754. TOP GUN (1986)

Running Time: 119 minutes
Directed By: Tony Scott
Written By: Jim Cash, Jacks Epps Jr., from article by Ehud Yonay
Main Cast: Tom Cruise, Kelly McGillis, Anthony Edwards, Val Kilmer, Rick Rossovich
Click here to view the trailer

TONY SCOTT: 1944 - 2012

With the death of Tony Scott taking place only two days ago, I felt it would be appropriate to watch and review his only film from THE BOOK, "Top Gun". I had already had it scheduled for this 100 anyway, so it didn't take much maneuvering to squeeze it in. I'll be honest and say that I wasn't necessarily a Tony Scott fan, although I do remember enjoying "Man on Fire", "Enemy of the State" and "Beverly Hills Cop II" to a certain extent.

"Top Gun" made tons of dough in 1986, put Tom Cruise on the map and utilized a handful of classic Hollywood cliches that are still going strong today. Cruise plays Lt. Peter "Maverick" Mitchell, a U.S. Naval aviator and one who thinks he's the man when it comes to navigating his Tomcat through the sky. While Maverick thinks he's the man, most of his superiors and piers think he's just plain dangerous, relying on his cocky attitude in the air to make a name for himself. Maverick's radar intercept (co-pilot, to the average joe) Goose (Edwards) is his best friend in the skies and on the ground and when the opportunity comes along for the two to attend Top Gun school, where all the best pilots gather to become the best of the best, they jump at the chance. At Top Gun school the two buds meet a host of other top notch pilots, including Iceman (Kilmer), Slider (Rossovich) and their instructor, Viper (Tom Skerritt). Even among the elite Maverick is still confident that he'll come out of Top Gun school as the points leader, as all the students are fighting to be named top of the class. There's also a second plot involving Kelly McGillis, who plays Charlie, Maverick's love interest and a civilian Top Gun instructor.

Yes, "Top Gun" made loads of dough in 1986, but that certainly wasn't any reason to give it inclusion into a book of must see films. It simply isn't a must see folks, if you ask this guy and it's a shame that "Top Gun" was included as one of the 1001 entries when other, more important films were left out in the cold. The film is basically just a vehicle for Tom Cruise and used to lure females, aging from 15 - 25, into the theaters to get a look at the hunky actor. Think "Magic Mike" and exchange the stripper gear for pilots gear.

SIDENOTE: I just looked up to make sure that "Magic Mike" was about male strippers, as I usually don't sit up and take notice whenever Channing Tatum and Matthew McConaughey show up on my TV screen shirtless and saw that this film was actually directed by STEVEN SODERBERGH!!! Really? He USUALLY makes quality films. Could "Magic Mike" be a quality film??.......Nah. 

Okay, maybe it's not that blatant an eye candy film, but certainly the females were the target audience and certainly their plan worked, as "Top Gun" grossed an approximate $176 million domestically. There's a completely useless scene that proves my point, in which Cruise, Kilmer, Rossovich and Edwards play a good, old-fashioned game of shirtless volleyball and something that was clearly added to get whimpers from the female movie goers. As for this movie goer, I was, for the most part, bored to tears, wanting these pilots to land their planes and wrap up A.S.A.P, but wouldn't you know they used every bit of a two hour running time. The film is also very 80s, using a score that's sure to take you back, with songs like "Danger Zone" and "Take My Breath Away". If you're planning an all 80s night at your apartment, with your CD player blaring Michael Jackson tunes, make sure you put "Top Gun" on the television because it'll fit in perfectly. It also had that classic Hollywood blueprint that really came into effect in the 1980s - arrogant heartthrob meets a girl, she's not interested at first but then ends up in bed with him a few scenes later, he gets knocked down a few pegs, learns a lesson and triumphs in the end. All is right with the world!

