A Man for All Seasons (1966) Review

11 04 2011

* I saw three films over the weekend, so as not to get backlogged, I am going to post two of my reviews today.  Also, I wanted to take a moment to address my review factors as I’m sure some of you might be wondering why I don’t have any one and two star reviews as of yet.  I try to avoid films that I think could or will be disasters.  With as many movies as I have seen and the many more that I want to see, I find that there is no reason to waste time on watching what I consider a bad film.  Of course, every so often, I do run into one and there will be a bad review for it.  However, for the most part, I try to avoid such films at all costs.

Copyright 1966 Columbia Pictures

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Anyway, let’s get on with the actual review for this film.  My girlfriend is going to kill me for what I rate this movie, as we had very differing opinions.  To be fair, however, I will say that this is definitely the type of movie that you have to be in the mood for to enjoy.  Not every day is a day for a strict drama set in the 1500s, just as not every day is right for a romantic comedy or intense thriller, etc.

A Man for All Seasons swept the 1966 Academy Awards.  In addition to its Best Picture win, it won awards for Best Director, Best Actor in a Leading Role for Paul Scofield, Best Cinematography (Color), Best Costume Design (Color) and Best Adapted Screenplay, among receiving nominations for Best Supporting Actor for Robert Shaw and Best Supporting Actress for Wendy Hiller.  The film was directed by Fred Zinnemann (High Noon, From Here to Eternity, Day of the Jackal, Sophie’s Choice) and was adapted from his stage play of the same name by Robert Bolt.

The story revolves around Sir Thomas More, played by Scofield, who stands up to King Henry VIII (Shaw) on moral grounds regarding the king’s decision to renounce the Royal Catholic Church.  Henry VIII was originally married to Catherine of Aragon; however, she was barren and unable to have children.  So, the King began an affair with Anne Boleyn.  Yet, at this time it was unlawful to get a divorce in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church.  Despite many efforts to lobby against the church, the king finally decides to renounce the church and start the Church of England, so as to be granted his divorce from Catherine of Aragon.  In doing so, he makes it parliamentary law to take an oath recognizing his decisions that he is head of the Church of England and that his marriage to Catherine was annulled.

More, a lawyer, is a man of devout judicial and religious beliefs.  In his heart he cannot accept that what the king has done to be right.  For this betrayal of state, he is locked away in prison and eventually beheaded.  This is a story of a man standing up for what he beliefs to be right, no matter the consequence.  The epic stature of the film with England during the 1500s as a backdrop, creates an interesting contrast to the deeply personal story of More.

Everything about this film works.  The story is excellent, the direction is perfect, the cinematography is beautiful and, first and foremost, the acting is exemplary.  Scofield, as More, is amazing.  Every scene he is in, he is able to command a presence; it is a very deserving win for Best Actor.  The supporting cast which includes Wendy Hiller, Orson Welles, Robert Shaw and a very young John Hurt, are also a joy to watch.

Like I said, this is a movie you have to be in the mood for.  If, however, you feel like an amazingly moving story of one man’s beliefs and convictions against the heads of state set against an epic, sprawling backdrop – then they don’t get much better than this.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Reviews

Source Code (2011) Review

11 04 2011

Copyright 2011 Summit Entertainment

★ ★ ★ ★

I went to the movie theatre over the weekend for the first time in a couple of months (outside of the 5th Quarter premiere a few weeks ago, but I didn’t pay for a ticket for that).  My girlfriend, Maddie, had mentioned wanting to go see this movie Source Code. Being that this time of year is usually when all the worst movies come out and that 2011 has been off to a riveting start (note sarcasm) with movie selection, I wasn’t too interested in spending money on the venture.  However, I looked into the reviews online and imdb.com, and it looked like this might be a good film to see.  In the end, I’m happy I went.

This is the second film from director Duncan Jones; his first was 2009’s Moon. The film starts with Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) waking up on a train.  He is disoriented and doesn’t seem to know where or who the woman (Michelle Monaghan) across from is.  He moves through a series of events and interactions on the train trying to figure out what is going on and why all this strange phenomena is happening to him.  After 8 minutes, the train explodes and he warps into a capsule.  In the capsule, he is being monitored and spoken to by a Captain Goodwin (Vera Farmiga).  Stevens learns that he is part of a top secret experiment involving “time reassignment,” in which he is working towards finding the culprit who planted the bomb on the train.  Without giving too much away, the film gets more and more complexing as it moves forward and takes advantage of its interesting play on “time travel” and parallel universes.

