1002. DRACULA (1992)

Running Time: 128 minutes
Directed By: Francis Ford Coppola
Written By: James V. Hart, based on the novel by Bram Stoker
Main Cast: Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, Keanu Reeves, Richard E. Grant
Click here to view the trailer

Note: So this is kinda' weird coming back to this format after saying my final eulogy to the project a couple weeks ago. However, as noted in my finale notes, I intend to set out to watch the rest of the movies that have appeared in other editions of THE BOOK, other than the fifth edition that I was working out of. The thing is though, is that I really had no intention of starting this so soon. It wasn't until I was halfway through Coppola's 1992 adaptation of Dracula that it dawned on me that this was actually a BOOK movie. So...what the heck...let's get down to business. The numbering will continue from 1001, meaning this is 1002 and anything that follows, that is a BOOK review, will have that special numbering sequence...

FOR THE FIFTH TIME...

So I've reviewed the Max Schreck version, the Bela Lugosi version, the Christopher Lee version, the Klaus Kinski version and now, I present, the Gary Oldman version of Bram Stoker's classic tale - Dracula!

Seriously though, if you MUST have a plot synopsis, you can click any of the links I just hooked up to and re-read those reviews, because I've told you four times now what this story is about and it's not as if everyone on Earth doesn't already know the story of Dracula anyway. So yeah, it's a new era here in the blog and apparently, I'm a lot sassier! But seriously, it's not necessary for me to go through it again, right? Dracula's the vampire, Harker's the human, Dracula wants Harker's girlfriend/wife, it's a whole, undead love triangle sorta thing...

The first ten minutes of Coppola's 1992 remake of a remake of a remake of Dracula, are pretty B.A. I commented to Ruth right away that this thing LOOKED brilliant and that I was actually excited to revisit this one, as I'd seen it previously - many, MANY years ago, back when I was just a tike. However, my hopes for a blow away movie were quickly dashed as beautiful images turned to mediocre acting from two of the four leads and a tedious story that I've seen way too many times. Like, seriously, if I never see another Dracula adaptation for as long as I live, that will be fine with me. I mean, I really liked Herzog's version that I watched earlier this year and THAT'S something that I'd like to take another look at, but not for a very, very long time. At this point, I could recite the tale of Dracula in my sleep and while Coppola's version does stray where the other movies didn't (werewolf rape, for example), it doesn't stray far enough to make this feel like anything but a rehashing of something we'd seen time and time again.

I will say, however, that this was a far more adult version of Dracula than we'd seen before - or at least that I'D seen before. It worked in a fair amount of nudity and a much more advanced makeup & special effects team, to make for a much scarier version of Dracula that I think we've ever seen. Despite not caring for it, it's hard for me to deny the extreme talent of Gary Oldman and it made me wonder, as I took a quick phone break to look up his filmography, why he never made it bigger - especially post-1992 and post-Dracula, where he easily wins the award for most badass Dracula of them all. I'm pretty sure all the girls watching this got, at least, a little crush when Oldman dawned the top hat and circular, blue sunglasses and set out to woo Winona Ryder. However, Oldman's Count Dracula wasn't just badass, as the actor dawned several faces to give us the most versatile vampire we've ever seen - sometimes a handsome, Johnny Depp looking playboy and other times a straight up monster, a la something from the mind of Greg Nicotero.

Speaking of cast, don't get your hopes too high, as Oldman is easily the best part. Sure, you've got Anthony Hopkins in there too and he's never bad, but you've also got to put up with Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder, both of whom suck the giant meat misile. I mean, is there anyone out there who actually likes Reeves? If so, to each their own and I'm sure you have your reasons, but I just don't see it. I didn't even know he was in the movie and as soon as I heard his voice, I was like "oh shit, not him". Yes...HIM! Ryder looked like a million bucks here, but unfortunately her role required her to open her mouth, which immediately killed all of her charm.