I'm no Tom Cruise fan and at this stage of his career, he certainly hadn't honed the skills that he would later use in more serious roles such as, "Magnolia", "The Last Samurai" and the Mission: Impossible franchise. I do like Val Kilmer, but he wasn't allowed to flourish here and was simply used as Cruise's competition and general dick. I still scratch my head and wonder how in the world Kelly McGillis got such steady work in the 80s. She wasn't THAT pretty and her acting skills left a lot to be desired. I'll stop trashing the late Tony Scott's work for now. It simply wasn't for me and I really think that the only reason it was included in THE BOOK was for it's popularity and that alone. This book really makes me scratch my head sometimes, especially when you have fluffy Hollywood movies sharing the same binding with the likes of some real classics and definite must sees.

RATING: 4/10  I can't go TOO low, because it wasn't all bad. They were able to shy away from Cruise's bare chest and the "Take My Breath Away" theme long enough to put in some mildly exciting sequences in the air, but then again, that's not my bag either.

MOVIES WATCHED: 507
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH:  494

August 21, 2012  6:22pm

421. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

Running Time: 93 minutes
Directed By: Stanley Kubrick
Written By: Terry Southern, Stanley Kubrick, from the novel Red Alert by Peter George
Main Cast: Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, Sterling Hayden, Keenan Wynn, Slim Pickens
Click here to view the trailer

KUBRICK WEEK: CHAPTER IV

Hello?... Uh... Hello D- uh hello Dmitri? Listen uh uh I can't hear too well. Do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little?... Oh-ho, that's much better... yeah... huh... yes... Fine, I can hear you now, Dmitri... Clear and plain and coming through fine... I'm coming through fine, too, eh?... Good, then... well, then, as you say, we're both coming through fine... Good... Well, it's good that you're fine and... and I'm fine... I agree with you, it's great to be fine.

I really shouldn't like this film. When you take into consideration the film's plot - dealing heavily with nuclear warfare, politics and the Cold War - all signs would lead me to believe that this isn't my cup of tea when it comes to cinema. However, it's quite the opposite, as I found myself laughing out loud on several occasions and having heaping amounts of fun.

The film begins with General Jack D. Ripper (Hayden) giving orders for a group of thirty-four B-52 bombers to strike against Russian targets, which will subsequently lead to all out nuclear warfare. When the orders are received by the bombers, they take precautions to ensure that the orders are legit and when they are, they prepare themselves to drop bombs. When Group Captain Lionel Mandrake (Sellers) realizes that there is no cause for alarm and that the orders were given out in haste, he confronts the General and comes to the realization that Gen. Ripper has gone a "little funny in the head". It seems that the General issued the orders under his own volition and is the only one who knows the recall codes. Word of General Ripper's actions eventually reach the Pentagon, where President Merkin Muffley (Sellers), along with members of his staff, including General Buck Turgidson (Scott), go over ideas on how to avoid the orders being carried out. It seems that the attack plan that was put into place was a plan that was only supposed to be used if the normal chain of command was out of commission. Therefore, no radio interaction or normal abort methods are able to be utilized. President Muffley gets on the phone to Russia and order their premier to shoot down his own U.S. B-52 bombers, to avoid a nuclear war from occurring. Back at the base, Gen. Ripper has locked himself in his office with Mandrake, going on and on about "precious bodily fluids" and the communist conspiracy concerning water fluoridation. Outside the base, U.S. Army forces are attacking their own men, because Gen. Ripper instructed them that attack could come from enemy soldiers in U.S. uniform. In the air, Major T.J. "King" Kong (Pickens) leads his boys in their bomber, readying for attack. At one point they're attacked by Russian forces, having their console damaged and unable to receive any recall codes.

Frequently, when I finish a film, I'll find myself perusing the IMDB message boards, reading other people's opinions and browsing transcripts of conversations that fans of the film have had. Several threads caught my eye today, as certain individuals were either asking if they'd be able to understand this movie if they decided to watch it or, for people who had already watched, citing that they didn't understand the movie. I didn't leave any replies, but I found myself scratching my head over the quandaries of these individuals. I myself am no history buff. I have very little to no knowledge of the Cold War, nor do I know too much about nuclear warfare. I don't concern myself with politics or military affairs, so if anyone should be asking whether or not they'll understand "Dr. Strangelove", it should be me. However, I had absolutely no problem deciphering this movie. All the vital information is given to you and really, it's more of a movie to laugh at than one to try and decipher the meaning of. If you know what nuclear bombs are and that, for many years, there were tensions between Soviet and American powers, then you've got nothing to worry about.