Gyllenhaal, Monaghan and Farmiga, all perform quite well and convincingly in their roles.  Jeffrey Wright also plays an intricate role as the head of the Source Code Program.  The story is a fine mixture of action in the train sequences and dialogue heavy character building in the capsule scenes between Stevens and Goodwin.

The science behind some of the events in the film definitely warrants suspension of disbelief.  This is, however, good science fiction through and through.  The pacing, direction and interesting story all come together to make a really entertaining movie and, in the end, what more can you ask for?  Not all films have to be amazing works of art to be truly good films; this film is definitely one of those.  Would I call it a masterpiece? No.  A work of art?  No.  A very entertaining, well made motion picture?  Yes.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Reviews

The Thing (1982) Review

5 04 2011

Copyright 1982 Universal Pictures

★ ★ ★ ★

John Carpenter is a master at low budget horror and science fiction films.  Before watching this, I had seen Dark Star, Assault on Precinct 13, Escape from New York, Escape from L.A. and, of course, Halloween. With most of these films, I have been surprised at the level of enjoyment I’ve experience watching them, being that I don’t necessarily consider myself a huge fan of the genres.

The Thing is a remake of Howard Hawk’s 1951 The Thing from Another World, which itself was based on a novella by John W. Campbell Jr. called Who Goes There? This version takes place at an American research station in Antartica, where the inhabitants are currently waiting out the harsh winter.  They are alerted when a sled dog comes running to their station from across the snow-filled, empty plains; the dog is being chased by two gunmen in a Norwegian helicopter.  They kill the Norwegians for firing at their base and take in this strange dog.  The dog, in classic sci-fi nature, turns out to be an incarnation of a strange extraterrestrial life-form.

It’s a classic science-fiction tale, you have a group of guys who are fighting a strange alien life form in hopes of saving the world.  However, this film is exceptionally well done for the genre.  The tension between the characters, who don’t know which of them is still human and which has been afflicted, keeps the suspense high during the entire film.  Furthermore, Rob Bottin’s special effects in this film are top notch.  This was before the era of CGI, so all the amazing effects are done using makeup, prosthetics and camera tricks.  Sure, there are a couple shots that look a little hokey, but all in all, the effects in this film really sell.

The all male cast is headed up by Carpenter favorite, Kurt Russell, who plays the usual rogue-like character that he seems to excel at.  There’s also a lot of familiar faces in the supporting cast who, you may not know by name, but definitely would know the face.  Supporting characters include Wilford Brimley, Donald Moffat, Keith David and Richard Dysart.  All the cast do a fine job.  These aren’t Oscar worthy performances by any means, but for the story, it’s a perfect group of actors for what was needed.

For those of you who like happy endings and upbeat stories, this is not a film for you.  If, however, you like a thrilling science-fiction film that presents the bleak realities of a possible apocalyptic disaster, then they don’t get much better than this.  This is the type of film Carpenter was born to make.  Upon it’s release in 1982, this film didn’t do very well at the box office and that’s a real shame, because I think it’s a fine example for this genre.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Reviews

Boyz N the Hood (1991) Review

31 03 2011

Copyright 1991 Columbia Pictures.

★ ★ ★ ★

I know I’m a little late on this one, but last night was the first time I have ever seen this film.  Honestly, it was a lot different then I had always imagined it to be; I thought it would be a glorification of gang life and filled with extreme violence.  However, much to my surprise and delight, this film actually takes an extremely strong stance against violence and hate in the streets.

Boyz N the Hood is the debut film of then 24-year-old writer/director John Singleton.  It follows the story of Tre Styles (Desi Arnez Hines II, young; Cuba Gooding Jr., older) and his life as a teenager growing up in south central Los Angeles.  Styles, whose father (Lawrence Fishbourne) is a strict, yet caring man that works towards instilling good ideals in his young son, encounters many conflicts resulting from the rough and violent neighborhood he grows up in.  Determined to get out of Los Angeles, he tries his best to not get caught up in gang violence and petty theft like his friend and neighbor, Doughboy (Ice Cube).  Likewise, Doughboy’s brother Ricky (Morris Chestnut), a star high school football player, is trying to get out of the hood without involvement in the criminal activity surrounding.  In the end, some of the characters make it out and some end up spending the rest of their lives in the hood or die there on the streets.

