Tag Archives: Thriller

2025 Films, Action, Alana Haim, Benicio del Toro, Chase Infiniti, Crime Thriller, Leonardo DiCaprio, Paul Thomas Anderson, Regina Hall, Sean Penn, Teyana Taylor, Thriller, Tony Goldwyn

One Battle After Another-2025

Leave a comment

One Battle After Another-2025

Director Paul Thomas Anderson

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Sean Penn, Chase Infiniti

Scott’s Review #1,497

Reviewed October 20, 2025

Grade: A

In my opinion, one of the modern great directors, Paul Thomas Anderson has released One Battle After Another (2025), a film rich with thrills and relevance. Sought to be made for years, the film is inspired by the 1990 novel Vineland by Thomas Pynchon with some narratives by Anderson peppered in.

Undoubtedly, Anderson was influenced by the current state of the United States in terms of immigration issues and tyrancy in the ICE (United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement) organization.

While immigration is not a new hot button issue, the inhumanity heaved onto ‘illegal immigrants’ and some US citizens is current as well as powerful.

Additionally, a frightening tone of racism and ‘white power’ is an underlying theme of the film contrasting covert hatred by a group of white supremisists with the humanity of revolutionaries who attack the political system.

Therefore, the film has an overwhelming modern feel.

Otherwise, the breakneck twists and turns and action make One Battle After Another the crown jewel in storytelling fun and an Anderson offering that could easily be added to his top 5 of all time.

Events follow an ex-revolutionary explosive device expert, “Ghetto” Pat Calhoun / “Rocketman” / Bob Ferguson (Leonardo DiCaprio) who is forced back into his former combative lifestyle when a corrupt military officer pursues him and his daughter.

With new identies, they had assumed they could live a peaceful life of tranquility but they were in for a rude awakening.

Set in present times, the film begins fifteen years before events later in the story but with a clear linkage. This ensures the audience is invested in the characters especially in the latter half as we get to know them better.

While DiCaprio can never deliver a bad performance and firmly grips the lead role as the intelligent yet comically clumbsy Bob, other actors shine making One Battle After Another an ensemble piece dripping with award worthy performances and hefty accolades.

DiCaprio improvises his way through the script with stutters and stammering enveloping his character with endearing qualities like forgetting a vital password or falling off a roof. Nonetheless, he possesses sentimenal and introspective moments towards his life and teenaged daughter, Willa Ferguson / Charlene Calhoun, played by Chase Infiniti.

Infiniti is tremendous in what is her breakout role playing a mixed race girl attempting to lead an everyday life while having to pay for the crimes and mistakes of her parents.

Playing confident, yet scared and vulnerable, Infiniti is quite the find. Is she destined to follow in her parents footsteps?

Teyana Taylor is brutally talented as she plays Perfidia Beverly Hills, a tough as nails, take no prisoner, kick ass young woman known to tease and humiliate her prey strictly for laughs.

Regina Hall and Benicio del Toro leverage their kind hearted and supportive characters with emotional flare and some needed humor especially on the part of del Toro.

The standout, however is Sean Penn. Giving a bravura performance as the hated and racist Colonel Steven J. Lockjaw, a military officer who pursues the French 75, he sneers and pouts, never playing the character over the top or for laughs.

He truly believes he comes from a superior race while bedding the women he despises.

A three-way highway car chase scene nearly rivals classic sequences in The French Connection (1971) and The Getaway (1972). As three separate drivers points of views are featured along a hilly highway with deadly results the audience is treated to rear view mirror and reaction shots.

I honestly did not know what would happen next and was delighted at the outcome.

Hopefully, as the years go by One Battle After Another (2025) will be remembered for embracing different genres and delivering a powerhouse final product. With great acting, editing, storytelling, and action the film has got it all.

Add in a timely message and you’ve got yourself a gem.

#1 Favorite Film, 1958 Films, Alfred Hitchcock, Barbara Bel Geddes, Favorite Film of the Year, James Stewart, Kim Novak, Thriller, Tom Helmore, Top 10 Films, Top 100 Films, Top 25 Films, Top 250 Films, Top 50 Films

Vertigo-1958

Leave a comment

Vertigo-1958

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring James Stewart, Kim Novak

Top 250 Films #1

Scott’s Review #151

1089727

Reviewed August 7, 2014

Grade: A

Over the years, Vertigo (1958) has quickly become one of my favorite Alfred Hitchcock films. With each repeated viewing, I learn, appreciate, or see something new.

It is an absolute masterpiece.

The primary appeal of Vertigo lies in its mystique and dream-like quality, which offer a beautiful cinematic experience. It is sometimes ominous, psychological, gloriously complex, and even confusing.

That is what makes it extraordinary.

Considering the time, the colorful opening visuals are dynamic, groundbreaking, and stunning.

The story involves a retired detective, Scottie, played by Hitchcock stalwart Jimmy Stewart. Scottie suffers from vertigo, which hinders his daily life.

After an incident in which a police officer is killed, and Scottie blames himself and his vertigo for causing the death, he whiles away the days brooding and keeping companionship with Midge, a college friend to whom he was once engaged.

One day, he is hired by another college friend to follow his wife, played tremendously by Kim Novak, who is acting strangely and periodically disappearing, obsessed with a painting of a woman from years past.

From this point, the plot twists and turns in a mysterious fashion, and a romantic, bizarre, and obsessive love story is intertwined.

Is Scottie in his right mind? Will his vertigo continue to haunt him? What is the secret to Madeleine and Judy? Is Midge as sweet as she appears?

The score to Vertigo is haunting and unforgettable, adding significantly to the film’s mood and ambiance.

Several location shots are featured in San Francisco, including the Golden Gate Bridge, steep streets, the Mission District, and the Redwood Forest.

As with all Hitchcock films, every set and detail is perfect, from paintbrushes, coffee mugs, curtains, and furniture to the gorgeous, bright red décor of the restaurant, which is heavily featured in the film.

How exquisite does Kim Novak look in the film??

Initially critically panned upon its release, it is now considered one of the greatest films. Its unique camera angles and slow, methodical pacing have influenced other films.

The film is not always an easy watch, as it is complex, to be fair, but like a fine wine, it improves with age.

Vertigo (1958) is a layered psychological thriller that gains more appreciation with each viewing.

Oscar Nominations: Best Sound, Best Art Direction

#7 Favorite Film, 2001 Films, Angelo Badalamenti, Ann Miller, Billy Ray Cyrus, Chad Everett, David Lynch, Favorite Film of the Year, Justin Theroux, Laura Harring, Lee Grant, Melissa George, Naomi Watts, Robert Forster, Thriller, Top 10 Films, Top 100 Films, Top 25 Films, Top 250 Films, Top 50 Films

Mulholland Dr.- 2001

Leave a comment

Mulholland Dr.- 2001

Director David Lynch

Starring Naomi Watts, Laura Harring, Justin Theroux

Top 250 Films #7

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, yet hated by others for its non-linear and confusing storyline, trying to make sense of the mishmash of dreamlike plots is a waste of time and undoubtedly headache-inducing, as the film must be experienced and appreciated for its creativity.

My best analogy is that Mulholland Dr. is to film what Pink Floyd is to music – it must be savored and experienced. It is a film that invites interpretation and study.