It's amusing because the film actually pokes fun and satirizes the Cold War in a way that didn't leave me, someone who really doesn't know much about it, out in the cold. I understood that the film used heightened concerns over the use of nuclear warfare, computer intelligence and the nonchalant attitudes of those in charge, as it pertains to casualaties - "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops, uh, depending on the breaks" - to it's advantage in providing a comic masterpiece. I'm not sure any of that made sense to you, but I understand what I'm trying to say and hopefully you're following along.

Then you have the basics: the cast, the performances, the sets and all that stuff, which was all top notch. How about that War Room set huh? It was pretty spectacular, if I do say so myself. And remember:

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

The cast, most notably Peter Sellers, were at the top of their game. If I had to choose a favorite character, I'd, without a doubt, choose President Muffley, as he easily had me laughing the most. I also quite enjoyed George C. Scott and it was amusing to see him having fun out there. Usually when I watch a George C. Scott performance, I'm usually conscience of his supposed cranky demeanor and wonder what he was really like on the set. Here, he was having a blast and making jokes and it was really fun to watch him here. The whole affair is just a lot of fun and if you watch it, try not to take it too seriously. There are very few classic comedies, that are remembered or revered as much as "Dr. Strangelove". Usually the films that history tends to remember are the serious efforts and comedies are usually left out in the cold. This is a comedy through and through and it's just a formality that the film deals with such serious matters.

RATING: 9/10  I can't go the full monty and a '9' may be too high still, but I'm going for it. If need be I'll revise it come RECAP time. Next up in "Kubrick Week": "2001: A Space Odyssey".

MOVIES WATCHED: 506
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 495

August 20, 2012  4:04pm

390. LOLITA (1962)

Running Time: 152 minutes
Directed By: Stanley Kubrick
Written By: Vladimir Nabokov, from his novel
Main Cast: James Mason, Sue Lyon, Shelley Winters, Peter Sellers
Click here to view the trailer

KUBRICK WEEK: CHAPTER III

After a brief respite to take in "Fatal Attraction", it's back to the "Kubrick Week" festivities for me, as I take a look at "Lolita", a Stanley Kubrick work that I saw for the first and only time about five years ago and one where my opinion hasn't wavered that much. Although, this time around, I was able to expand my train of thought on the contents of the picture.

The film begins with the ending, as we see a man who we're later able to identify as Humbert Humbert (Mason) entering the mansion of Clare Quilty (Sellers), armed with a gun and ready to commit murder. Humbert finds Quilty inebriated and tries to make him realize that he's about to die. After a few gunshots, Quilty comes to that realization and is then shot dead. Four years earlier and we get a voiceover from Humbert informing us that he's moved to New Hampshire where he intends to spend the summer before taking a job as a professor at Beardsley College. In need of residence, Humbert visits the home of Charlotte Haze (Winters), a single parent with a room for rent. It's easy to tell that Charlotte is infatuated with the professor immediately, wanting desperately for him to accept the offer to live there. Humbert isn't sure...that is until he meets Charlotte's daughter, Lolita (Lyon), a girl in her early teens, whom Humbert first meets when she's sunbathing in the yard, clad in only a bikini. Humbert is immediately infatuated with the young girl and accepts the offer to live at the Haze house, citing Mrs. Haze's "cherry pie" as his reasoning. Humbert begins to keep a journal chronicling his fascination with Lolita, while also trying to make Mrs. Haze think that he's interested in her, even though he obviously finds her quite annoying. When Lolita is shipped off to Camp Climax (I kid you not), Mrs. Haze and Humbert are engaged, Humbert presumably using the marriage as a way to ensure that he keeps Lolita in his life. After a few months of "wedded bliss", Charlotte notices that Humbert is always so distant, committing himself to his room, to the cozy confines of his journal. One day, after a spat, Charlotte runs outside, is hit by a car and dies immediately. Humbert drives to Camp Climax to pick up Lolita, electing to keep Charlotte's death a secret for the time being. From there, Lolita and Humbert enjoy time together on the road, all the while being tailed by the odd and questionable motives of Clare Quilty.