The bottom line is that this is a damn chore to get through, at least it was for me. I found it to be more adult, which was a nice change of pace - but ultimately, it was the same story we'd already seen a half dozen times to similar effect. In fact, I'd call it worse than those other attempts. While this film looked like a Picasso come to life, I still preferred the pale gray colors of Werner Herzog's vision. Where this film gave us the tale in a it's classic form, reintroducing us to classic characters like The Count, Harker and Van Helsing, it won't have the same authentic feel as renting the 1931 Bela Lugosi version, While this film showcased Anthony Hopkins doing a fine job as Dr. Van Helsing, he still didn't quite knock it out of the park like Peter Cushing did in Terrence Fisher's 1958 imagining. In fact, the only two reasons to get behind Coppola's Dracula is 1) Oldman and 2) the cinematography (yet, as I said, I prefer the Herzog version for sheer style) and yet, those two things aren't enough to get past the fact that this sucker drags like death.

RATING: 3.5/10  Wowie zowie. I guess they took it out for good reason then. Man, I was really hoping to like this one too. I'm going through a bit of a Coppola phase right now and I can say with certainty that so far, this is his worst.

November 15, 2015  11:47pm

587. The Godfather: Part II (1974)

Running Time: 200 minutes
Directed By: Francis Ford Coppola
Written By: Francis Ford Coppola, Mario Puzo, from novel by Mario Puzo
Main Cast: Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton, John Cazale
Click here to view the trailer

THE CANCER HAS TAKEN OVER

Spent my day off today watching part of The Godfather: Part II, taking a nap and then waking up to finish it off. It was quite the day off, snuggled up in bed with my wife. The night holds more movies for us (probably not BOOK movies) and I'm looking forward to it. Anyway, lets cover the supposed greatest sequel of all-time and a movie I'd never seen.

It should be noted, that while I didn't really care too much for this movie, I LITERALLY got chills during this scene - a scene I've seen stills and clips of for years. Such passion from Pacino and his exclamation that, "you broke my heart Fredo" - so good.

The film begins in Corleone, Sicily, hometown of young Vito Andolini, who's father is killed by a local Mafia leader, Don Ciccio. Vito's mother visits Ciccio after her other son is also killed by the Ciccio clan, begging that he spare the lives of her and Vito. When an argument ensues, Vito's mother is murdered and Vito runs away, eventually being put on a boat where he arrives at Ellis Island in New York. Off the boat, he is accidentally registered as Vito Corleone and the rest is history. Later in life, Vito (De Niro) values family above all else, holing up in a meager apartment with his beloved wife and baby son, Santino. When Vito gets a taste of the power that a Mafia Don can hold via Don Fanucci, he likes it, killing off Fanucci and taking over his territory. The rest, as they say, is history. Meanwhile, Michael (Pacino) is stronger than ever, having business dealing from Lake Tahoe, Nevada clear to Cuba. Early in the film, an attempt is made to assassinate Michael, as he is shot at while standing in his bedroom, the curtains opened wide. Michael comes out unscathed and with vengeance in his heart. Michael meets with a business associate in Miami, Hyman Roth whom he thinks may be behind the assassination attempt. He tells Roth that another associate, one in New York named Pentangeli was behind the attack on his life, making sure he keeps things smooth. He then tells Pentangeli that it was Roth who tried to kill him and later finds out that in actuality, his brother Fredo was also in on the hit on his own brother's life. Michael swears never to speak to Fredo again, while informing his men that no harm come to him while their mother is still alive. We bounce back and forth between the two stories throughout the picture.

Like a child who's been fed broccoli, I wish to spit this film out and proclaim, "I don't like it!". Okay, maybe it wasn't THAT bad, but I was definitely disappointed, as I'd heard time and again how this was the greatest sequel ever made and perhaps even better than the original Godfather. I laugh at those claims, as this is nowhere close to even being in the same league as the original picture. I will say, I loved the portions that told Vito's back story and in fact, I could've watched an entire film made up of just that stuff. I wonder if Puzo's novel goes into more detail about the history and rise to power of Vito Corleone and if so, I may have to give it a read someday.