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. She stays in her aunt’s gorgeous suburban apartment while she is away filming a movie on location.

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.

Still, 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, has now 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 visit a club named Club Silencio, where a gorgeous singer brings them to tears with her singing, only to collapse and reveal herself 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.

This strange cowboy 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 the woman that Betty and Rita find dead is likely 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)

#13 Favorite Film, 1974 Films, Francis Ford Coppola, Gene Hackman, Harrison Ford, John Cazale, Teri Garr, Thriller, Top 100 Films, Top 25 Films, Top 250 Films, Top 50 Films

The Conversation-1974

Leave a comment

The Conversation-1974

Director Frances Ford Coppola

Starring Gene Hackman

Top 250 Films #13

Scott’s Review #83

60003586

Reviewed July 1, 2014

Grade: A

The Conversation (1974) is one of my favorite films. It is a thinking man’s psychological thriller that is pure genius.

Had The Godfather (1972) not been the success that it was, this film would never have been made.

It is a very personal story crafted by Francis Ford Coppola.

The film stars Gene Hackman as Harry Caul, a surveillance expert who is a technical genius but a social misfit, a cynical man suspicious of everybody.

He is paranoid.

He is hired by a mysterious ‘Director’ to tap a young couple’s conversations and submit the recordings to the Director’s assistant, played by a very young Harrison Ford (his first film).

Harry is also obsessed with his privac,y chastising his landlord for sending flowers to his apartment. His latest assignment becomes an obsession for him as he begins a downward spiral of paranoia concerning a young couple he feels is in danger.

For the viewer and the character of Harry Caul, we feel we have everything figured out but do we? Is the couple in danger? Who are they?

Many aspects of the film are fuzzy and unclear which is the genius of it and makes the viewer think. The atmosphere is repetitive and tense. The endless sound loops and the surveillance in the park are highly effective.

The creepy hotel scene towards the climax of the film is my favorite in its bizarre nature.

Each time I view The Conversation (1974) I see something different or try to dissect it in a new way. That to me is film-making at its greatest.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Sound

#15 Favorite Film, 1959 Films, Alfred Hitchcock, Cary Grant, Eva Marie Saint, Favorite Film of the Year, James Mason, Jessie Royce Landis, Leo G. Carroll, Martin Landau, Maura McGiveney, Thriller, Top 100 Films, Top 25 Films, Top 250 Films, Top 50 Films

North by Northwest-1959

Leave a comment

North by Northwest-1959

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Cary Grant, Eva Marie Saint

Top 250 Films #15

Scott’s Review #90

60000544

Reviewed July 3, 2014

Grade: A

North by Northwest is a 1959 Alfred Hitchcock film, released during the director’s heyday (1950s and 1960s).

It is considered one of his most commercially successful films. It is mainstream fare that contains all the elements of a great Hitchcock film: adventure, intrigue, romance, and suspense.

Unlike in some of his other films, his characters are straightforward and not psychologically wounded, as in some of his others. This is not a slight but merely makes the film “for the masses.”

Charismatic Cary Grant plays the role of successful advertising executive Roger Thornhill. He works in bustling New York City, has a secretary, and is well respected in his circle.

While enjoying drinks at the club the evening before a planned trip to the theater, he becomes a victim of mistaken identity—thought to be George Kaplan- and is accosted by henchmen at a lavish Glen Cove, Long Island mansion.

After a botched attempt on his life, he is arrested and ultimately must race across the United States on the lam to find the real George Kaplan.

The incredible locales range from New York City to Long Island, Indiana, Chicago, and Mount Rushmore.

The film is exciting from start to finish, never letting up, and features a common theme of Hitchcock’s- an “everyman” falsely accused of a crime attempts to prove his innocence.

It differs from some Hitchcock films in that there is not as much psychological analysis of the characters, but rather a good, old-fashioned adventure story with many twists and turns.

In many ways, North by Northwest is a precursor to the enormously popular James Bond films, as Grant brought style, sexiness, and charisma to this sleek feature.

The set style and design look perfect. The lush Long Island estate set is flawless, with a grand staircase and a well-constructed library—not to mention the exterior shot of the enormous house.

The house in Mount Rushmore is sleek, quite trendy, and reeks of high sophistication. It is pretty grand and situated on an incline, featuring an airplane runway.

The chemistry between Grant and Eva Marie Saint is apparent and oozes from the screen from the moment they bump into each other on a train traveling from New York to Chicago. As they dine in the dining car, a flirtatious scene unfolds-the landscape whizzes by in the background, with the comforting train whistle and ambient noise working well.

Their relationship is established, and the characters are intrigued and slightly mistrustful of each other, which lends the scene an edge and complexity that works.

The film features a cutting-edge graphic design in the opening credits, similar to the design used in Vertigo during the same period. The green colors and the sophisticated advertising style of the graphics kick the film off in a creative, ultra-cool, modern way.

Interestingly, Martin Landau’s implied homosexuality in Leonard, henchman to the main villain, Phillip Vandamm, is precisely how Landau played the role. During Hitchcock’s time, homosexuality was strictly prohibited in film, but it was subtly portrayed.

Leonard’s fascination and jealousy towards Vandamm are intertwined with levels of flirtation and vengefulness.

Scene after scene of North by Northwest is filled with suspense—the crop duster scene is my favorite. Shot without music and on location in a dreary, clear, middle-of-nowhere field somewhere in Indiana, the scene is layered with suspense throughout.

Thornhill is scheduled to meet Kaplan at a designated spot. A lonely bus stop, random passing cars thought to be the intended, a deadly airplane, and an explosion all occur, creating a fraught scene.

New fans of Hitchcock should begin with this one—it is mainstream and one of his finest. It contains all the traditional Hitchcock elements, and all the pieces come together perfectly.

North by Northwest (1959) is a masterpiece.

Oscar Nominations: Best Story and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, Best Art Direction, Color, Best Film Editing

#19 Favorite Film, 1954 Films, Alfred Hitchcock, Favorite Film of the Year, Gig Young, Grace Kelly, James Stewart, Raymond Burr, Thelma Ritter, Thriller, Top 100 Films, Top 25 Films, Top 250 Films, Top 50 Films

Rear Window-1954

Leave a comment

Rear Window-1954

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring James Stewart, Grace Kelly

Top 250 Films #19

Scott’s Review #317

60000397

Reviewed January 2, 2016

Grade: A

I dearly love several Alfred Hitchcock films, and Rear Window (1954) is at the top of that list.

The film is a unique experience in that much of it is shot from the point of view of the main character, L.B. Jeffries, played with conviction by James Stewart, 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 entire apartment of neighbors across the street.

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

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

Rear Window is shot like a play. The chemistry between Stewart and Grace Kelly is nice, but secondary to the main story’s tremendous impact.

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

#20 Favorite Film, 1956 Films, Alan Mowbray, Alfred Hitchcock, Bernard Miles, Brenda de Banzie, Carolyn Jones, Doris Day, Favorite Film of the Year, James Stewart, Noel Willman, Thriller, Top 100 Films, Top 25 Films, Top 250 Films, Top 50 Films

The Man Who Knew Too Much-1956

Leave a comment

The Man Who Knew Too Much-1956

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring James Stewart, Doris Day

Top 250 Films #20

Scott’s Review #176

60020329

Reviewed September 26, 2014

Grade: A

The Man Who Knew Too Much is a classic 1956 Alfred Hitchcock film starring James Stewart and Doris Day. The two share tremendous chemistry.

