-face, brutal horror.

The perception of an incredibly hot, sticky, backwoods Texas summer is incredibly well done and only adds to the terror.

A group of five teenagers travels to the vast fields of Texas — aka the middle of nowhere —presumably on a road trip. On their drive, they pick up a strange hitchhiker who ends up stabbing one of the teens and cutting his arm.

Spooked by this odd occurrence, they stop for gas and directions, but veer off course and accidentally wind up at a slaughterhouse owned by cannibals.

The group of teens is led by Sally Hardesty, played by Marilyn Burns.

As the teens are chopped off grotesquely, similar to a slew of similar fashioned, but less interesting horror films to follow, Sally winds up the lone survivor of the group.

Burns plays the first “final girl”, a title made famous in horror films as the last female remaining alive- it was almost always a female- to take on the maniacal killer.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre features one of the horror genre’s best villains- Leatherface.

The viewer knows little about him since he does not speak- is he mentally disabled? Is he an intelligent man? He is disguised behind a mask made of strewn-together human skin and wields a scary chainsaw.

We know nothing about him- only that he loves to kill.

The ambiguity is immeasurable.

Besides the way that the film is shot, another shocking element is the reality of the story. Could this happen to the viewer? The answer is yes of course it could. How many times have we been driving and gotten lost in surroundings unfamiliar to us?

There are no supernatural beings or CGI effects in this film- only a group of youngsters crossing paths with maniacs and this could happen in real life. This realization adds to the fright.

The famous- or infamous- dinner scene is revolutionary in disgust and distaste. The family attempts to serve Sally as dessert to the elderly patriarch and as he begins to suck blood from Sally’s finger, it will force the squeamish to turn away.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a short film, running at only 84 minutes, but the breathtaking finale- Sally running through the endless woods followed by Leatherface, seems interminable. Will he catch her? How can she possibly escape?

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) is dirty, ugly, and intense. It is no-holds-barred brutality. It is one of the best horror films ever made.

Salo-1975

Salo-1975

Director Pier Paolo Pasolini

Starring Paolo Bonacelli

Top 250 Films #56

Top 10 Most Disturbing Films #1    

Scott’s Review #183 

70099045

Reviewed October 9, 2014

Grade: A

 Salo is a disconcerting, highly controversial Italian art film from 1975 that is not for the squeamish nor the prudish. Many people will revile this film for its distastefulness and despise it entirely —that is, if they even give it a chance, which, unfortunately, many people will refuse to do.

But beyond the filth, perversion, and hatefulness that are themes of Salo lies a film that is a work of art and must be experienced by the most open-minded of cinema lovers.

The film is a dreamlike experience that centers on four wealthy Fascist Italian men of great importance and power, circa 1944, who decide to kidnap eighteen teenage boys and girls- the youngsters must be the cream of the crop and flawless in appearance, only the most attractive will do- one girl missing a tooth is immediately cast aside as a reject.

Whether the girl flaunted her marred appearance is open to interpretation.

The youths are then taken to an enormous palace where they are stripped of all clothing and forced to endure four months of torture, sexual perversions, and humiliations at the whim of and for the entertainment of their captors.

Finally, at the end of their terms, most are tortured to death by way of scalping, removal of tongues, or having their sexual organs burned off.

Also living in the palace are four aging prostitutes who enthrall the men, along with the reluctant prisoners, with tales of kinky and perverted sexual encounters from their younger days mostly involving anal sex.

The film is divided into four sections based on Dante’s Divine comedy: the Anteinferno, the Circle of Manias, the Circle of Shit, and the Circle of Blood.

In one sadistically disturbing scene, one of the young girls is forced to eat human excrement by one of her wealthy captors.

In another, during the Circle of Shit, everyone dines on a meal consisting of human excrement where lewd sex occurs.

One of the female prisoners is tricked into eating food laced with nails- a contest to determine who has the best buttocks results in the winner being brutally murdered.

Everyone in the film is bisexual and there are repeated scenes of extreme, almost pornographic, violent sex scenes.

On a side note, most of the youngsters (non-actors) reported having a ball while filming Salo and knew not what the film was really about, so the feeling on the set was light-hearted, nothing like the finished product.

While deeply disturbing, Salo is a film that some, or many, will simply not get or look beyond the obvious for a deeper message. It is a masterpiece in its ugliness, rawness, and political statements and is quite artistic once one gets past the brutality and rawness of the film.

Salo contains much political symbolism- the excrement serves as the filth of Nazi Germany and authoritarian figures throughout Europe such as Hitler and Mussolini, the abuse of power that was rampant during the time of the film (World War II era), and the entire film is about the abuse that powerful people (the wealthy fascists equate to powerful Germans) inflicted on the weak (the innocent boys and girls mirror the Jews and the weak).

Is Salo a disturbing, grotesque film? It is. Is it mindless torture for the sake of torture like movies as extreme as Saw and Hostel? It is not. It is an art film, not a horror film.

Banned in many countries for decades due to the extreme content of rape, murder, and torture of individuals thought to be under the age of eighteen, it remains widely banned to this day in several countries.

Many filmmakers, actors, and historians struggle to maintain the artistic merit of the film.

To fully get Salo, one must delve into the mind of the filmmakers and recognize that it is a statement film, filled with symbolism that challenges and questions the politics of its time.

Director, Pier Paolo Pasolini, was brutally murdered by a male prostitute shortly before the film’s release.

Salo (1975) is one of the most disturbing films I have ever viewed.

Welcome to my blog!1,505 reviews posted so far! I'm Scott Segrell and I reside in Stamford, CT. My site features hundreds of film reviews I have written since I launched the site in 2014. I hope you enjoy reading my latest reviews or searching for your own favorites to see if we agree. Please see my featured films of the month, and don't forget to utilize the tags and category links.