It's just that so much is happening in the original. You've got the attempted murder on Vito, the transition to the dark side of Michael Corleone, the animosity between Sonny and Carlo, the war igniting between the five families, Michael's excursion in Italy and the deaths of several members of the family, including Sonny and Vito. What's happening in The Godfather: Part II? In the main story (the Michael story) there's really only one main storyline and that's the war between Michael and Pentangeli, Hyman and Fredo, all stemming from that one assassination attempt on Michael. It's also my stance that this movie has far less human element than the first one. I was able to go on and of for a few paragraphs, dissecting the characters of Vito and Michael and about the only character I could really dissect here would be Fredo, as Fredo becomes a much bigger player in Part II. Here, Michael is emotionless. Actually, no, he's not emotionless. He has one moment of emotion and it's all contained in that final scene, when he reflects on simpler times, him and his siblings sitting around the table, planning their father's birthday, Michael revealing that he's dropped out of college to join the marines. Other than that, the character of Michael here couldn't stand alone and without that first movie to back him up and provide his motivations, I wouldn't have given a hoot about this stereotypical gangster guy, out for blood, even if it means killing his own family and alienating his wife & children. I didn't care for this Michael, a Michael fully ravaged now by a spreading cancer that is being a criminal.

Nope, I'll stick with the original and join the camp that disregards the second as a meaningless sequel. Seriously, did we need this movie? It's my opinion that the final moments of the original Godfather tell us that Michael will be a bad man, a ruthless man and really, the whole of Godfather: Part II is just confirming this fact. Like I said, I dug the Vito stuff here and COULD have watched an entire movie about it, but I also realize you couldn't release a Part II, without progressing the story and giving us more of what's going on now, so I get why new material had to be added, i.e. the Hyman/Pentangeli stuff. If my research was correct, that stuff wasn't included in Puzo's original novel, but in a later novel published in 2004, called The Godfather Returns. I must say I think I'm just a detester (not a word) of sequels and could've easily done without this. I pushed The Godfather: Part III to the top of my queue and while my hopes aren't high, maybe it can win me over a little more than this.

RATING: 6.5/10  I liked it, but not enough and actually it made me appreciate the original even more. Also, all in all, I appreciate Coppola much more than I used to, but consider The Conversation to be superior to both Godfather films.

MOVIES WATCHED: 905
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 96

January 27, 2015  9:00pm

550. THE GODFATHER (1972)

Running Time: 175 minutes
Directed By: Francis Ford Coppola
Written By: Francis Ford Coppola, Mario Puzo, from novel by Mario Puzo
Main Cast: Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan, Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton
Click here to view the trailer

"MAKE HIM AN OFFER HE CAN'T REFUSE"

It was a long journey getting to watch this. First of all, the original disc arrived from Netflix cracked, meaning I had to send it back and get a replacement. And then the replacement took something like three days to get here, as Netflix informs me that as of January 1, 2015, delivery times of DVDs could slow down substantially due to something with the post office. It's not like I can show my dissatisfaction my unsubscribing from my DVD plan, as there's nowhere else to get some of these movies. So I've upped my plan to '5 DVDs out at a time' and am hoping the issue is resolved ASAP. Now then...the greatest movie of all-time awaits. Read on...

Don Vito Corleone (Brando) is the head of the infamous Corleone crime family and it just happens to be the day of his daughter's wedding. On this day, the Don can't refuse any favor that is asked of him, but remember - if the Don does a favor for you, you may be asked to someday pay him back. Vito has four sons: the hot head Sonny (Caan), the adopted son and Vito's consigliere Tom Hagen (Duvall), the simple minded Fredo (John Cazale) and Michael (Pacino) a war hero who isn't involved in the family business. When Vito is gunned down in the street by a rival crime boss, an all out Mafia war is sparked and Michael reads all about in the papers, returning home to sit by his father's side, in his hour of need. While recuperating, Sonny and Tom take the reigns of the family business, declaring vengeance for the attempted murder on their father's life. However, it is Michael who offers to carry out the physical act, agreeing to meet narcotics dealer and an associate of a rival boss, Virgil Sollozzo. Accompanying Sollozzo is paid off police captain McCluskey (Sterling Hayden). At the meeting, the plan is for Michael to meet with the two, be frisked and then sneak off to the bathroom where a gun will be planted, which Michael will use to murder the two and send the message that the Corleone's are still a force to be reckoned with. The plan goes off without a hitch and Michael is sent away to Italy, to hide out while things blow over and Sonny manages the family business. While in Italy, Michael marries, forgetting the fiance he once courted in America.

