612. NETWORK (1976)

Running Time: 121 minutes
Directed By: Sidney Lumet
Written By: Paddy Chayefsky
Main Cast: Faye Dunaway, William Holden, Peter Finch, Robert Duvall, Ned Beatty

TRIBUTE TO LUMET: PART THREE

I bet you thought I forgot about the "Tribute to Lumet", as it's been several days since I watched "Serpico". I actually kind of did forget about it, but while browsing my Netflix instant queue today, I saw "Network" and realized I'd yet to finish Lumet's tribute. Unfortunately, I wouldn't call "Network" a fitting end to any tribute.

Howard Beale (Finch) has just been told that in two weeks time, he will no longer be the news anchor of the UBS Evening News. Howard Beale is kind of a "Cronkite-esque" personality, that old, reliable news man that people turned to to get their daily fix of goings on. However, with UBS wanting to change their direction and go with a more "out with the old, in with the new" motif, they've decided that Beale must go. After hearing the news, Beale proceeds to go on the airwaves during one of his last broadcasts and announce that before his time is up, he'll shoot himself on live television. The outburst garners considerable attention and Diana Christensen (Dunaway), eager to grab every last ratings point she can, capitalizes on the attention. She suggests that UBS keep Howard Beale on and revamp him as an "angry man" character, having him go on the air every night and raise his voice and create tirades. Beale grabs the opportunity because he doesn't want to be jobless and later he seemingly loses his marbles as his actions become madder than ever. William Holden also stars as Beale's old time friend in the news business, who hates to see his friend reduced to a circus act and ultimately loses his job because he won't play ball. Robert Duvall rounds out the stupendous cast as Frank Hackett, the hard nosed top executive in charge of UBS Studios.

"I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna' take it anymore!!"

That's the token line from "Network" and anybody who's even remotely interested in film, whether they've seen "Network" or not, has heard it. It's also the line that I felt compelled to yell at about the halfway mark of watching this pile of rubbish. Now, I already know what you're thinking: "How dare this lowly blog writer condemn the greatness that is Network!" There's just one problem though, I find absolutely nothing (except the acting) great about "Network". When I first started this blog, I said that I wasn't going to go easy on a film just because society has deemed it a classic. If a film came up, whether it was "Citizen Kane" or "The Black Cat", it was going to get my true opinions tacked on to it and I wasn't going to go soft and let public opinion scare me into going easy on a film. And honestly, I think there have been instances in the past where I've let it happen, but not this time. I cannot tiptoe around my true feelings for a film - "Network" is a terrible movie. Now remember folks, that's just my opinion and luckily when it comes to opinions not everyone is forced to share them - you can have yours and I'll have mine.

What is "Network" about? Is it merely a satire on the television industry? Is it merely trying to hammer home the fact that television and the people that determine what airs on television are basically people void of any real emotion? I don't know and I can't decide. Now, sure I could make my way to a number of websites and do a little reading and try to find someone who seems really smart to point me in the right direction and tell me what the ultimate message in "Network" is, but I don't want to do that and shouldn't have to do that. I'm a smart guy, yet the message of "Network" seems to be bogged down and may be a lot of little messages rolled into one. In fact, I think the most appealing idea, is that "Network" is a movie about the changing of the guard in terms of what was appropriate on television. You can look at television now and look at television forty years ago and there's obviously been a change. What is acceptable now, certainly wasn't acceptable back then and what was considered entertainment back then, would flop like a dying fish today. Maybe that's what "Network" is about. Maybe it's simply a film about the changing of generations and the invention of shock television. I don't know - whatever the ultimate, underlying theme/message is, I didn't like the film and in fact, I'd go as far as to call it one of the worst films ever nominated for a Best Picture Oscar.

Now then, there is SOME good in "Network" and that is the cast. They all shine and really make you wonder what it was about Sidney Lumet, that made his actors come to work with their game faces on. Peter Finch, Robert Duvall and William Holden are all fantastic. Faye Dunaway wasn't bad either, but there were some instances where she really seemed to be over selling the point that her character was a ruthless bitch. Peter Finch really shines and it's kind of appropriate that his character is the symbol for anti-establishment, when Finch's acting skills are anti-bad movie. It's also a shame that Finch never lived to accept his little gold statue. And while we're on the subject of the Oscars - Beatrice Straight wins the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress? Really? According to Wikipedia her character only had about 5 1/2 minutes of screen time and somehow she nabbed the award. WTF! I think if I were Jodie Foster or Piper Laurie, I'd be pissed...or maybe even so mad, that I'd refuse to take it anymore!