SPOILER ALERT!

Where do I even begin with this one? How about with the good, because starting on a positive note is always a good idea. Well, the performances were, almost entirely, top notch. You just can't deny the talents of James Mason, a classic actor's actor, who, when he gets a role, obviously does his very best to perfect the character and bring out the most of it. I'm also always astounded at the abilities of Shelley Winters. I first saw Shelley Winters as a recurring character on Roseanne and it's hard to believe that Nana Mary was such a great actress in her early days. And then, last but not least, you have Peter Sellers who peeked my interest every time he appeared on screen and was part of the reason this film's initial hook works so well. The beginning is enough to hook you in and keep you invested in the plot of the movie for most of the duration, as Sellers plays the very inebriated man who wants nothing more than to play ping pong and win ("I'm really winning now. You have to make a rally!"). Also, the basic blueprint of the film is a really good one and one that, since "Lolita", has been done to death - films like "Poison Ivy" and "The Crush" come to mind. A man in his 40s becomes sexually attracted to the point of utter infatuation with a young, prepubescent girl.

My biggest gripe when it comes to "Lolita" is that nothing really seems to come out of that initial infatuation and please, allow me to explain that point. Maybe I just wasn't picking up on it, but the end of the film seems to hint at the fact that Lolita and Humbert were engaged in a sexual relationship for most of the duration of the film, notably everything that follows the death of Charlotte. However, I just didn't get that. Was it just insinuated that they were basically playing it off in public as if they were father/daughter, but in reality, behind closed doors they were really lovers, because that's not what I was getting at all. As far as what I saw develop onscreen, here's what happened. Humbert meets Lolita and is obviously sexually attracted to her, however, he is never given the opportunity to do anything about it. He then marries Charlotte, in an attempt to ensure that Lolita stays a part of his life, but when she dies he takes advantage of the situation and goes to rescue Lolita from girl's camp. After picking her up at girl's camp, the two hit the road, staying in hotels, before they return to Beardsley, where Humbert begins his professorship and Lolita begins school. From there, Humbert takes on a very strict fatherly role to Lolita, forbidding her to see boys (which not only speaks toward the fatherly side, but also the side of him that is attracted to her). Lolita becomes very disobedient toward Humbert, while at other times they get along splendidly. When they have a quarrel over a play that Lolita has starred in, they decide that the best thing to do is to pack up and move away. While on the road, Lolita is stricken ill and is admitted into a hospital. From there, she is taken out of the hospital by Clare Quilty, Humbert is devastated to find that she's gone and we learn that Lolita and Quilty have been having an affair the entire time. Humbert later reunites with Lolita, only to find her married. So that's my summation of the film and nowhere in there do I see Lolita and Humbert having a sexual relationship. It's just never that obvious to me that that's what's going on.

And I realize that you just couldn't do certain things or even insinuate certain things, but then perhaps this film just shouldn't have been made. I have a strong feeling that the book by Nabokov is ten times better than Kubrick's vision of the story, because you didn't have to be as censored when it came to the written word. In Nabokov's book, apparently Lolita is only twelve and it is more obvious that her and Humbert are having a relationship. 

Also why in hell do we need Clare Quilty? I mean, don't get me wrong, I loved Peter Sellers in this, he was marvelous, but was he needed. I have a strong feeling that even he was wandering around set, wondering what he was doing there, what purpose his character was serving. He is a part of that great opening hook, which lead me to believe that his character, put to death by the main character, was going to be of some substantial importance. We follow him all through the film as he assumes different persona's, trying desperately to get closer to Humbert and Lolita and in the end it's revealed that he merely was having his own affair with Lolita and that's all. What the hell? Was that character really a necessity? I don't think so.

"Lolita" had my mind swirling for hours after I watched it. On one hand, the two and a half hour running time was quite swift (mostly), I liked the performances and I liked the basic blueprint of the story. On the other hand there was just so much that I didn't understand about the picture. Why was Clare Quilty made out to be such an important character, when ultimately he was entirely disposable? What was the basis of the relationship between Lolita and Humbert? I can already tell by my long review that the Kubrickian qualities are starting to turn their head and it's only going to get more deep from here. I'll chalk this one up as a near hit, but ultimately call it a big letdown, as I thought my tastes may have changed enough for me to find something entirely positive in this one, when, in fact, I only found certain, traces of positive qualities.