SPOILER ALERT!

I'm feeling a little under the weather tonight, with a wicked earache and an uneasy stomach after a dinner that didn't agree with me, so bear with me if I don't do this movie justice with a shoddy review - but I'll try my best here.

To me, a lot of my feelings toward this film really hinge on two crucial moments, which one could over analyze to death and probably squeeze a A+ worthy thesis out of for their college film class. Consider the character of Michael, whom we first meet at the wedding of his sister, where he brings a woman he's been seeing as his date. The woman is curious, she asks questions - she doesn't realize that Michael's family's business is the business of crime. In a moment, Michael takes a deep breath when his date, Kay asks about why Johnny Fontaine owes Vito a favor and tells Kay the story of the time Vito and his muscle Luca Brasi put a gun to the head of a band leader who was holding Fontaine to a signed contract and "made him an offer he couldn't refuse". Pacino delivers this line with all the shame he can muster and thus begins the slow, but probably unavoidable transformation of Michael Corleone, from clean cut, good guy war hero to evil Mafia patriarch, which he will someday become. Actually, no, the transformation doesn't begin there. I think, the transformation begins when Michael reads about the near fatal shooting of his father in a newspaper, where just moments before he walked down a busy city street with Kay on his arm. In this moment, maybe Michael realizes he's out of the loop and he's jealous. Why can't he be the Sonny or the Tom, at his father's side (whom he respects and loves), but also fully knows that to be in that position, that his entire demeanor would have to change completely. Michael sits in his father's office, his father seemingly lying on his death bed in a downtown hospital and he drums his fingers together and a cancer begins to grow in his belly, in his brain, in his chest. He stares a hole through the wall and the cancer, which is called vengeance, grows. He offers to his brothers his amateur services - that he will wield a gun and shoot, between the eyes, two of the men behind the attempted murder of his father. They laugh at him, he insists - the cancer grows.

Then there's the Vito character and his love for his son Michael, a son that he never wanted to see get into the family business - the business of being a criminal. Watch Vito when they tell him that Michael has been sent away into hiding, as he was the one who shot Sollozzo and McClusky. He gives a swift nod of disapproval and waves his hand for Sonny to leave his room, in tears. His heart physically breaks on camera and as the cancer, the cancer named vengeance, grows inside of Michael's belly, Vito slowly dies. He doesn't die physically (at first), he dies emotionally, he dies spiritually - he loses his grit. Perhaps it's the evil spirit of Vito that slowly creeps into Michael, feeding his evil tendencies, creating a monster. At least Vito has a happy ending, as he dies quietly, in the garden, doing what he's only ever really wanted to do, loving and enjoying his family, be it only one member (Michael's son, Anthony). Perhaps moments before his death, he recollected chasing Michael the same way he's chasing Anthony, remembering the innocent Michael, the pure Michael, the Michael that he'd never allow to become a career criminal. He sees Michael in Anthony and his heart weeps so loudly and so uncontrollably, that he keels over dead from the pain.

This to me is the greatness of the movie. The weeping heart of a father that one day weeped to hard, the cancerous growth that develops inside a once good hearted son and both of these - the weeping heart and the cancerous growth - cause by the other: Vito weeps because Michael is being corrupted, Michael grows cold because his father was nearly killed. Or perhaps I'm way off base and I've missed the point entirely...but these are the most interesting parts of The Godfather for me, the human aspects. Not necessarily the shoot 'em up, bang bang stuff - albeit that stuff was great too. Who will ever forget Sonny writhing, being held up only by the incoming, machine gun fire, pieces of his flesh exploding all over him, blood pouring out. The suspense when Michael reaches for a gun behind the a public toilet, a split second when we think it may not be there and think Michael doomed. That moment when we realize that the car Apollonia is preparing to drive will explode when she starts it, a quick scream from Michael which is then drowned out by a big bang, sizzling fire, metal incinerating around the already charred corpse of his bride - the business strikes again, the cancer spreads. All great moments and all things that support anyone's claim that this is the greatest movie ever made. I, for one, don't particularly share that opinion, but certainly wouldn't talk anyone out of having it and can see why many do. I found the film to be a breath of fresh air, a classic worthy of your time and certainly a must see, even one I'd consider a personal favorite, but going so far as to call it the greatest is something I just can't do. I'll end there...