RATING: 2/10 I'll give it two points for acting, but even the acting was all a waste in my opinion, as it was fueling a dying engine and in the end, "Network" just wasn't my kind of flick.

MOVIES WATCHED: 264
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 737

April 26, 2011 9:02pm

570. SERPICO (1973)

Running Time: 130 minutes
Directed By: Sidney Lumet
Written By: Waldo Salt, Norman Wexler, from book by Peter Maas
Main Cast: Al Pacino, John Randolph, Tony Roberts, Bernard Barrow, M. Emmet Walsh

TRIBUTE TO LUMET: PART TWO

Continuing on with our three film tribute to the late Sidney Lumet, we come to "Serpico". Actually we go back to "Serpico", as I should have actually watched this one prior to "Dog Day Afternoon", but it's all good. I had only seen "Serpico" one time prior to today and this time around my opinion pretty much stayed the same.

Al Pacino is once again our main man and is once again portraying a real life figure, this time Frank Serpico. Frank has just graduated police academy and wants nothing more than to be a stand out cop. Serpico starts where all cops start, in a uniform, doing shift work and chasing down collars. Soon he becomes a plainclothes officer, wearing funky outfits and sporting a massive mustache and beard, trying his best to blend in with the street life of New York City. When Serpico does move to plainclothes he makes a discovery that shatters his idea of what an officer of the law is supposed to be. He finds that a lot of the men on the force are taking paybacks and Serpico doesn't pussy foot around in making it known that he wants no part of it. He falls under heavy criticism from his fellow officers and is constantly ridiculed for being an honest cop. Frank makes several transfers, but can't seem to shake the corruption that seems to follow him everywhere he goes. Frank has to look over his shoulder at every turn and can count on no one, as he has no friends on the force.

I feel the same about "Serpico" as I did about "Dog Day Afternoon", in that Al Pacino makes this film and without him this would have been a prime contender for the "not for me" pile. I was always a big fan of Pacino and this is really a great outing for him, as he gets the chance to have a few outbursts and otherwise really shine as Frank Serpico. I wasn't all that into the story, as the passing of time has made the story of the dirty cop a cliche one. The book points out that in 1973 this was potentially risky subject matter and cops were always portrayed, for the most part, in a positive light. Now, in 2011, dirty cop stories are a dime a dozen and as a whole they're just not for me. However, "Serpico" shines a little brighter than some of the more recent ones and all in all it kept me interested enough to really want to see how things turned out for Frank. The book also points out that the only downfall of "Serpico" is the score, which I couldn't disagree with more, as it totally worked for me and really made me feel sympathy for our hero.

I should also point out that in a week filled with the watching of this and "The Thin Blue Line", my faith in the justice system (both the law and the order) are getting totally marred. I mean, here all you had was a man who wanted to be a cop, protect and serve and like the boy who found out that Superman was nothing more than a tight wearer with rocket launcher on his back, Frank's dreams are totally dashed. In a way, this film kind of reminded me of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", which pretty much deals with the same type of character (a man who believes in the system, only to find out that the system is corrupt) and had me feeling about the same amount of sympathy. If only our White House was filled with Jefferson Smith's and our streets being protected by Frank Serpico's, then we'd be in business.

RATING: 6.5/10 That's a total knee jerk rating and by the time the end of the month rolls around, I can definitely see this one climbing in the ratings via the monthly recap.

MOVIES WATCHED: 261
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 740

April 20, 2011 9:17pm

590. Dog Day Afternoon (1975)

Running Time: 124 minutes
Directed By: Sidney Lumet
Written By: Frank Pierson, from article by P.F. Kluge and Thomas Moore
Main Cast: Al Pacino, John Cazale, Charles Durning, James Broderick, Chris Sarandon

TRIBUTE TO LUMET: PART ONE

Eleven days ago Sidney Lumet passed away and in honor of his legacy, I've decided to watch his three remaining films in the book. Of course, last month I watched "12 Angry Men" and it immediately became one of the major contenders for the top spot of my next TOP 20 list. "Dog Day Afternoon" is another old time favorite of mine and a film I've seen at least a half dozen times.