RATING: 6/10  I think that's a really safe rating for the moment. I'll keep turning this one around in my head and maybe come up with some different perspective in time for the RECAP. Next up in "Kubrick Week": "Dr. Strangelove..."

MOVIES WATCHED: 505
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 496

August 19, 2012  10:41pm

773. Fatal Attraction (1987)

Running Time: 119 minutes
Directed By: Adrian Lyne
Written By: James Dearden
Main Cast: Michael Douglas, Glenn Close, Anne Archer
Click here to view the trailer

FROM KIRK TO MICHAEL

In a 100 that will be filled to the brim with films from the 1980s, I decided to make "Fatal Attraction" my third film since my return. I figured after watching a pair of Kirk Douglas films, it might be nice to slip in a Michael Douglas feature and compare the father and son.

The film opens by introducing us to Dan Gallagher (Douglas), his wife Beth (Archer) and their daughter Ellen, a typical, happy family living in New York. Dan practices law and is successful at what he does and enjoys his family life. The film's most vital point comes one weekend when Beth and Ellen go to visit Dan's in-laws for a few days. The morning that they leave, Dan heads into work for a Saturday morning meeting with a client and it is there that he meets Alex Forrest (Close). When the meeting ends and the two can't catch a cab, they decide to take refuge from the pouring rain inside a small, local restaurant. There the two get to know each other a little better and decide that not only do they get along, but that they are physically attracted to one another. In an innuendo driven exchange, where the two talk about being discreet and being adults, the two finally end up on Dan's kitchen sink, in a hot and heavy exchange, that will see it's end in Alex's bed. In other words, the two hump like rabbits (yes, RABBITS) and Dan officially becomes a cheating husband. When Beth returns, it is Dan's plan to act as if nothing has happened. He goes to certain lengths to make it seem as if things have been running normal, mussing up the bed to make it look like he slept in it, showering vigorously and even feeding the dog the spaghetti and meat sauce that was meant for him, but that he was too busy to eat. He wants the relationship with Alex to come to an abrupt halt and wants to consider the weekend a one time thing, never to see her again. She, however, sees it differently, wanting more out of Dan, noting that he didn't stop to think how this would effect her, only thinking of himself and his hormones. Long story short, she goes a little nutso, basically stalking Dan, calling him incessantly, vandalizing his car. Things reach a head when Alex announces she's pregnant and that the baby is definitely Dan's.

It wasn't a long walk to acquire this one, as all I had to do was walk to my DVD shelf. I saw "Fatal Attraction" for the first time, many years ago and fell in love with it instantly. THE BOOK notes that the film has that Hollywood gloss and without it would have surely been a straight to video vehicle. However, despite the gloss, I still think this film has that feeling of a little hole in the wall thriller, that you stumble across in the back corner of your local Mom & Pop video store (when those still existed). The film is slow to start and actually as I was watching it I started to think of why this film was so appealing to me, when I bought it on DVD many years ago. On the surface, the entire film hinges on this affair between Dan and Alex and the consequences that follow and really doesn't sound like it would be able to fill out a two hour length. However, Lyne knows what he's doing and is able to add moments of suspense, sometimes with the smallest of details, like a ringing phone and the look on Dan's face when he comes to the realization that it could be and probably is Alex. It didn't take long for the film to swallow me back up into it's world, get me on the edge of my seat and leave me with the feeling that I was watching this film again for the first time.

SPOILER ALERT!