They play a successful married couple: Ben and Jo McKenna, a Doctor and a well-known singer, who travel on a lovely trip to Morocco with their young son Hank.

They are a traditional American family that the viewer trusts and believes in on vacation abroad.

Suddenly, they are approached by a Frenchman named Louis Bernard, who appears somewhat too curious about Ben and his work.

Jo is immediately suspicious of the mysterious man.

This begins a series of events involving mistaken identity, an assassination attempt on England’s Prime Minister, and a trip to London to locate Hank, who criminals have kidnapped.

As with other Hitchcock films—think North by Northwest (1959)—the motivational plot is unclear and, one might argue, unnecessary. Why are the characters attempting to assassinate a political figure? Is there money to be gained? Is there power to be obtained?

These questions are never answered- the film is not about that, but rather about Ben and Jo’s predicaments. The villains —primarily an innocent-seeming English couple and a sneering, rat-like assassin —are one-dimensional characters. The motivations are not revealed.

A remake of the 1934 film with the same title, but far superior, the film is a suspenseful political thriller.

Some interesting comparisons to other Hitchcock films released around the same time that I continue to notice with each passing viewing-

North by Northwest– the ordinary man falling into international intrigue, and Vertigo– Jo is dressed in almost identical fashion to Madeleine/Judy- a classic, sophisticated grey suit with a pulled-up bun hairstyle; the musical scores are incredibly similar- identical in instances; Vertigo’s bell tower is reminiscent of Ambrose Chappel in The Man Who Knew Too Much. Stewart’s Ben climbs up the bell tower in The Man Who Knew Too Much, whereas in Vertigo is terrified of heights, let alone climbing.

These are fascinating tidbits to note for any fan of Hitchcock.

Doris Day’s performance, which is her most fabulous, impressed me. Known for her roles in lightweight romantic comedies and fluff, she proves to be a wonderfully emotional and dramatic character, quite effective in her own right.

The six-minute climactic final sequence, set at a musical concert at the Royal Albert Hall, is among the best in film history and uses no dialogue. This technique is jaw-dropping, as one realizes how much transpires within the six minutes, solely based on physical activity and facial expressions. The entire plot of the film reaches a searing crescendo—quite literally.

Day is strong in this sequence.

In his fourth turn in a Hitchcock film, James Stewart is charismatic, playing the everyman tangled in a web of deceit and espionage.  He takes charge but identifies with the audience; he can be your friend or neighbor, and we trust his character because he is a successful doctor.

The now-legendary song from the film, “Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be),” is an integral part of the finale and remains with the audience in a bittersweet yet enduring way long after the curtain closes on the film.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) is exciting, suspenseful, engaging, and fun- just what a Hitchcock film should be.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Song-” Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)” (won)

#26 Favorite Film, 1948 Films, Alfred Hitchcock, Cedric Hardwicke, Farley Granger, Favorite Film of the Year, Hume Cronyn, James Stewart, John Dall, Thriller, Top 100 Films, Top 250 Films, Top 50 Films

Rope-1948

Leave a comment

Rope-1948

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Farley Granger, John Dall, James Stewart

Top 250 Films #26

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 flies under the radar amongst his catalog of gems. Made in 1948, the movie, set as a play (and based on a 1929 play), uses one set only and appears to be one long take, making it an understated film.

The action takes place inside a luxurious Manhattan apartment with a stunning 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 the murder, but Hitchcock is far too intelligent to follow the rulebook.

Ironically, Phillip is the weak and submissive one, despite having committed 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 drunker and drunker, 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 consumption, secrets, and accusations becoming more prevalent as the evening progresses.

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 Hitchcock has admitted to this 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, seeking an extraordinary adventure in a calm, subtle, and engaging narrative.

#32 Favorite Film, 1980 Films, Action, Gena Rowlands, John Cassavetes, Thriller, Tom Noonan, Top 100 Films, Top 250 Films, Top 50 Films

Gloria-1980

Leave a comment

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

#37 Favorite Film, 1943 Films, Alfred Hitchcock, Favorite Film of the Year, Henry Travers, Hume Cronyn, Joseph Cotten, Macdonald Carey, Patricia Collinge, Teresa Wright, Thriller, Top 100 Films, Top 250 Films, Top 50 Films

Shadow of a Doubt-1943

Leave a comment

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.

#43 Favorite Film, 1951 Films, Alfred Hitchcock, Farley Granger, Favorite Film of the Year, Film noir, Howard St. John, Kasey Rogers, Leo G. Carroll, Pat Hitchcock, Robert Gist, Robert Walker, Ruth Roman, Thriller, Top 100 Films, Top 250 Films, Top 50 Films

Strangers on a Train-1951

Leave a comment

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.

#45 Favorite Film, 1964 Films, Alan Napier, Alfred Hitchcock, Bruce Dern, Diane Baker, Favorite Film of the Year, Kimberly Beck, Louise Latham, Martin Gabel, Melody Thomas Scott, Sean Connery, Thriller, Tippi Hedren, Top 100 Films, Top 250 Films, Top 50 Films

Marnie-1964

Leave a comment

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.

#48 Favorite Film, 1946 Films, Alfred Hitchcock, Cary Grant, Claude Rains, Favorite Film of the Year, Film noir, Ingrid Bergman, Thriller, Top 100 Films, Top 250 Films, Top 50 Films

Notorious-1946

Leave a comment

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

#50 Favorite Film, 1973 Films, Crime Thriller, Elliott Gould, Favorite Film of the Year, Film noir, Robert Altman, Sterling Hayden, Thriller, Top 100 Films, Top 250 Films, Top 50 Films

The Long Goodbye-1973

Leave a comment

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.

#61 Favorite Film, 1955 Films, Charles Laughton, Favorite Film of the Year, Lillian Gish, Peter Graves, Robert Mitchum, Shelley Winters, Thriller, Top 100 Films, Top 250 Films

The Night of the Hunter-1955

Leave a comment

The Night of the Hunter-1955

Director Charles Laughton

Starring Robert Mitchum, Shelley Winters

Top 250 Films #61

Scott’s Review #351

804679

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

The Night of the Hunter (1955) is a fairy tale for adults. Although it is categorized as a thriller, it certainly teeters on the edge of being a horror film. In addition to being well-written, it also contains breathtaking cinematography.

Made in the mid-1950s, it is shot in black and white and tells the tale of good versus evil in a small town. The film is a masterpiece and one of my all-time favorites.

The film is both creepy and intelligent, and director Charles Laughton is responsible for its considerable success. Although it was not a success upon release, it has only finally received its due admiration as the years pass.

The film is way ahead of its time.

It is based on the 1953 novel by Davis Grubb.

The time is the 1930s, and the setting is rural West Virginia along the Ohio River. Ben Harper, a local family man, robs a bank and hides the stolen money inside his daughter’s doll.