RATING: 8.5/10  I really can't wait to see Part II, with the introduction of De Niro to the cast and the back story of Vito. Also, probably the most popular, lauded film I've never ever seen, not once.

MOVIES WATCHED: 904
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 97

January 26, 2015  11:27pm

653. Apocalypse Now (1979)

Running Time: 153 minutes
Directed By: Francis Ford Coppola
Written By: John Milius, Francis Ford Coppola, from the novel Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
Main Cast: Martin Sheen, Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall, Frederic Forrest, Sam Bottoms
Click here to view the trailer

DOUBLE DIGITS

I know, I know, I said I was going to start this season by watching the first two Godfather movies, but when The Godfather, Part I arrived from Netflix today, it was cracked in half and thus, unwatchable. My wife and I scoured through what we had available to us (which isn't much) and happened upon Apocalypse Now, which is currently streaming on Netflix. I figured we could tie it all up into a little Coppola tribute and voila, we're all set. Before I get into the review, I just want to say I hope you all enjoyed the TOP 20 list. I know I'm a sucker for a good list and I had a good time making AND I'm pleased with the finished product. I was worried there for a minute, back in the midst of the season, that it wasn't going to turn out well, but I can honestly say that those twenty movies (plus the Ten Worth Mentioning) were all outstanding films, worthy of their spot on the list. Anyway...NAM!

The film kicks off with Captain Benjamin L. Willard (Sheen) holed up in a hotel room in Saigon, the Vietnam War raging on around him, slowly losing his mind. After the opening montage, accompanied by The Doors' "The End", Willard's solitude is interrupted by two serviceman knocking on his door, carrying him to a cold shower and escorting him to a meeting, where he'll learn of his next mission. Colonel G. Lucas (Harrison Ford) and Lieutenant General Corman (two nods to famous filmmaker's - George Lucas and Roger Corman) brief Willard on Colonel Walter E. Kurtz (Brando) who HAS lost his mind and is being charged with the murder of two men who he suspected were double agents, working for the Viet-Cong. He now commands his own troop of rogue locals, who follow him like a God and has stationed himself up the river and into Cambodia. It is Willard's mission to go up river, with a Navy PBR command and terminate Colonel Kurtz. Willard accepts the mission, is given a dossier on Colonel Kurtz, which he reads sporadically on his way up river and through the use of narration, we hear the details on Colonel Kurtz, a father who wants his son to be proud of him, a decorated officer, a member of the Green Beret's and someone who was being positioned to be a General or even a Chief of Staff.The entire middle portion of the film, a good ninety plus minutes, is simply Willard's journey up river, traveling through war torn Vietnam, Coppola spoon feeding us what life was like, in what could only be referred to as the Heart of Darkness.

Man, I have a lot of thoughts running through my head regarding this one, so forgive me if my ideas seem strewn about like the clothes of a college girl home from a party and ready for bed. I'll do my best to keep my thoughts in as much of an order as I can get them in. This will be one of the very few movies that I rate, not based on personal enjoyment, but more based on the rating it really deserves. I didn't care for this movie, I don't mind saying. You know, a lot of times you see a classic movie and you want so bad to like it. I can compare this to my experiences with Citizen Kane. I want to be a Kane fan...so bad! I want to intelligently discuss Welles' ideas and themes and talk about how important the film was. But, I can't because I don't really care for it. I always want to like the classics, really. I want to see what others see when they harp about Casablanca or go on and on about what a masterpiece 8 1/2 is. The same could be said for Apocalypse Now, except I'm not sorry that I don't like it, because while I didn't like it, I got it. I understood it and could probably even hold my own if an all out, intellectual discussion got sparked on it. I sat in awe of my television screen during the last forty minutes and if I were just rating that portion, I think I'd break my own ten point scale and give it an 11. It's one of the few times that an American film has really looked flawless and it was flawless! And I don't want to be misunderstood, because there are literally hundreds, maybe thousands of American films that I love, most more than this, it's just that usually American films look like movies and foreign films look like films. I'm an average Joe, so calling my favorite movies, MOVIES is okay and occasionally I'll even like a film, but this is an American film that really brings the goods and looks spectacular. Like I said, I sat in awe of those final forty minutes, because few times in my cinematic life have I seen such perfection, such power, such raw emotion, all pouring out simultaneously through the screen and washing over me. This is what FILMS are supposed to be like, this was bigger than grand.