The cast does a fine job, but in the matter of Kirk Douglas vs. Michael Douglas, the accolades have to go to Kirk. He was just a more polished actor and while I think I enjoyed this film more than both "Paths of Glory" and "Spartacus", it certainly wasn't for the skills of Michael Douglas. He's an okay actor, but I think he's often more overrated than he deserves to be. As far as acting skills go in "Fatal Attraction", the kudos have to go to Glenn Close, who knocked one out of the park as Alex Forrest, providing that "on the edge of insanity" portrayal. The film also does an amazing thing in getting the viewer to feel sympathy for Dan, even though Alex is basically in the right. Sure, her actions are a little out there (to say the least), but she's justified in being upset, making phone calls and hounding Dan to be a part of her life and her unborn baby's life. Dan is the one who is entirely in the wrong, taking advantage of a weekend alone to sow one more wild oat. Yet we (or at least I) feel sorry for him, especially when he breaks down and tells his wife the truth and is forced out of his home, leaving behind his daughter and wife. It's just a really fun film, one that is really easy to get lost in and enjoy. The suspense, at times, is off the charts and it's not something with so much Hollywood gloss on it, that you can't see the small, subtle effects that the actors and director bring to the table.

RATING: 8/10  Well three films down, 97 to go before I make another TOP 20 list and nothing that has dipped below a '6' yet...that's great news!

MOVIES WATCHED: 504
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 497

August 19. 2012  3:02pm

367. SPARTACUS (1960)

Running Time: 196 minutes
Directed By: Stanley Kubrick
Written By: Dalton Trumbo, from novel by Howard Fast
Main Cast: Kirk Douglas, Laurence Olivier, Jean Simmons, Charles Laughton, Peter Ustinov
Click here to view the trailer

KUBRICK WEEK: CHAPTER II

When most of us hear the name Stanley Kubrick we picture certain, unmistakable images. Perhaps the image of an ape throwing a bone into the air or Malcolm McDowell sporting a bowler and drinking a glass of milk. At least those are a few of the images that pop into MY head when I hear the name Kubrick mentioned. What I don't envision is a movie as "by the book" as "Spartacus", which took me by surprise and left me craving some of that "Kubrickian" originality.

Spartacus (Douglas) is a Thracian turned unruly slave who, early on in the picture, is sold to Batiatus (Ustinov), the proprietor of a gladiator school who peruses slaves and purchases them in an attempt to transform them into gladiators. Along with several other new recruits, Spartacus soon finds himself in the gladiator training camp, where former slaves will now be offered certain luxuries, including a woman all their own. It is here that Spartacus meets Varinia (Simmons), a female slave who is initially assigned to be his and whom he becomes infatuated with and later, learns to love. Spartacus trains under the tutelage of former slave, turned gladiator trainer, Marcellus. Marcellus has it out for Spartacus and to say the least, the two just don't get along. One day, when Spartacus notices Varinia leaving the camp, having been informed that she's been sold to Crassus (Olivier), he goes on a rampage and kills Marcellus, prompting the other slaves to follow suit, resulting in a full scale riot where all of the slaves are able to escape the grounds. From there, it's the slaves against the Roman Senate, as Spartacus and his men plan to march to the sea, board boats and return to their home. The Roman Senate, however, has other plans, as they send army after army to oppose Spartacus and his army of slaves, but each battalion falls to the slaves. It all boils down to a big battle when Spartacus and his crew realize they're trapped and will be forced to either return to Rome and fight or be cornered by the armies Lucullus and Pompey and face a sure defeat.

Like I said, I really didn't expect THIS type of film to come from Stanley Kubrick. I'm not the biggest Kubrick fan in the world, but when I think of the guy, I have a certain picture in mind and it doesn't include a big budget Roman epic. On one hand the film wasn't THAT bad. I had no expectations going in, as I know from personal experiences that epics like this are usually a win or lose type of situation, as far as my personal tastes are concerned. As the film got underway, I thought that it wasn't going to be that bad. I had enjoyed Kirk Douglas well enough in "Paths of Glory" and I was totally digging the idea of slave turned gladiator and the whole gladiator training school thing. Peter Ustinov was hilarious and I had even spotted John Dall, an old favorite of mine from movies like "Rope" and "Gun Crazy". Then the slaves escaped and it all went downhill from there...

Beyond that early part of the picture, the running time started to slowly become more of a nuisance than a pleasure and I found myself really wanting this film to end. I mean, beyond the escape, what's really happening for those remaining two hours and change? The slaves escape gladiator school, we spend a good ninety minutes doing absolutely nothing but hearing the Roman Senate debate and seeing Spartacus and his men prosper. It all boils down to the big battle scene and I'll admit, it was a pretty decent little battle scene, but it was also quite short and I'm pretty sure that the soldiers actually marching to battle lasted longer than the actual battle itself.