His son and daughter (John and Pearl) are central characters in the story. Caught, Ben is out of the picture, leaving his wife, Wilma (Winters), vulnerable and alone.

A serial killer, Reverend Harry Powell (Mitchum), a misogynist, is on the loose disguised as a preacher. In prison with Ben, he knows the money is hidden and is determined to find out where it is. He has designs on wooing Wilma.

When dire events occur, John and Pearl are left along the river to seek refuge with a kindly older woman, Rachel Cooper (Lillian Gish).

The film is majestic, haunting, and artistic. Each scene seemingly glows as the dark black-and-white colors mix gorgeously with tranquility despite the dark tone of the subject matter.

The Night of the Hunter also has a dream-like visual quality. In one pivotal scene, we see a dead body submerged at the bottom of the river. The scene is horrific, with bulging eyes and bloating beginning to set in, but it is also creatively beautiful.

The flowing hair of the victim and the posture are mesmerizing scenes that stick with you for some time.

Poetic and a sense of good versus evil, this is clearly laid out as Powell has two words imprinted on the knuckles of each hand: “L-O-V-E” and “H-A-T-E.”  These words form the basis of the film, as both can be applied to the characters.

My favorite scene is when John and Pearl travel along the Ohio River, fleeing from their rival. The shapes of the trees mirrored by the flowing river are incredible, and I can watch this scene again.

A thriller, written intelligently well, with creativity for miles, is a recipe for pure delight. Director Laughton directed only this one film, encouraging creative collaboration and participation from his actors, which is evident in the resulting masterpiece.

The Night of the Hunter (1955) has had a profound influence on numerous directors.

#65 Favorite Film, 1986 Films, Angelo Badalamenti, Brad Dourif, David Lynch, Dean Stockwell, Dennis Hopper, Favorite Film of the Year, Hope Lange, Independent, Independent Thriller, Isabella Rossellini, Kyle MacLachlan, Laura Dern, Priscilla Pointer, Thriller, Top 100 Films, Top 250 Films

Blue Velvet-1986

Leave a comment

Blue Velvet-1986

Director David Lynch

Starring Kyle MacLachlan, Laura Dern

Top 250 Films #65

Scott’s Review #343

319022

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Taken from a 1963 Bobby Vinton tune of the same name, Blue Velvet (1986) is an independent thriller noir film directed by the master of the weird and the unusual, David Lynch.

It is surreal in look and so mysterious- almost a pre-cursor to Lynch’s fantastic television series, Twin Peaks. I adore the film and find new facets to it with each passing viewing.

Though it’s not an easy or mainstream watch- the payoff can be big and you know you are watching a deep, layered, film.

The story can be tough to completely understand with only one show, but it goes something like this- Under the guise of a cheerful, suburban surface, evil is lurking somewhere. College student, Jeffrey (MacLachlan) discovers a severed human ear lying in an abandoned lot delivers it to police detective John Williams, and reconnects with the detective’s daughter, Sandy (Dern).

Sandy, being privy to secret information about the case, reveals that a mysterious woman, Dorothy Valens (Isabella Rossellini) resides in an apartment key to the case. Jeffrey and Sandy decide to investigate further and get themselves in over their heads as the mystery deepens.

The dreamlike quality of the film is very compelling and intriguing. Layers upon layers come to the forefront as the story unfolds and very few answers are ever provided- this adds to the mystery and is really the point of the film.

Many aspects are open to interpretation.

The relationship between Jeffrey and the much older Dorothy is fascinating, but what about his chemistry with the innocent Sandy? And who is the Yellowman? When the youngsters see Dorothy perform “Blue Velvet” at her nightclub, it is a great moment in the film.

The character of Frank Booth, played by Dennis Hopper, must be one of the strangest in film history as the man is maniacal and bizarre beyond measure. With his unusual sexual tastes- he enjoys inhaling gas, and sadomasochism, he is a unique character. He is also quite abusive to Dorothy.

The film is a throwback to classic film noir from the 1950s and a clear femme fatale in Dorothy is central to the film.

I find the film so compelling since its subject matter is secrets. Many secrets and dark corruption or various forms of left-of-center dealings reside in this small North Carolina town- it is the audience’s challenge to put all the pieces of this puzzle together.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director-David Lynch

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Feature, Best Director-David Lynch, Best Male Lead-Dennis Hopper, Best Female Lead-Isabella Rossellini (won), Laura Dern, Best Screenplay, Best Cinematography

#71 Favorite Film, 1971 Films, Action, Best Picture Oscar Winners, Crime Thriller, Gene Hackman, Roy Scheider, Thriller, Top 100 Films, Top 250 Films, William Friedkin

The French Connection-1971

Leave a comment

The French Connection-1971

Director William Friedkin

Starring Gene Hackman, Roy Scheider

Top 250 Films #71

Scott’s Review #342

60011660

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

The French Connection had the notable distinction of being the first R-rated film to win the coveted Academy Award for Best Picture in 1971.

This praise, similar to The Silence of the Lambs being the first horror film to win Best Picture in 1991, is well worth pointing out and is quite honorary.

The film succeeds, both for me and other critics, due to its unique camerawork style, shot in a documentary manner, and the use of quick edits.

It is much more intricate in every way than the traditional crime thriller.

Gene Hackman stars as the feisty detective, Jimmy “Popeye” Doyle, who along with his partner, Buddy “Cloudy” Russo, (Scheider) are determined to crack the case of a massive heroin smuggling syndicate from France.

The narcotics are flowing into New York City and the duo is determined to get to the bottom of the drug ring, figuring out who is the mastermind and defeating their foe.

The primary culprit is a suave French drug lord named Alain Charnier, brilliantly played by Fernando Rey.

Throughout the film, the action is non-stop, traversing throughout Manhattan and Brooklyn, via subway, and car, as Popeye becomes more and more obsessed with the case.

Director William Friedkin, who also directed the legendary 1973 film, The Exorcist, deserves a heap of praise for creating a film of this caliber. The French Connection can be enjoyed by all and is well beyond the limitations of a “guy film”- it is much more than that.

The editing and frenetic pacing work wonders for the film, all the while not ruining the experience or overshadowing the good plot. Quite simply, the film is a chase across New York City.

Friedkin distinguishes the boroughs by making Manhattan seem sophisticated and stylish, and Brooklyn dirty, grizzled, and drug-laden.

The settings are perfect.

The best scene in the film is the well-known car chase throughout New York City. Popeye is determined not to lose his man, the man riding in a subway on an elevated platform. Popeye steals a car and proceeds to chase the subway narrowly missing pedestrians, including a woman with a baby carriage, as he recklessly weaves in and out of traffic at a high speed, to keep pace with the train.

This is a phenomenal scene as the excitement and tension continue to build.

The conclusion of the film and the final scene is cynical and also leaves the audience perplexed and unsure of what has transpired.

The French Connection is open to good discussion and even interpretation, a novel aspect of the action film.

Providing a tremendous glimpse into 1970s Manhattan and Brooklyn, The French Connection is an exciting film that oozes with thrills, car chases, and a good story.