The film is based on a true story and stars Al Pacino as Sonny Wortzik. Wortzik, needing money for his lover's sex change operation, enters a bank a few minutes before closing time, with his accomplice Sal (Cazale). It was a simple robbery and Sonny knew all the ins and outs of the banking business, especially the details that had to do with tripping alarms. What should have taken only a few minutes, started to go awry when the groups third accomplice chickens out at the last minute. Furthermore, Sonny soon finds out that the bank had a scheduled pickup on this particular day, so they only stand to get away with about $1100.00. Suddenly the phone rings and the man on the other end tells Sonny that the police have the bank surrounded and there's no way out. Sonny and Sal shuffle to figure out what to do next, as the hostages (including a group of women and the bank manager Mr. Mulvaney) sweat it out inside, on this hot, August afternoon. Eventually Sonny and the hostages become friendly, to the point that Sonny even teaches them army maneuvers with his gun, letting them hold it and practice. Sonny soon makes a list of demands to the cop in charge, Detective Moretti (Durning), that include a limo to take them all to the airport (hostages included) and a jet to take them out of the country.

To be honest, this was much better the first time I watched it - however many years ago that was. It seems like every time I watch "Dog Day Afternoon", my opinion of it gets worse. First of all, there's no doubting that acting capabilities of Al Pacino, as he totally makes this film what it is and without him this could have been a disaster. I like how they weave in a little bit of comedy (my favorite line coming when Sonny picks up the phone and answers, "W-NEW, we play all the hits!) and Pacino delivers them so well that looking back I wished this guy would have been given a legit chance to make a straight up comedy. I also thought Cazale and Durning did great jobs too, Cazale lingering in the background and forcing us to wonder about the real life Sal and was he really that Lurch-looking. Durning is just as good too, bringing in the fire and having some intense back and forths with Pacino's Sonny.

But, as time goes by in the film, it honestly starts to get a little boring and that's even hard for me to admit, but it's true. In fact, this film would have prospered by being about a half hour shorter, as I think it would have served to keep the picture flowing and let's be honest, there were definitely some scenes in there that could have been cut. Once you get past the initial bank holdup and the police arrival, we're pretty much just sitting in a bank with a group of characters as the ring leader runs to the door every five minutes to chit chat with Moretti and yell things at the crowd that gathers (most notably, "ATTICA, ATTICA!!...). Maybe because I've seen it so many times, it just doesn't work anymore, once you know the fate of the main characters. Although, I'll admit, every single time I watch this, I still think Sonny and Sal are going to get out of the bank without being caught and I'll be damned if they never do.

RATING: 7/10 It's hard to shake old time favorites and if I hadn't seen this so many times, I doubt it would even garner a '7', but my repeated viewings and the awesomeness of Pacino give this a thumbs up.

MOVIES WATCHED: 260
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 741

April 20, 2011 3:16pm

315. 12 Angry Men (1957)

Running Time: 96 minutes
Directed By: Sidney Lumet
Written By: Reginald Rose
Main Cast: Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Jack Warden, Henry Fonda, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec, Robert Webber

Note: I wanted to let everyone know that I have started up a new blog, where I will be doing some DVD reviews. All of the information of the motives of the blog and what I plan to accomplish can be found in the introductory post at Just ADD('s) DVD Reviews. Please become a follower, as I would certainly appreciate it. Thank you.

SOMETHING STELLAR THIS WAY COMES

In my previous review for "Whisky Galore!" I noted that I needed something stellar to come along and save me from the slump that I had apparently fallen into. With the assistance of my DVD shelf, I was able to produce one of the most stellar films I have ever witnessed and every single time I see it, it's as if I'm seeing it again for the very first time. Of course, I'm talking about the film at hand, "12 Angry Men".

The twelve nameless men that make up a jury on a murder trial are sent into a room and told that they will be determining whether or not an eighteen year old boy murdered his father. They are told that the mandated sentence that will be carried out, if they choose to find the defendant guilty, will be death - and just like that "12 Angry Men", possibly one of the greatest films ever made, begins. Once inside the hot, stuffy jury room, the men take their seats, after some chit chatting and opening windows to try and let in a little cool air. They sit around the table in order of jury number and take a preliminary vote to see where everyone stands - guilty or not guilty. One man, Juror #8 (Fonda) stands alone in declaring that he has a reasonable doubt as to the boy's guilt. He is, of course, immediately under fire from the other men in the room, especially the hot headed Juror #3 (Cobb), the intelligent Juror #4 (Marshall) and crotchety, old-fashioned Juror #10 (Begley). He stands alone, stating that five minutes just doesn't seem enough time to decide the fate of a young boy and insists that they take at least an hour. Over the course of the hour, Juror #8 pleads his case, making it clear that he's not certain of the boy's innocence, only certain that his innocence is possible. That's your premise...