Let's talk about Brando and his Kurtz character. How perfect was it that he didn't show up until the last thirty minutes of the movie? And how even more perfect that we never saw his face completely unobstructed, be it by a shadow or by face paint. The story where this character existed, where he lived and breathed, still couldn't fully unveil him. A character so powerful and so enigmatic that the one story on the face of the Earth where he lives, still didn't have the ability to fully let us inside his head. And I can think of no other actor worthy of portraying him. In fact, while I was watching, the only other actor I could possible picture playing Kurtz would've been Orson Welles, someone who was aging and overweight himself by then, but since we barely even see Kurtz, that could've worked too. Here's my question: Were we supposed to get more of Brando or was the fact that he showed up to set overweight and unprepared the reason why we never even get a good look at his face? If so, maybe he overate and under prepared on purpose - knowing that this was a character who need not see the cylindrical eye of a movie camera. By the time Sheen and crew roll up to, what can only be described as the gates of hell and the magnificent set piece that is Kurtz' hideout, the tension was so thick within me that I could barely sit still.

However, getting to those gates of hell is one massive chore. I can't lie, I was very bored. I'm not a war movie guy and even though I could tell that this film was as genuine as a war movie can get, I just couldn't settle in. Willard's journey up river takes up, like I said, a good hour and a half of screen time and you feel every second of it. But then again, would that final forty minutes be as POWERFUL, if we hadn't just sat through a ninety minute, up river journey? Maybe boredom was the intended reaction, so that when Dennis Hopper started yelling, we knew shit was on. We knew, NOW this is what I've been waiting for, NOW this film pays off and pay off it did. I don't know. I would say, "had they only shortened that middle portion a little, it would've been a lot better", but then you cut away some of the waiting and it's so worth the wait. I really don't know...

My final thoughts are this: I don't know if I ever need to see this movie again. I've experienced (that's a better word - EXPERIENCE) it once and I could make cases for why it should be rated low and why it should be rated high. I could understand someone going '1/10' and understand someone going '10/10'. I tell you this though, whether you love it or hate it, I think we all have to admit that it is a MUST SEE. You wanna' be a film buff? You wanna' see the classics? Start with this, because it barely gets more classic that Apocalypse Now. I wasn't born during 'Nam, I know nothing about 'Nam and I know nothing about war, but I knew it (and THE BOOK confirmed it) that this was what it was like. Experiencing Apocalypse Now was as close to the font lines as I'll ever get and it was enough of a taste to make me count my lucky stars that I never signed up for active duty. It was indeed Hell on Earth and what must it have been like to actually be there? To actually feel the heat of battle on your face, to choke on the smoke and the charred bodies and to hear the screams? To feel the blood splatter across your forehead while you watched your new best friend's knee cap blow off and wonder how long it would be before you were lying beside him? To feel that fear in your heart and then to feel it wash away and to realize you're becoming desensitized....Man...what must it have been like? Apocalypse Now is just a little taste...

RATING: 7/10  Whew! Got a little carried away there. I can't go higher than that, because actually I didn't like the film personally. But anything less than a '7' wouldn't be fair at all.

MOVIES WATCHED: 902
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 99

January 21, 2015  8:00pm

579. The Conversation (1974)

Running Time: 113 minutes
Directed By: Francis Ford Coppola
Written By: Francis Ford Coppola
Main Cast: Gene Hackman, John Cazale, Allen Garfield, Cindy Williams, Frederic Forrest
Click here to view the trailer

A DOUBLE SHOT OF HACKMAN: 2 of 2

You know, I was thinking, I really need to watch the other four Dirty Harry movies, the other two "Mad Max" movies and "The French Connection II" NOW, while I still have the originals in my head. It's not that I'm dying to see them, because I'm sure the originals hold up better, it's just that it would be nice to be able to say I've seen them. Anyway, that was my random thought of the day and now we move on to my first Francis Ford Coppola film from THE BOOK - "The Conversation".