The film is unique in style and still holds up incredibly well- one of my favorites in the action genre.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Richard Friedkin (won), Best Actor-Gene Hackman (won), Best Supporting Actor-Roy Scheider, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium (won), Best Sound, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing (won)

#73 Favorite Film, 1955 Films, Alfred Hitchcock, Cary Grant, Grace Kelly, Jessie Royce Landis, John Williams, Thriller, Top 100 Films, Top 250 Films

To Catch A Thief-1955

Leave a comment

To Catch A Thief-1955

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Cary Grant, Grace Kelly

Top 250 Films #73

Scott’s Review #455

60000732

Reviewed July 24, 2016

Grade: A-

Cary Grant starred in five Alfred Hitchcock films in his day, and 1955’s To Catch A Thief is right smack in the middle of Hitchcock’s prime period of masterful pictures.

Grace Kelly (her third and final Hitchcock film) co-stars, making this film a marquee treat as both actors were top-notch in their heyday and had much chemistry in this film.

While not my all-time favorite of Hitchcock films, To Catch a Thief has mystery, a whodunit, and some of the most gorgeous cinematography of the French Riviera. The breathtaking surroundings are my favorite part of this film.

Grant plays John Robie, aka. “The Cat,” an infamous jewel thief who has now gone clean. He spends his days quietly atop the French Riviera growing grapes and flowers and keeping out of trouble.

When a new jewel thief begins to strike wealthy tourists, Robie is immediately under suspicion by the police. He is forced to prove his innocence by catching the real thief in the act, as the thief uses the same style of stealing as Robie once did.

Amid this drama, Robie meets the beautiful heiress Frances (Kelly) and her interfering mother, Jessie Stevens (Jessie Royce Landis), which leads to romance.

Although Grant could be old enough to be Kelly’s father, we immediately accept Robie and Frances as the perfect couple- she is sophisticated, stylish, and rich, and he equally has a bad-boy edge.

To Catch A Thief has a strong romantic element and a glamorous and wealthy tone. After all, the subject matter at hand- jewels- equates to lavish set decorations, women dripping in expensive jewelry, and a posh resort among the gorgeous French waters.

The supporting characters are interesting, too. A triangle emerges as Frances plays catty with a young girl, Danielle, eager for Robie’s affection. Danielle, much plainer looking than Frances, though no shrinking violet, holds her own in a match of wits with Frances as they bathe in the water one afternoon.

Frances’s mother, Jessie, provides tremendous comic relief as she attempts to bring Robie and Frances together. She is always searching for a handsome suitor for her daughter.

Finally, insurance man H.H. Hughson also contributes to the comic relief by begrudgingly providing Robie with a list of wealthy visitors with jewels.

In their playfully awkward lunch- delicious quiche is the meal of the day- at Robie’s place, Robie proves how Hughson himself is a thief of sorts to accomplish what he needs to get from Hughson.

Despite all of the positive notes, something about To Catch A Thief prevents it from being among my all-time favorite Hitchcock films. Perhaps it is because I never doubted Robie’s innocence, and if dissected, the caper is a bit silly.

I get the sense that the audience is supposed to question whether Robie is truly reformed or playing a game and is back to his dirty deeds, but I wasn’t fooled.

This is a minor gripe, but To Catch A Thief is a fantastic film.

The way the film is shot is almost like being on the French Riviera. Countless coastal shots of the skyline will amaze the viewer with breathtaking awe of how gorgeous the French country is and how romantic and wonderful it is.

This is my favorite part of To Catch A Thief.

The visuals of the film rival the story as the costumes created by costume designer and Hitchcock mainstay, Edith Head, are simply lovely. And who can forget the costume ball near the conclusion?

Though the story might be the weakest and lightest element of the story,  who cares? The visuals more than make up for any of that, as To Catch A Thief (1955) will please loyal fans of Hitchcock’s vast catalog.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Art Direction, Color, Best Cinematography, Color (won), Best Costume Design, Color

#74 Favorite Film, 1970 Films, Claude Chabrol, French, International, International Thriller, Stéphane Audran, Thriller, Top 100 Films, Top 250 Films

(Le Boucher) The Butcher-1970

Leave a comment

(Le Boucher) The Butcher-1970

Director Claude Chabrol

Starring Stephane Audran, Jean Yanne

Top 250 Films #74

Scott’s Review #273

60026770

Reviewed September 14, 2015

Grade: A-

(Le Boucher) The Butcher is a French thriller released in 1970 that is slow-moving at first but progresses to a dramatic crescendo as the latter part of the film escalates, transforming from plodding to a cerebral mind-blower.

Mirrored after and inspired by director Alfred Hitchcock, The Butcher is surprisingly not quite horror (based on the title, one might assume it is), but rather, an intelligent, dreamy thriller.

Gorgeous schoolteacher Helene Daville is competent, confident, and filled with a zest for life. She tutors children who need extra help, laughs with them, and even lets one sip champagne during a wedding to try the taste. She enjoys living and occasionally embarking on adventures.

One day, at a wedding, she meets the local butcher, Paul Thomas, and they immediately hit it off as they tenderly walk home together. Cordial and kind, they develop a friendship and laugh together.

As time goes on, a series of killings begins to occur in the town.

Helene begins to suspect Paul of the murders and wrestles with her conflict between her budding love for him and her revulsion at the thought of being in love with a vicious murderer. Her conflict is the point of the film.

The relationship between Helene and Paul is an interesting dynamic and, I now realize, the reason for the slow pace of the picture. Helene and Paul enjoy a nurturing, caring courtship and the film successfully achieves the intended slow build.

The murder mystery is rather secondary and helps support the main plot. We know little- almost nothing- about the female victims. They are strangers to the audience and the reason for their deaths is unknown.

The killer simply kills- no motivation is revealed. This is what makes the film so cerebral and mysterious.

The Butcher is a love story intertwined with a thriller. It is not a mainstream thriller in the conventional sense and the final twenty or thirty minutes reeled me in completely and gave me great admiration for the film, which I had been hedging about throughout.

The meat of the film might have started an additional thirty minutes before it did in my opinion, but then again the slow build may have been intended to make the result more powerful. The moral conflict, love versus hate, tenderness, affection, caring, devastation, and betrayal are all explored during this relatively brief finale.

Besides, the blurry camera shots and angles from the vantage point of an automobile driver traveling down a dark, tree-lined street are highly creative and unique.

The comparisons to Hitchcock are evident.

Helene is similar to Tippi Hedren’s “Melanie Daniels” from The Birds. She is glamorous, alluring, blonde, tall, well-dressed, and the heroine of the film. Attractive and blonde are traits featured in many Hitchcock films.

Paul, on the other hand, reminds me of Rod Taylor’s Mitch, also from The Birds, though not as handsome or charismatic. Still, their relationship reminds me of the two of them as the chemistry oozes from the screen and a romance and thriller are combined.

Helene is perceived as a wholesome wonderful person by the audience, but is she truly?

In the end, we are left questioning her true feelings and are left with a distaste in our mouths. Her choices confuse us or is she simply a complex human being like each of us is?

The interesting aspect of The Butcher (1970) is it leaves one questioning how we would handle Helene’s dilemma, and more importantly, how we would channel our feelings if faced with a similar predicament.