SPOILER ALERT! 

Beyond that, there's a few key scenes. You've got your "I Am Spartacus" scene, you've got a nice little scene where Spartacus is forced to battle Antoninus and you've got the final moments with Spartacus hanging on a cross and being shown his newborn son for the first and last time. If I would've been able to get more emotionally invested in the picture, then I'm sure the combination of those three scenes would have caused me to squirt a few tears of my own, but in reality I was just really excited to disembark the Spartacus train. Not that it was all bad, it's just that it was far too long, with not enough going on in the middle and by the time it ended, I really wanted it to end.

RATING: 6.5/10  I feel like a '7' would just be going a little too high. It's not a terrible picture by any means and Roman historians and people who are interested in the time period are going to love it, but it's certainly not for everyone. Next up in "Kubrick Week": "Lolita".

MOVIES WATCHED: 503
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 498

August 17, 2012  5:54pm

327. Paths of Glory (1957)

Running Time: 87 minutes
Directed By: Stanley Kubrick
Written By: Stanley Kubrick, Calder Willingham, Jim Thompson, from novel by Humphrey Cobb
Main Cast: Kirk Douglas, George Macready, Ralph Meeker, Adolphe Menjou, Wayne Morris
Click here to view the trailer

KUBRICK WEEK: CHAPTER I

Well it's not quite autumn, but thanks to a forty-five minute taking in of "Rear Window", on cable, the other night, the "Kubrick Week" festivities have been kicked off early and my hiatus has come to an end.  I'll not waste time in getting to the point, as "Paths of Glory" becomes the best first film of a 100 since "Jaws" and kicks off the second half with a BANG!

For starters, I'll ask you to pardon my "blog-rust", as I attempt to pull myself back on the saddle and provide you with as good a review as I can, after being off for the past month. I always find it difficult to get reacquainted with my own style of writing reviews, but usually one or two movies in and I'm good to go.

The film is set in 1916, during World War I, as the French are engaged in trench warfare with the Germans. Once we get a voiceover narration filling us in on the crucial details of the times, we jump to a private meeting between two generals of the French Army: General George Broulard (Menjou) of the French General Staff and his subordinate, General Mireau (Macready). Broulard requests that Mireau send his men through "no man's land" to take and hold a German post, known only as "the Anthill". Mireau's first response is that the request is a suicide mission and promptly refuses, but, after being tempted with a promotion, later decides that his men are more than capable of taking the Anthill. Later, Mireau visits his division in the trenches and meets with Col. Dax (Douglas), to provide him with the details of the taking of the Anthill. Dax is also well aware that this is a suicide mission, but not wanting to to show insubordination, takes the orders with a salute and a brave face. When the time comes for Dax to lead his company into a mission that promises to take the life of over half his men, he comes out swinging, wielding a pistol and a whistle, waving his men toward the Anthill. Mireau watches from a safe post and notices that half the company remains stationary in the trenches, most of them too wounded to advance on the enemy line. Mireau, however, doesn't see wounded soldiers, but rather, cowardly soldiers and orders the artillery commander to fire upon the men, driving them out of the trenches and into battle. The artillery commander refuses the order, without a written request and Mireau is made to look like a fool when the Anthill isn't taken and the mission becomes an epic failure. From there, Mireau meets with Col. Dax and General Broulard back at his quarters and demands that men from Dax's company face a court marshal of charges of showing cowardice in the face of the enemy. Dax puts up a fight, but it is ultimately decided that three men, picked by their commanding officers, will face a court marshal, with Dax defending them at the trial.