I was impressed with the film overall, it highly exceeded my expectations.  In honesty, my background is about as far from south central L.A. as you could possibly get, so I was a bit concerned whether I could relate to the story before watching.  It turned out to be a solid, relatable story on a thematic level to almost anyone though I think.  No matter where you come from, most people have dealt with adversity and decisions they have to make to provide a better life for themselves.  Of course, most people’s adversity and life decisions aren’t as dramatic or impending as the ones that Tre has to make.

Outside of launching a career for director John Singleton, this film also helped launch the careers of many of the young African-American cast members including Gooding Jr., Ice Cube and Chestnut.  The entire cast was top notch in this film and it’s hard to imagine anyone else playing these roles.  The direction and pacing throughout were very well handled, especially considering how young director Singleton was at the time of filming.  My only complaint is that the film bordered on being too preachy in several scenes.  In one scene in particular, Tre’s father, Furious, takes Tre and Ricky to Compton and gives a heavy handed lecture on gentrification.  It’s important information that Singleton was wanting to convey to the young audience, but it came across like an infomercial and didn’t really propel the story at all.  Outside of several instances like this, I felt the story overall was well balanced, entertaining and informative.

This landmark film in urban cinema basically created the blueprint for many films to come.  It was one of the most successful films commercially in 1991 making almost 10 times it’s budget at the box office.  In addition, it was critically well-regarded and garnered Academy Award nominations for Best Director and Best Original Screenplay for John Singleton.  The only thing that is a shame is that many young people have idolized the lifestyle of characters like Doughboy and tried to replicate that style in their own neighborhoods.  If you truly understand this film, you will know that this is the exact opposite response that Singleton wanted viewers to leave the theater with.  The final titles have the moral of the story spelled out for you – “Increase the Peace.”


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Reviews

Missing (1982) Review

29 03 2011

Copyright 1982 Universal Pictures

★ ★ ★ ★ 1/2

Missing is a 1982 film by Greek writer/director Costa-Gavras.  Like many Costa-Gavras films (Best Foreign Film Winner Z, State of Seige, Music Box), it blends strong political overtones with an interesting and exciting story.  In some films it is difficult for this blend to work without getting preachy or heavy handed, but in Missing, it works beautifully.

The film is based on the true life events surrounding the 1973 coup d’états by General Augusto Pinochet (though the film never actually mentions his name).  Charles Horman (John Shea) is a freelance American journalist temporarily residing in Chile with his wife, Beth, before the coup.  His work in Chile, outside of personal projects, was for a liberal leaning newspaper and, in addition, Horman kept extensive notes on the situation involving both Chilean and American involvement in political matters.  While on a short trip to Vina del Mar with a friend from America who is visiting, Terry (Melanie Mayron), Horman hears of the coup that is rising in Santiago.  He rushes to get back to his wife and, on the way home, notices the military brigades, strict curfew laws and dictatorial rule that is taking over the city.  Once home, Beth wants to leave the country immediately; however, all air transportation has been suspended.

In the days following, Beth and Charles get separated from each other.  When Beth comes back to her hoouse in Santiago, she finds it in shambles and can’t find Charles anywhere.  Charles father, Ed Horman (Jack Lemmon), come to Santiago to help find his son who, by the time he arrives, hasn’t been heard from in over two weeks.  The rest of the film deals with the search for Charles by both Ed and Beth.  Ed, a Christian Science conservative, seems to have never really had a deep relationship with his son over their opposing views.  Yet, in the search, it shows how deeply he loved his son and how he wants justice.  Whether they find Charles or not, I will leave open so that it won’t spoil the ending of the film.

The story and direction by Costa-Gavras is top notch.  His ability to make an entertaining film out of such politically infused material is amazing.  The pacing, the shot composition and overal mood for the film is perfect for this story.  Jack Lemmon, what can you say?  This is a man who no matter what role he takes, shines and brings something special to a performance.  I’ve seen many Jack Lemmon films and never once have I seen one where he didn’t amaze me with his abilities as an actor; this film is no different.  His restrained emotion and no-nonsense attitude towards the whole situation, but deep underlying hurt for the disappearance of his son, is so nuanced and perfect for this role that it is hard to see anyone else playing the part.  The rest of the cast works for their roles; however, Sissy Spacek felt a little out of place to me in this film (though she was nominated for a Best Actress Oscar for her role).  Other Academy Award nominations included Lemmon for Best Actor in a Leading Role, Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay for Costa-Gavras and Donald Stewart.  Stewart and Costa-Gavras would take home the award for their screenplay.