#75 Favorite Film, 1966 Films, David Hemmings, Jane Birkin, John Castle, Michelangelo Antonioni, Sarah Miles, The Yardbirds, Thriller, Top 100 Films, Top 250 Films, Vanessa Redgrave, Veruschka von Lehndorff

Blow-Up-1966

Leave a comment

Blow-Up-1966

Director Michelangelo Antonioni

Starring David Hemmings, Vanessa Redgrave

Top 250 Films #75

Scott’s Review #305

60033579

Reviewed December 21, 2015

Grade: A

Blow-up is a mysterious and compelling 1966 (the spawn of more edgy films) thriller that undoubtedly influenced the yet-to-come 1974 masterpiece The Conversation, directed by Francis Ford Coppola, as both films are tense tales of intrigue focusing on technology as a tool to witness a murder.

This film is legendary director Michelangelo Antonioni’s first English-speaking film, and what a film it is.

Set in hip London in the 1960s, it is undoubtedly a fascinating portrayal of the fashion world. The story is about a fashion photographer named Thomas, who is in high demand. He revels in bedding women so they may have their photos taken by this rock star photographer and is chased around London by gorgeous women.

One day, he aborts a photo shoot because he is bored. He is not the nicest guy in the world, but an unlikable character.

But perhaps that is secondary or even intentional. One day, while walking in Maryon Park, he encounters a couple in the distance. They appear to be having a secret rendezvous and nervously kissing, so he begins photographing the woman, Jane (played by a very young Vanessa Redgrave). Jane realizes they have been snapped and is furious, demanding the film.

This sets off the mystery and the meat of the film.

The film is a tremendous achievement in cinematic intrigue. It is pretty psychological and open to much interpretation, which is its genius. The main questions are: “What exactly transpired in the park, and who is responsible?”

We feel little sympathy for Thomas, which perhaps is intentional. And what about Jane?

Talk about a mystery!

We know little about her beyond the fact that she has secrets, but is she responsible for the crime? Throughout the film, Thomas and Jane engage in a cat-and-mouse game, seemingly trying to outwit and outmaneuver each other.

The unique aspect of the film is that the viewer will often ask questions: “Was there even a crime committed?” “Are the events all in Thomas’s imagination, or has he misinterpreted the series”? One will revel in the magnificence of these questions.

I immediately recognized similarities to The Conversation (1974). Both feature one of the senses as a means of solving or realizing the crime committed—in The Conversation, it is hearing; in Blow-Up, it is sight.

In both, the main character uses these senses for a living, and both are arguably not the most likable characters. Both films feature mimes.  Both films are pretty cerebral, and both are cinema gems for the “thinking man.”

Blow-Up has weird, little intricate moments- a very tall female Russian model experiences an odd photoshoot with Thomas. Later,  a giggling pair of young girls end up in a grappling match with Thomas after asking him to take their photos.  A topless (from behind) Jane prancing around Thomas’s apartment is an unusual scene.

As a first-time viewer, I adored this film. It is a good example of a movie that requires multiple viewings to appreciate fully, and I look forward to doing just that.

A fantastic, creative achievement, Blow-Up (1966) is a masterpiece that can be dissected with each subsequent viewing.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director, Michelangelo Antonioni, Best Story, and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen

#77 Favorite Film, 1969 Films, Claude Chabrol, French, International, International Thriller, Stéphane Audran, Thriller, Top 100 Films, Top 250 Films

La Femme Infidele-1969

Leave a comment

La Femme Infidele-1969

Director Claude Chabrol

Starring Stephane Audran, Michel Bouquet

Top 250 Films #77

Scott’s Review #397

220px-UnfaithfulWifePoster

Reviewed April 23, 2016

Grade: A-

Another gem by French director Claude Chabrol, La Femme Infidel (The Unfaithful Wife) is a 1969 film later remade in the United States in 2002, directed by Adrian Lynde.

Having seen the remake a few times before watching the original, I cannot help but compare the two films, which is fun for me since both are vastly different from one another, especially as I further ponder each.

One is more conventional- the other more psychological.

Successful insurance executive Charles Desvallees lives in the suburbs of Paris with his beautiful wife Helene and their young son.

Life is seemingly idyllic, as they enjoy every luxury imaginable beautiful house with a beautiful landscape and a dutiful maid.

Charles has a sexy secretary, smokes, drinks, and enjoys life at work and Helene frequently goes to Paris for shopping sprees, beauty treatments, and to attend the cinema.

What could be missing from their lives?  Helene is a bored housewife and has embarked on an affair with Victor Pegalla, a writer who lives in Paris.

When Charles grows suspicious of Helene, he hires a private investigator to track her activities and reveal the true story of how she spends her time.

Admittedly, I was highly influenced by Unfaithful, the 2002 remake starring Diane Lane and Richard Gere when I viewed La Femme Infidel.

The remake is set in New York instead of Paris and is more polished and less psychological- a Fatal Attraction-type slick thriller if you will.

The “other man” is much sexier and more passionate, and the connection is more primal than in the original. This changes the tone of the film from a sexual and lustful one to a more complex and psychological dynamic- La Femme Infidel is a more thinking man’s film.

Victor is handsome and well-groomed, but he is rather similar to Helene’s husband, so we wonder what the main appeal is- if she is seeking adventure.

Lane’s 2002 character’s choice is easy- her affair is based on the physical attractiveness of the man. 1969’s Helene is not having her affair for that reason-, the reasons, besides boredom, are unclear, making the film more complex.

When the main action (death) occurs at the midway point, the film goes in a different direction and becomes complicated. No longer is the main plot of Helene’s adultery, but rather what Charles has done and the repercussions bound to follow.

Do we see Charles as the villain and Helene as the victim? Who do we feel sorry for? Do we root for anyone? Certainly, the character of Victor is not explored in much depth. What are his motivations? Is he in love with Helene?

Helene is an interesting character. Is she meant to be sympathetic or hated? Or just complex?  One can interpret her in different ways- the woman has it all beauty, a faithful husband, and a wonderful home life- why does she risk sacrificing it all for a fling?

Does she dare to want more out of her life and have some adulterous fun? It does not seem that Helene is in love with Victor or has any desire to run away with him or leave her husband.

Charles is also a character to be analyzed closely.

Throughout the film’s first portion, he is seen as a victim- his gorgeous wife has mysterious contempt for him and plays him for a fool. She spends his money and cheats on him, while he adores her and resists his young, flirtatious secretary, who has a thing for Charles and wears short skirts seemingly for his benefit.

She is much younger than Helene. Later, his character’s actions and motivations shift from victim to arguably brutish and primal. A momentary outburst changes his motivations and the texture becomes calculating.

In the end, Charles and Helene come together and resume normalcy in their lives, but will things ever be the same? Will the trust ever reappear in their lives? Is Helene now afraid of or intimidated by her husband or rather, does she now have a newfound desire for her alpha, take-charge husband?

The 1969 version of La Femme Infidel is layered, complex, interesting, and left me thinking about the film and that is a very good sign.

The remake, while very good, is more of a blockbuster, produced kind of film, while the original goes more for thought.

The lack of sex appeal in Victor is a negative of the film as are his motivations, but the character-driven nuances of the other characters make this a thought-provoking watch.

