Forrest Gump (1994)

Forrest Gump (1994) ★★★★★ 5/5

Forrest Gump was, and still is for that matter, unlike any movie that has ever been released. Tom Hanks brought Forrest Gump to life and we followed his story from boyhood to manhood. But this movie is more then the story of a man's life. This is an American story. It encompasses the most memorable aspects of the later half of the 20th century. Cleverly, the film breathes life into history. Gump teaches Elvis to dance, inspires Lennon to write "Imagine," breaks Watergate open, becomes a hero in the Vietnam War and an inspiration to the nation.

What I really like about this film is how is says so much, but at the same time leaves the viewer to think. There certainly is a lot to think about with this movie and it is up to the viewer to connect with the film. First of all, there is the feather that drifts in at the beginning of the movie and flies out at the end. There have been several theories as to what the feather represents. I feel that the feather represents man's individual journey. It floats around alone, much like man in his journey. The feather might land in a situation where there is greatness, or it may fall somewhere undesirable. In the case of Forrest Gump it falls in the hands of someone who takes care of it and cherishes it. It is much like the life that Gump lives. He floats about aimlessly on his own. During his journey he falls into the hand of both those who treat him with car, and those who do not. Likewise, Jenny (Robin Wright) floats about aimlessly and wild. Even more like at a feather at the hands of fate. While Gump floats through life hitting moments of greatness, Jenny floats through life on a complete polar opposite. Gump affects and is involved in mainstream America, but Jenny is consumed in counter cultures and the underground of America. From sexual abuse, to drugs, life threatening disease and single parenthood, her storyline gives a completely opposite version of American life in the 20th century. It makes the movie even more amazing in the amount of topics it covers.

Through the film there are several other key characters. Bubba (Mykelti Williamson) takes Gump on as a friend when he is headed to Vietnam. Bubba also guides Gump in the direction to become a multi-millionaire after the war by entering the shrimping industry. Lt. Dan Taylor (Gary Sinise) is Gumps commander in the war, whose life Gump saves and brings another aspect of American history to the film when he comes back from the war and is essentially thrown away for what he has done. Gump saves his life once again as the film progresses and he offers Lt. Dan a position in the shipping industry. Of course no character is more touching then that of Forrest's Mother (Sally Field). Field is amazing in this role and it suits her so perfectly. She is an absolute delight in every appearance she makes on the screen. And although briefly in the film, Haley Joel Osment appears as Forrest Gump Jr.

This is one of those films that is expected to be on the list of films to see, and if it wasn't, it would be a disgrace. I can remember seeing this film in the theater. It was one of those films that was so epic and touching. The sight of the historical footage mended into the film made it amazing, and I can still remember walking out of the theater, my head in a daze for hours trying to completely grasp everything I saw. Powerful, beautiful and perfect in every way.

8 1/2 (1963)

8 1/2 (1963) ★★★★★ 5/5

Federico Fellini directs and co-writes this incredible film which seems to be quite autobiographical. The film centers around Guido Anselmi (Marcello Mastroianni) and his struggle to overcome a creative block in his film making. After awaking from a dream, he is treated by doctors who recommend he go to the springs to drink Holy water and relax in the steam baths. Guido takes the advice and brings his writer along with him. While he is there, he meets up with his friend Mario Mezzabotta (Mario Pisu) and his mistress Gloria Morin (Barbara Steele).

Barbara Steele, although a minor character in this film, is exquisite. Every moment on screen, she is glamorous and exciting. The movie is worth seeing for her performance alone!

Guido soon meets up with his mistress Carla (Sandra Milo). When he returns to his hotel, he finds his entire production crew is there, as well as actors and actresses hired for the film he is writing. Little do they all know, Guido has not written anything. He is conflicted as to what to write and what he should convey. He is pulled in every direction by the cast and crew who all want to know their role in the movie.

Guido calls for his wife Louisa (Anouk Aimée) and she meets up with him. At first she is happy to be there, but soon becomes distant when she learns of his mistress.

Guido dreams and fantasizes about all the women he has loved and how it would be if he were able to live with them all.To have the joys each has brought him through his life consistently. He is haunted by childhood images. Religion questions his direction. A giant spaceship built for his unwritten film pressures his team financially.

All at once everything comes together right after the press has hounded Guido on everything from his writing technique to his political views and his love life. After that incident, Guido makes the film he wants. He creates and brings together images that mean something to him.

The film is artsy and complex, yet understated at the same time. It is dubbed with subtitles which makes it that much more artistic in feeling. The imagery is beautiful and quite ahead of it's time. The black and white production make the imagery even bolder. There is so much going on in this film that it never really dulls at all. The dreams piece together the reality, and the reality is somewhat unreal. A beautiful film and quite a pleasing one to watch.