This is an eye opening film that draws you in on almost every level.  I had never heard about the coup in Chile, so for me, I was quite interested to continue research on the events that took place after watching the film.  As a filmmaker, what more can you ask?  A satisfied, entertained viewer that wants to continue to learn about the topics surrounding the true story you’ve depicted.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Reviews

A Soldier’s Story (1984) Review

28 03 2011

Copyright 1984 Columbia Pictures

★ ★ ★ ★

A Soldier’s Story is a 1984 film directed by Norman Jewison.  It is based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning Off-Broadway play A Soldier’s Play by Charles Fuller.

The film centers around the murder investigation concerning an African-American sergeant on a military barracks in Louisiana near the end of World War II.  The victim, Sergeant Waters, is played by Adolph Caesar in an Academy Award nominated role.  He is a found on the side of the road with two .45 caliber bullets in his chest and there is a lot of turmoil over the case due to concern over a race war if it’s found that a white officer had murdered Waters.  To investigate, the army sends a Captain Davenport (Howard E. Rollins) from Washington, D.C.  Davenport, who is a trained lawyer and the first black officer many people at the barracks have ever encountered, presses through racism, deceit and conflicting stories to try to get to the bottom of what happened to Waters.  It is found through multiple interviews that Waters was not that good of a person in general and one who seemed to have many issues concerning his feelings towards both white and black people.  The story unfolds to find a much deeper than originally expected motive in the case concerning Waters’s murder.

Jewison, as a director, is well suited for a script of this nature.  Prior to this film, he had directed films such as In the Heat of the Night and …And Justice for All, both of which make strong statements towards equality and justice.  His handling of delicate issues is always done with a certain air of dignity which really works well for this type of film.  The script is obviously based on a stage play, as the structure is very much limited to certain locations and the majority of the narrative is based around the series of interviews that Davenport conducts.  However, though the structure of the story is confined somewhat to its stage beginnings, the execution of the film helps show more than tell some of the interview sequences and keep the viewer interested in what is happening.

The majority of the film’s actors are African-American and all of them do wonderful jobs in their respective roles.  Early appearances of celebrities such as Denzel Washington and David Alan Grier are made throughout the film.  Caesar, who plays Waters, as earlier mentioned was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for this film for which I guess I found deserving.  There was nothing spectacular to me about his performance aside from a few select scenes, but all in all it was a solid portrayal of the character.  In my opinion, however, if anyone from the film deserved a nomination, it would be Denzel Washington as Private First Class Peterson.  I felt like every second of his time on screen was entrancing and it’s no wonder from this early role that he developed into such a wonderful, well-respected actor.

I would definitely recommend this film to anyone.  It’s one of those films from the 1980s that seems to kind of evaporated a bit over time as far as public knowledge, but who’s story and performances make it a definite must see for anyone who enjoys films with justice and equality as a strong thematic motivator.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Reviews

The Tourist (2010) Review

27 03 2011

Copyright Sony Pictures Entertainment 2010

★ ★ ★

The Tourist is the sophomore effort of German director Florian Henckel von Donnersmark.  His debut film, Das Leben der Anderen (The Lives of Others), in 2006 was one of the best films of that year and won countless awards including the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film.  Needless to say, I think anyone anticipating this movie had high hopes.  It was a chance for this brilliant director to work with two of the world’s foremost leading actors and with a budget 50 times that of his debut film.  Unfortunately, it seems that something was lost in translation.

The film focuses on the girlfriend  (Angelina Jolie) of a man named Alexander Pierce, whom has stolen several billion dollars from an English gangster (Steven Berkoff).  Law enforcement organizations from all over the world are trying to locate him for back taxes in the neighborhood of $800 million, primarily the British government.  So, in hopes he will make contact with Jolie’s character, they keep a very close watch on her at all times.  As a diversion, she pawns the Interpol official into thinking unsuspecting American math teacher Frank Tupelo (Johnny Depp) is Pierce (as Pierce has supposedly had a multi-million dollar facial reconstruction recently).  Without giving too much away, the plot goes back and forth in much the manner of a Cary Grant vehicle such as Charade. While trying to keep action and suspense high, there are the ever-present moments of comedic effort and surprise.