#96 Favorite Film, 1940 Films, Alfred Hitchcock, Best Picture Oscar Winners, Favorite Film of the Year, George Sanders, Gladys Cooper, Joan Fontaine, Judith Anderson, Laurence Olivier, Leo G. Carroll, Nigel Bruce, Thriller, Top 100 Films, Top 250 Films

Rebecca-1940

Leave a comment

Rebecca-1940

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Laurence Olivier, Joan Fontaine

Top 250 Films #96

Scott’s Review #345

895272

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

The only Alfred Hitchcock film to win the coveted Best Picture Oscar trophy, Rebecca is a very early offering in the famous director’s repertoire.

His heyday being well ahead of this film (the 1950s and 1960s saw his best works), Rebecca is a blueprint of fine things to come and, on its own merits, is a great film.

Shot in black and white, the film is a descent into mystery, intrigue, and madness with a gothic look.

Laurence Olivier stars as wealthy widower Maxim de Winter, whose first wife, the title character Rebecca, died sometime before the story begins. In a clever twist, the character of Rebecca is never seen but takes on a life of her own through the tellings of the rest of the cast.

Joan Fontaine plays a nameless, naïve young woman who meets the sophisticated Maxim and marries him, becoming the new Mrs. de Winter.

This development is met with disdain by the servants who work in the Grand de Winter mansion, Manderley, a character in its own right.

The housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson), is cold and distant from Maxim’s new wife. She begins to reveal an obsession with the deceased Rebecca, which creates jealousy and intimidation for Fontaine’s character, to the point where she starts to doubt her sanity and decision-making capabilities.

Thanks to Hitchcock’s direction, Rebecca is a fantastic, old-style film with layers of mystery and wonderment. The mansion, Manderley, is central to the story, as is Mrs. Danvers’s creepy obsession with Rebecca.

She keeps the dead woman’s bedroom neat, a sort of shrine to her memory, so much so that, despite the time the film was made, 1940, a lesbian element is crystal clear to attention-paying audiences.

This aspect may not have been noticed at the time, but it is apparent now.

The film is also a ghost story since the central character, Rebecca, is never seen.

Could she be haunting the mansion? Is she dead, or is this a red herring created to throw the audience off the track? Is the new Mrs. de Winter spiraling out of control? Is she imagining the servant’s menacing actions? Is Maxim in on the tormentor, simply seeking a replacement wife for his steadfast love?

The pertinent questions are asked not only of the character but also of the audience as they watch with bated breath.

The climax and finale of Rebecca (1940) are fantastic.

As the arguably haunted mansion is engulfed in flames and the sinister Mrs. Danvers can be seen lurking near the raging drapes, the truth comes to the surface, leaving a memorable haunting feeling to audiences watching.

Rebecca is a true classic.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Outstanding Production (won), Best Director-Alfred Hitchcock, Best Actor-Laurence Olivier, Best Actress-Joan Fontaine, Best Supporting Actress-Judith Anderson, Best Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Art Direction, Black and White, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White (won), Best Film Editing, Best Special Effects

#104 Favorite Film, 1972 Films, Burt Reynolds, John Boorman, Jon Voight, Ned Beatty, Thriller, Top 250 Films

Deliverance-1972

Leave a comment

Deliverance-1972

Director John Boorman

Starring Jon Voight, Burt Reynolds, Ned Beatty

Top 250 Films #104   

Scott’s Review #324

433193

Reviewed January 5, 2016

Grade: A

Deliverance is a disturbing, gritty, yet wonderful 1972 thriller, directed by John Boorman, starring a cast of all-male principal actors.

The film is an adventure, albeit a dark one, with a subject matter difficult to watch, the film takes dark twists along the way, which is also the beauty of it. The viewer will get a harsh look at the backwoods of Georgia, not to mention gorgeous outdoor scenery.

A group of middle-aged, metropolitan businessmen, (played by Burt Reynolds, Jon Voight, Ned Beatty, and Ronny Cox), from Atlanta, decide to go rafting for a weekend getaway along a remote river in a desolate area of Georgia.

It is a guy’s weekend.

Lewis and Ed (Reynolds and Voight) are experienced at canoeing and are therefore the leaders of the group.

The guys are jovial but soon come upon a strange group of very poor townspeople. The men ask for a ride to the river and one of the men, Drew (Cox) engages a strange young boy in a friendly duel of banjo versus guitar, but Drew is then snubbed by the boy.

Later, events take a dark turn when a hunter versus hunted game emerges between the city-dwelling men and the country rednecks.

The film is interesting as it begins as a light-hearted adventure- nearly a buddy movie. The men laugh and joke as they relish in anticipation of the exciting weekend lying ahead of them.

The film then becomes slightly eerie during the banjo scene. We know that something strange or sinister has occurred, but we cannot put our finger on it.

Does the redneck boy hate the city men or is he simply mentally challenged? Why the strange looks of the poor people of the tiny town?

From this point, Deliverance takes a dark turn as a brutal event occurs involving two deaths- one under mysterious circumstances, and a male rape scene that is disturbing in its intensity and humiliation.

The rawness of these aspects of the film is unprecedented, especially interspersed with the contrast of the beautiful nature that is also at the forefront.

The acting is spot-on. In my opinion, Jon Voight makes this film and gives a layered, character-driven performance, so much so, that the audience becomes invested in his life. Ed is a good guy- arguably the kindest of the bunch- and is forced to become a different person as the film progresses, far from his true self.

He struggles in one scene- one beautifully peaceful scene- to shoot and kill a deer calmly grazing in the woods. He cannot do it. I love this scene as it shows Ed’s true nature. He does not dare tell the other men of his perceived shortcomings.

Ironically, he is then forced to make another painful decision involving human life.

On the surface a straightforward mainstream film, but as the film moves along, it becomes a layered masterpiece. Happy, tragic, strange, depressing, peaceful, and brutal capture Deliverance (1972).

The film is a disturbing, memorable gem and needs to be viewed to appreciate the golden age of 1970s cinema.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-John Boorman, Best Film Editing

#106 Favorite Film, #20 Favorite Horror Film, 1999 Films, Bruce Willis, Donnie Wahlberg, Haley Joel Osment, Horror, M. Night Shyamalan, Olivia Williams, Thriller, Toni Collette, Top 20 Horror Films, Top 250 Films, Top 40 Horror Films

The Sixth Sense-1999

Leave a comment

The Sixth Sense-1999

Director M. Night Shyamalan

Starring Bruce Willis, Haley Joel Osment

Top 250 Films #106

Top 40 Horror Films #20

Scott’s Review #182

26797528

Reviewed October 8, 2014

Grade: A

The Sixth Sense is a psychological thriller/horror film directed by M. Night Shyamalan, made in 1999, about ghosts, that was an incredible box-office and critical success at its time of release and made the line, “I see dead people” universally imitated.

Bruce Willis stars as Dr. Malcolm Crowe, a successful and admired child psychologist, who lives a perfect life with his wife Anna in Philadelphia.

Enjoying a romantic night at home, Malcolm and Anna are interrupted by a deranged former patient- played by an unrecognizable Donnie Walhberg.

Malcolm is shot by the patient, who also shoots himself, and the story picks up a year later as Malcolm takes an interest in Cole, a troubled 9-year-old boy, played by Haley Joel Osment. Cole is a peculiar boy- an outcast taunted at school, who can see the dead.