The words "possible spoiler alert" are not necessary here, because in my view there are much more important things about "12 Angry Men" other than whether or not the twelve men ultimately find the boy guilty or innocent. I won't spoil it, don't worry, but their are plenty of other factors that supersede that of the final outcome. For starters, the acting is here is, I'm sure, unlike anything you've ever seen. You've got twelve men laying their hearts out in a tiny room, letting it all out on the table and acting their hearts out. Lee J. Cobb and Henry Fonda are the best, but why quibble over who's best and who's not? Everyone has their spot, everyone knows their spot and everyone plays their spot to perfection.

But even acting, as stellar as it is, isn't the thing that I love about "12 Angry Men", although it certainly helps. The thing I love about "12 Angry Men" is going to be hard for me to put into words, but I'll try and hopefully I'll do this amazing film justice. This film makes me wonder how many real court cases in history have lacked a "Juror #8", who wasn't afraid to stand up for the accused and raise his hand alone when the Jury Foreman asked the question, "Who votes for not guilty?" I wonder how many wanted to be that "Juror #8" and had that reasonable doubt, but when they saw that they would be standing alone, they jolted their hand into the air and sent a possibly innocent man off to die. I'd like to think that if I were a juror on a murder trial and I happened to be that one lone man with that inkling of a reasonable doubt, that I'd take the queue from Henry Fonda's character and raise my hand alone and try to sway the decisions of eleven made up minds.

The passion that these twelve actors are able to evoke is uncanny. Whoever decided to give the script that one little twist of having it take place in the middle of the summer, in a hot room, was a genius. The entire movie gives off a heated, claustrophobic feeling as we slowly get used to the surrounding of the room and when the door finally opens at the end, I myself could almost feel a gush of cool air slap me in the face, as I was finally out of that room, with those twelve angry strangers, who argued and screamed at one another. I love the character study that comes along with "12 Angry Men" and how each individual man in the room has their own distinct personality. I can't help when I'm watching this film but wonder about the backgrounds of these characters and I know it seems silly because it's irrelevant, but I start to picture Juror #7 at that baseball game that he was trying to get to and knowing because I've seen the film so many times, that he never gets to it. I, for some reason, picture Juror #3 and wonder what he's like when he's not being called a "sadist" and trying to convince people that the boy who lives in the slums is a murderer. I feel like I literally know someone who mimics the personalities of every single juror sitting around that table. I'm sure sometime in my life I've come across a man just like Juror #10. Someone who had their opinions pre-formed and nothing (almost nothing) was going to ever change their minds. They were stubborn and they had a certain way of looking at things and that's just the way they were. I feel like I knew a man like Juror #12, someone who was a deep down smart guy, but acted a little foolish from time to time and sometimes got mixed in with the wrong crowd. And if I haven't already, I hope someday I come across a man just like Juror #8, a man willing to help his fellow man and not afraid to stand up for what he truly believes is right. A man who stands his ground and argues for what he believes and isn't afraid to break the rules (or the law) to lend a helping hand.

With the combination of "The Wrong Man", "The Ox-Bow Incident" and most notably "12 Angry Men" you could almost make a makeshift trilogy of films chronicling the silver screens statue of justice and innocence, Henry Fonda. On the surface "12 Angry Men" is simple. Put twelve men in a room and let them decide the fate of a young boy, innocent or guilty. But when you do a little digging it's deeper than that. It's about personal prejudices and issues. It's about fantastic acting and fantastic characters. It's about pivotal, meaningful, intricate movie making. Every single time the camera zooms in on the face of one of our jurors, it means something. When we zoom in on Lee J. Cobb's face about halfway through the film, his facials almost seem to indicate that he knows Juror #8 is right and that he's going to keep on fighting because 1) he doesn't want to admit that he's been wrong the whole time - and not only does he not want to, he's too proud to do so and 2) he needs this kid to go to the electric chair because he was involved in this case and if he can control this kid's fate then maybe, just maybe it will give him the illusion that he was able to control his own kid's fate. Everything means something and perhaps the most meaningful act and the one that brought me to tears this time around, was when Juror #8 takes Juror #3 his coat at the end of the film, as if to say, "I feel sorry for you, I'm sorry I had to break you and I forgive you."

RATING: 10/10 Did you even have to ask what my rating was? Ok, ok so you didn't actually ask, but "12 Angry Men" is a definite '10' and going to be nearly impossible to topple for top spot of the next TOP 20.

MOVIES WATCHED: 234
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 767

March 20, 2011 9:45pm