The problem is, however, that Depp’s character doesn’t sell the same charisma that Grant was able to pull off and, in turn, Jolie doesn’t have the same cool style that Audrey Hepburn exuded in similar roles.  I really appreciate the ode to those wonderful films of the 1950s and 1960s and The Tourist has some really interesting parts to it, but the execution just doesn’t work.

I know this sounds like a pretty bad review, but I wouldn’t say that the film is not worth watching.  It’s not a terrible film by any means, it’s just with the talent involved, the script and the budget accompanying, I feel like a much better product should have come out in the end.  Every major director has their hits and misses, so I don’t want to lambast Donnersmark much for making a film that didn’t live up to my expectations.  I hope his next effort is closer to the glory of Das Leben Der Anderen, but in reality, I think any director would be happy to have just one film of that caliber to their name in an entire career and Donnersmark, at 37, can’t complain with his current track record.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Reviews

Timecrimes (2007) Review

24 03 2011

Copyright 2007 Magnolia Pictures

★ ★ ★ ★

I will be the first to admit that I am a sucker for movies that deal with time travel.  Ever since I was a child the concept has interested me and I am always immediately drawn to watch any movie, read any book or play any video game that revolves around the idea.  When I was cued in to this movie from a co-worker, I immediately put it on my instant queue on Netflix and am very glad I did.

The film is the debut feature from Spanish director Nacho Vigalondo, who had previously received an Oscar nomination for his short musical film 7:35 a.m. (which is conveniently located in the Special Features section of this film in its entirety).  The story focuses on the character of Hector who has just bought a new home in the Spanish countryside with his wife Clara.  When Clara goes to get groceries from the local store, Hector is left sitting in the back yard with his binoculars looking over the lush, mountainous landscape.  Something he spots through his binoculars leads him to further investigation which, in turn, spawns a series of events that lead him to a research facility containing a time machine.  Without giving too much away, the film contains many intricacies dealing with the problems of time travel, primarily the causation paradox.

Being a primarily plot-based film, character building is minimal.  However, for the type of film that it is, I didn’t feel like it detracted much from my viewing experience.  Films that deal with dreams, time travel or other complex happenings have to spend a certain amount of running time explaining the theory behind the plot motivation and, to me, this almost becomes a character in itself.  And, let’s face it, when we go to see or rent a film that deals with one of these complex topics, we are specifically watching for the mind bending phenomena of the plot, so it’s hard pressed for me to get too excited about two dimensional characters.

Timecrimes is a low budget feature.  There is nothing really flashy about the photography, set design or locations.  It’s a breath of fresh air in this era of filmmaking to see something that is organic like this though.  Everything you need for the story to be conveyed is in place and works smoothly without extra millions being thrown into digital effects.  Granted, I strongly oppose most digital effects in movies unless it is absolutely pertinent to the telling of the story.  I feel too many films over the past 10 years have worried more about their effects value then about how well the story structure evolves.

In conclusion, if you get a chance to catch this one, I would definitely recommend it.  If you are a time travel junkie like myself, then it is a must see and you need to sign on to Netflix or go by the local video store and get it right now.  Vigalondo’s sophomore effort will be coming out soon entitled Extraterrestre. I hope this budding director continues to make films as good as this one, because if so, then he’ll definitely be someone to keep an eye on over the next few years.


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Reviews

Reversal of Fortune (1990) Review

21 03 2011

Copyright Warner Brothers

★ ★ ★

Reversal of Fortune, directed by Barbet Schroeder, is based on the true life events of wealthy socialites Martha “Sunny” and Claus von Bülow.  Sunny (portrayed by Glenn Close), who was the heiress to utilities magnate George Crawford’s and her mother’s family International Shoe Company fortunes, slipped into a coma in December of 1979.  Suspicious circumstances on behalf of her husband Claus (Jeremy Irons) were aroused, but she was eventually to come out of the coma a short time following.  Nearly a year later, she was found on the bathroom floor of her stately Newport, R.I. estate, again comatose with a deathly low body temperature and pulse rate.  She would never awaken from this second coma and suspicious activity again on behalf of Claus eventually led to his conviction of attempted murder by result of insulin injection in 1982.

Claus would subsequently hire famed Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz (who wrote the book the film is based on) to represent him in his appeal.  The appeal would be granted and during a second trial Claus was acquitted on all charges.  Sunny went on to stay in a persistent vegetative state until her death 28 years later at the age of 77 in 2008; Claus is still alive and well living in London as a staple of the wealthy social scene.  Due to Sunny’s massive wealth in comparison to his own and the multitude of suspicious circumstances in relation to the case, many still wonder whether or not justice was served (or averted).  Jim Cramer, of Mad Money fame, was one of the law students who helped Dershowitz during the appeal and has been on record saying several times that Claus was “supremely guilty”; either way, the only two entities that can really know the truth are Claus himself and Clarendon Court, the massive Newport estate in which the circumstances occurred.