He’s worried, over-worked mother, Lynn, is played by Toni Collette. Meanwhile, Malcolm and Anna appear to be going through marital problems and lack any meaningful communication with each other.

Anna begins to be pursued by a new beau much to Malcolm’s chagrin. Malcolm and Cole develop a special bond as Malcolm convinces Cole to speak to and help the ghosts that he sees rather than be terrified of them.

As the plot slowly unfolds, Cole helps a recently deceased girl named Kyra Collins, who is around his age. Kyra gives Cole a videotape that reveals she was murdered and proves who killed her.

The subsequent scene is my favorite- there is a haunting quality to it and the camera follows the events interestingly- slowly and sedately.

The setting is a service at Kyra’s house where family and friends are gathered to pay respects and support Kyra’s parents. Malcolm and Cole arrive and present Kyra’s father with the plain videotape.

The entire scene is powerful in its simplicity yet high emotional value. It is slow, but devastating in its climax and reveals. Small nuances are revealed- why is Kyra’s mother wearing bright red when the other guests are all wearing black? Will Kyra’s younger sister be the next victim?

Superlative filmmaking.

A scene involving Cole’s teacher is riveting- being able to sense aspects of people’s pasts Cole realizes his teacher had a stuttering problem as a child. When his teacher is condescending towards Cole, the young boy explodes with rage and begins a chant of “Stuttering Stanley” which reduces the teacher to childhood traumas.

Yet another powerful scene involves Cole and his mother sitting in a car caught in traffic- Cole admits the truth of his skill of seeing dead people to her and introduces an emotional story to her as proof.

This is a scene where Toni Collette shines brightly.

Well over a decade since The Sixth Sense was released, most people know the twist and subsequent surprise ending and it is such a joy to go back, see the manipulations in the story and individual scenes, add them all up, and revel in the clever way that Shyamalan puts them all together.

The Sixth Sense is not dated and is quite fresh, holding up tremendously, and I personally still get chills during the big reveal all these years later.

But more than this pleasure, the film is written beautifully. Somewhere between horror and psychological thriller, it successfully tells a ghost story with interesting characters and jumps-out-of-your-seat thrills that are not contrived and predictable in the traditional horror film way.

From an acting perspective, Bruce Willis is amazing and under-appreciated as Malcolm- he is calm, cool, and collected and his performance is quite understated as the inquisitive and pensive psychologist.

More praise should have been reaped on Willis.

Haley Joel Osment gives an astounding performance of a lifetime- he emits an image to the audience of being strange yet sympathetic and he relays his very frightening fear of the ghosts so well that the pain and conflict he endures is evident on his face.

Toni Collette is effective as the scared, concerned, haggard mother. Collette and Osment were rewarded with Academy award nominations- sadly Willis was not.

Shyamalan was subsequently ridiculed for his later films (The Village-2001, and Unbreakable-2001) – perhaps the manipulation and trickery from The Sixth Sense angered some people.

The Sixth Sense (1999) is a film that remains with you for days, weeks, even years and can be revisited and rediscovered for an intelligent, chilling good time.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-M. Night Shyamalan, Best Supporting Actor-Haley Joel Osment, Best Supporting Actress-Toni Collette, Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, Best Film Editing

#107 Favorite Film, 1992 Films, Crime Thriller, Harvey Keitel, Independent, Independent Thriller, Michael Madsen, Quentin Tarantino, Steve Buscemi, Thriller, Tim Roth, Top 250 Films

Reservoir Dogs-1992

Leave a comment

Reservoir Dogs-1992

Director Quentin Tarantino

Starring Tim Roth, Harvey Keitel, Steve Buscemi

Top 250 Films #107

Scott’s Review #1,332

Reviewed January 9, 2023

Grade: A

Reservoir Dogs (1992) is the film that began an essential transition in cinema history. The 1980s saw way too many watered-down or oversaturated films with enough sappy or melodramatic thematics to make a seasoned cinema lover want to gag and run for a good television series.

The 1990s were different. It’s impossible to think of the decade in film and not speak the name Quentin Tarantino, an iconoclast who took the crime thriller genre and riddled it with violence, dark humor, comic book-style characters, and dozens of other eccentricities and spun the world on its heads.

It was needed.

But before anyone begins to assume Reservoir Dogs is the most fantastic Tarantino film, it’s not. Many list it as his weakest catalog entry. That’s open to the opinion of course but in my view, the influence of the film accounts for much of my enjoyment of it.

It’s not as developed and stylized as Django Unchained (2012) or as powerfully fucked up or odd as Pulp Fiction (1995), but the rawness, the gore, and the go-for-broke scenes that are shot like a play, and the small-budget make watching Reservoir Dogs a reminder of the genius that is Tarantino.

Countless scenes mirror sequences to come in his later films so much so that a game can be played to discover where something played out in another Tarantino film.

The film gave new recognition and merit to the independent film genre which was huge and provided doors flying open to young filmmakers everywhere who had ideas and just needed to get their films known.

The influence of Reservoir Dogs is unmeasured and a double feature of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction is suggested. Even though the latter was released later, most people saw Pulp Fiction first and then discovered Reservoir Dogs.

A group of unsavory thieves assemble to pull off the perfect diamond heist. It turns into a bloody shit show when one of the men turns out to be a police informer. But which one is it and who is responsible for the ambush?

As the group begins to question each other’s guilt, the tensions and suspicions threaten to blow up the situation before the police step in and save the day. But how many will die first?

Tarantino cleverly casts himself in a small role as Mr. Brown and names all the men using the same formal title. There is Mr. White (Harvey Keitel), Mr. Orange (Tim Roth), Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen), Mr. Blue (Edward Bunker), and finally Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi) who is my favorite of all.

In 1992, many scenes were shocking. When sinister Mr. Blonde cuts off the ear of a cop and prepares to set him on fire the brutality and sadism are hard to watch.

The blood-soaked Mr. Orange lies in a pool of blood through nearly the entire film. As his skin turns whiter and whiter and his clothes redder and redder it’s an example of masterful cinema and creativity.

The few exterior shots are in Los Angeles which gives the film a low-budget, raw look.  It’s to be celebrated as the potent sun and grizzled veneer of the city of angels are on display.

I’m not a fan of the lack of female representation but this only enhances the muscle and masculinity of the characters. As they sit in a diner mulling over whether tipping is necessary we could easily be in a men’s locker room witnessing banter about getting laid, or watching an episode of Seinfeld.

There are no romantic entanglements to mess up the plot or no rescuing the girl from criminals to contend with. The closest we come is a couple of homoerotic moments of men embracing men amongst bullets and blood.

Reservoir Dogs succeeds as a whodunit, a heist film, and a vile look at the inhumanity of some of the characters.

The influence and relevance of Reservoir Dogs in 2023 are as abundant as they were in 1992. Cinema is like fine wine and sometimes the more time that goes by the more appreciation is warranted for a film.

It’s not perfect and is unpolished and sometimes underdeveloped but it’s been emulated so many times that it’s become a blueprint of the crime thriller.

Independent Spirit Awards: 1 win-Best Supporting Male-Steve Buscemi (won)