Honestly, I didn't have much hope for this one going in. As many of my long time readers will remember, I'm not one for war films and will usually brush them off before the opening credits come to a close. However, if they're done right, if they tell a story in the midst of their explosions and artillery fire and aren't bogged down by military mumbo jumbo that I cannot even begin to comprehend, then I can easily warm up to them and find myself lost in the trenches, alongside the troops. "Paths of Glory" does have a little bit of that "Greek to me", military jargon, but it isn't mired in it and amidst it, there's a hard to swallow story of three brave men being put on trial, forced to fight for their lives, because they're accused of being cowards. It's the kind of war movie that makes pacifists grit their teeth and foam at the mouth and the kind of movie that makes you angry as you're watching the innocent characters be subject to such inhumane treatment. If you stand on the anti-war side of the fence, but want to be reminded of why you stand on that side, then this is the film for you, as it won't take long to remind you of what war does to a man, that bravery doesn't always mean medals and that, sometimes, the cruelest and most heartless of men can be found in positions of power.

I can't sign off without mentioning the stunning camerawork by Georg Krause, as he literally takes us down in the trenches and gives us just a spoonful of what it's like to be in the heart of battle. The dreary black & white look of the picture only adds to the dreary narrative that is being told and everything fits together perfectly to provide a really downtrodden film, with no happy ending in sight. Key scenes include a tracking shot of Dax walking through the trenches, surveying his men before the attempted taking of the Anthill and of course, the final scene, which you just need to experience for yourself, instead of reading about it here. Trust me, THE BOOK nailed it on the head when it labeled "Paths of Glory" a "must see" and the final scene is a big reason why. As I progress through "Kubrick Week", I'll be taking in most of the offerings for no more than the second time and after watching "Paths of Glory", I'm really excited for what the next week (or two) holds for me.

RATING: 8.5/10  I can't go the full monty, because there were moments where I felt a little confused or overwhelmed by the historical aspects of the film, but this is one where quibbling over numbers is nonsensical. Next up in "Kubrick Week": "Spartacus".

MOVIES WATCHED: 502
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 499

August 15, 2012  2:17am

July 2012 Recap

I nearly forgot about the July 2012 Recap, but, as they say, better late than never...

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die - As seen in July 2012
1) Pi (1998 - Darren Aronofsky) 8/10 - This one came incredibly close to nabbing a "Ten Worth Mentioning" spot on the most recent TOP 20, but couldn't quite get there. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that my theories and ideas about the film superseded the actual quality of the production. Still really good though.
2) Downfall (2004 - Oliver Hirschbiegel) 5.5/10 - One that I had really high hopes for, but one that turned out being more forgettable than memorable.
3) Requiem for a Dream (2000 - Darren Aronofsky) 9/10 - Earned the #11 spot on the TOP 20 - need I say more.
4) The Reckless Moment (1949 - Max Ophuls) 7/10 - A fun little noir, but nothing worth getting too excited over. Could've used a longer running time and a little more intricacies in the plot to drive it home further.
5) Amores perros (2000 - Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu) 9.5/10 - #8 on the TOP 20 and a really fantastic film that gets my highest of recommendations.
6) Go, See and Become (2005 - Radu Mihaileanu) 4/10 - Too long and unappealing for me.
7) The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007 - Julian Schnabel) 8/10 - It's worth noting that it came down to this and "Gun Crazy" for the tenth spot in the "Ten Worth Mentioning", but, at that time, my leaned more toward the 1950 film-noir. Still though, this was really great and an easy recommendation from yours truly.
8) Adam's Rib (1949 - George Cukor) 6.5/10 - Too little, too late for this one, as it came when I was nearing the end of the last 100 and didn't deliver enough to make it into any noteworthy position. It was funny, clever and cute though, and had it come earlier and I'd had more time to reflect on it, it could've gone further.
9) Good Bye Lenin! (2003 - Wolfgang Becker) 8/10 - #19 on the most recent TOP 20.
10) Easy Rider (1969 - Dennis Hopper) 3.5/10
11) Casablanca (1942 - Michael Curtiz) 3/10 - Well, needless to say, the last 100 ended with a fizzle, rather than with a bang.

And that's all I watched in the month of July. I'll more than likely be back to the blog in the month of September and ready to kickoff the second half with the "Kubrick Week" festivities. I caught about forty-five minutes worth of "Rear Window" on one of the move channels the other night and it only got me more excited to delve back into the pages of the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die". Stay tuned...

August 8, 2012  11:22pm