To me, this film was an instance where the source material itself is much more enticing than the film presented it.  I think the case is extremely interesting and was very excited to look deeper into the circumstances surrounding the trials after watching the film; however, the film itself lost steam about midway through and meandered enough for me to drop it down in rating.  Both Glenn Close and Jeremy Irons did tremendous jobs in their respective roles which, for Irons, resulted in an Academy Award for Best Actor.  Ron Silver portrayed Alan Dershowitz with a certain level or vigor, but the performance sometimes went over the top and became a little melodramatic for my taste.

I thought Schroeder’s direction was handled well, though there was nothing stand out about any of the shot selections; all in all, it was fairly textbook direction for this type of film.  The one unique form to the story telling schema in my opinion was having a voice over narration from Sunny in the coma describing certain parts of the story in the beginning.  I thought this was an interesting and novel way to get the opinion of a character that otherwise had been silenced eternally.  There were also many different interpretations of events based on different character’s alibis and opinions throughout the film that at first was a nice touch, though these became a little drawn out after we saw the same events happen about 15 times.

In conclusion, I enjoyed the film decently and don’t regret watching it, but felt that the material they had to work with could have been presented in a more entertaining manner.  In relation to the actual events, it reminded me of why I decided to drop out of law school after one semester: I don’t want to be a part of any system where the truth can be altered to fit one side over the other on a technicality or fancy presentation.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Reviews

The Friends of Eddie Coyle (1973) Review

17 03 2011

Copyright Paramount Pictures

★ ★ ★ ★ 1/2

The Friends of Eddie Coyle revolves around the low-life underworld of Boston, Mass.  The protagonist, Eddie Coyle (Robert Mitchum), is a greying gun runner and small-time crook who is currently awaiting an indictment in New Hampshire that might put him away again for several years; time he doesn’t feel he can afford to let go at his age.  In an effort to help save face for his indictment, Eddie strikes up a relationship with a member of the Treasury Department, Dave Foley (Richard Jordan).  Eddie then has to decide whether to rat on accomplices and business partners to save his own or play it cool with Foley, all the while keeping money coming in for himself and his family the only ways he knows how.

The film is a perfect example of the nitty, gritty crime dramas that were becoming popular in the early 1970s.  The atmosphere, cinematography and locations exude a seediness that really makes the perfect setting for the tone of the story.  Directed by Peter Yates, of Bullitt and Breaking Away fame, the pacing and shot selections are impecable.  There are multiple moments in the film that keep you on the edge of your seat and evoke an overwhelming sense of tension.  The cinematography by Victor J. Kemper is equally fitting for the film.  Most shots are dominated by natural lighting as opposed to a stylized approach, and the graininess of the stock mixed with the unmistakable Technicolor  palette make it feel almost documentaryesque (without the “shaky cam”, thank goodness).

The cast all around is excellent, but I think special note should be made about Robert Mitchum’s performance as Eddie.  Mitchum, whom I consider one of the most underrated actors in Hollywood history, has a subtlety to his approach in playing this old time crook that makes his performance extremely natural and believable.  The character of Eddie is a storyteller and there are several drawn out stories he tells throughout the film.  Most of these stories stays on a static shot of Mitchum and the commanding presence during them is amazing.  If you are unfamiliar with Mitchum, make sure to watch this film, Cape Fear, The Yakuza and Night of the Hunter at the very least to experience some of the amazing performances by this grossly underrated actor.

Though the story seems pretty straight forward in a synopsis review, there are multiple mini-plots that are going on throughout the film.  Unlike some films, all of these mini-plots are intertwined and drive the story forward.  For some reviewers, the ending becomes problematic and detracts from their enjoyment of the film and I can understand to a degree and appreciate their opinions.  I don’t want to ruin it, but it’s not your standard Hollywood ending by any means.  You have to keep in mind the tone of the story; for me, the ending fits the type of story that is being told.  This is not the feel good movie of the year, but if you are looking for a deeply introspective look into the seedier circles of urban areas and a wonderful character study, then this is a film you need to see.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Reviews

« Previous Entries Next Entries »