Let's see, let's see, where to begin....The film open with a shot of a public square, in San Francisco. You know the type, the place where people go for lunch, where street performers hone their craft and where couples sit around the fountain and make lovey dovey. It is revealed that we're meant to be focusing on a certain couple (Williams and Forrest), who are under surveillance via Harry Caul (Hackman) and his team, which consists of Stan (Cazale) and another man. Harry Caul is the best bug man on the West Coast, or so say the people in the business of bugs. Harry makes it a point not to get involved in the conversations that he records, thus being one of the more professional surveillance men in the biz. Once the conversation between the couple is through, Harry makes the tapes, with the intention of delivering them to "the Director", the man who hired Harry. When Harry goes to deliver the tapes, however, the Director is out of the office and the assistant to the Director offers to take the tapes and pay Harry. Harry, being the professional, refuses to hand over the tapes to anyone but the Director and thus decides to leave. Before leaving, he is warned that keeping the tapes could put him in danger. Upon leaving the building, Harry notices the couple that he's just bugged around the office, realizing that they work there. This leads Harry to take a closer listen to the tapes, realizing that the couple are being targeted for murder. A particular line in the conversation tips him off - "He'd kill us if he got the chance". This puts Harry into a question of integrity: does he stay out of his clients business or does he interject himself and try saving the couple? Along the way, Harry (a very private man) is bugged himself.

This was a situation where I went into the film dying to see it and expecting to love it, but having this odd feeling that I'd be disappointed by it. Well, it turns out, I wasn't disappointed and actually really liked this movie. This is another one (like "The French Connection") where I have to ask the question: "What's not to like?". You've got Gene Hackman, whom I personally love, as he always brings the goods and knows when to be intense and when not to be. In "The Conversation" we see a very reserved, very subtle performance by Hackman, where rarely a raised voice comes into play. Hackman knows just what he's doing, with all the control and intricacy as the surveillance man he's portraying. The thing I really admire about Hackman here, is that there is absolutely ZERO trace of Popeye Doyle, proving that Hackman knows how to be a different man on each and every set he graces. The character is probably one that you could write a thesis on and I loved him. THE BOOK makes note of his comfort level in listening to conversations from hundreds of yards away, comparing it to his comfort level while in a room with his friends and how different they are. You've got a man that I can really, kind of, relate to, as I'm also a very private person who doesn't really do well with others. I mean, I get by and I'm not as bad as Harry, but I think I'd be more comfortable watching from afar, than interacting face to face - I know I would.

SPOILER ALERT!

You've also got a plot that's easily followable, intense, interesting and just plain great. Okay, so maybe it's just me, but I've always been fascinated with voyeurism (not that I'd participate in it - I'm no peeping Tom!) and surveillance stuff and that's what this movie revolves around. I just love that this entire film relies so heavily on one, five minute exchange between Cindy Williams and Frederic Forrest and that the whole twist of the entire picture relies on the emphasis of ONE WORD!! That's insane, yet it all makes sense and in the end, we're left with that "OH SHIT!" moment, just like Harry.

I may rate it a few notches below a '10' today, but I think when I think back on this movie it's really going to dawn on me just how perfect it was. And what about that score - brilliance! It was just perfect and honestly, the combination of that music coupled with this film, makes it the best composition I've heard in quite sometime. It portrays the eeriness of being watched, coupled with the paranoia and guilt of our main character and it just suits the film so well. Have a listen. I think whenever I hear that piece, all of the details of this film are going to come flooding back: Hackman's master class performance, the beauty of the camerawork, the near flawlessness of Coppola's writing & direction and the way the plot perfectly appealed to me.

RATING: 8/10  I think I liked "The French Connection" more, which is why I just can't go higher, but what a way to kick off this season. Now that I've watched a couple of heavy hitters, expect a few rarities in the days to come.

MOVIES WATCHED: 803
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 198

February 15, 2014  12:53pm