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

Full Metal Jacket (1987) ★★★★★ 5/5


This is the first time watching this movie for me and upon reading over the case to the movie I found myself immediately resistant to it. Not because of the content involving the Vietnam War, but because of one of the actors starring in the film. Vincent D'Onofrio, best known for his role as Detective Goren on Law & Order: Criminal Intent. In my opinion he is one of the worst actors to ever appear on television. I cringe with every line he delivers and he annoys me so greatly that I can not even watch 5 minutes of the show. Seeing him as a main actor in this film immediately made it a challenge for me to even put in the DVD player.

I love the opening of the film. The Marine recruits are getting their heads shaved as Johnnie Wright's "Hello Vietnam" plays in the background. I love it when a film opens with a song that is reflective of the time being addressed. I think this type of opening establishes the time, setting and mood of a film better then any other introduction. Immediately, we are thrown into the training of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman's (R. Lee Ermey) recruits. Private Leonard Lawrence (D'Onofrio) is immediately singles out by Hartman and given the nickname Gomer Pyle. He is driven harder and treated more cruelly then any of the other recruits. Private James T. "Joker" Davis (Matthew Modine) is assigned to mentor and train Lawrence. Lawrence seems to improve in his military skills, however he gets caught with a jelly doughnut in his footlocker. Enraged by this, Hartman decides to punish every member of his platoon whenever Lawrence makes a mistake. As retaliation, the platoon beats Lawrence with bars of soaps wrapped in their pillow cases one night. Lawrence noticeably changes. He becomes isolated. He doesn't recite chants. He talks to his gun like it's a friend. Davis becomes worried. Before you know it, Lawrence snaps. In a suicide murder, D'Onofrio delivers an amazing performance.

In his short time on scree, D'Onofrio manages to completely defy everything I had once thought of him. His character goes through such amazing transformation. From a giddy, insecure private who clearly doesn't belong and raises empathy from the viewer to a growling, menacing murder. The performance is movie gold. Sadly, it does not make me like anything about his performance on Law & Order: Criminal Intent, but now I may at least be able to acknowledge that his acting is not reflective of his abilities, more more so of a poorly written character.

Following the death of Lawrence, we are taken directly into Vietnam where Joker is now a Corporal. He has become a journalist of sorts and travels through the country gathering stories. Private Rafterman (Kevyn Major Howard) is assigned to assist Joker and travels with him as a photographer. The two come across the realities of the war. Joker takes interest in the slaughter of civilians. Footage of war is shot. Commentaries by the soldiers are recorded. Journalism soon turns into combat and the platoon finds themselves ambushed by a single sniper who begins to take the men out one by one. After nearly killing Joker, the sniper is shot, but not killed. The surviving members of the platoon gather round and Joker kills her to put an end to her suffering. At that moment, he no longer has any insecurity about his existence as a Marine. The film ends with the army marching onward singing the theme song to "The Micky Mouse Club."

Initially I had not seen this movie because it was a war movie. I have nothing against the visuals or war movies. I had always had the preconceived notion that there was little difference from one war movie to the other. Two sides fight, they cope with their loses and celebrate their wins. How much different could they be from one film to the other with the exception of the year it took place and the color of the uniform. This movie is much more then that. While it takes place during a war, it goes beyond the war. The film portrays the mindset of American soldiers in one of the most controversial wars in American history. The views of the soldiers further prove that the men serving there didn't have any idea what they were fighting for other then to win. It also serves as a character analysis of Joker. He conveys the dual nature of man through his dress and his actions. He wears a peace button while his helmet reads "Born to Kill." He is there to fight, yet is clearly disgusted by death. In the scene, when Joker kills the sniper, he stares at her as "Born to Kill" prominently fills the screen. It is a deep message. Is that the moment for which he was born? Was that the kill he was born for?

Oh, let's not forget that this film also gave us these classic lines:
"What is your major malfunction?"
"Me so horny. Me love you long time."

Adam's Rib (1949)

Adam's Rib (1949) ★★★★★ 4/5

Amanda Bonner (Katharine Hepburn) and Adam Bonner (Spencer Tracy) are a husband and wife team who find themselves on opposing sides in a trial where a woman (Judy Holliday) has shot her adulterer husband (Tom Ewell). Amanda takes interest in the case when she reads about it in the paper and feels that the woman is being treated as a criminal while if it had been a man in her position the woman would still have been viewed as the criminal. Adam is a prosecutor and the case lands on his desk. It is his job to prove her guilty.

The movie starts off fast paced and fun. The two are seen at home, happy and in love. They have an ideal marriage and are quite happy in their lives. Their playful banter transcends time and is very easy to relate to even 70 years after the film's release. Even the themes of the movie hold relevant 70 years later. Equality between men and women has not changed all that much when it comes down to how each sex is perceived. While there have been changes in women's roles in voting, politics, work and so on, double standards still exist.

When watching the film however, some differences between 1949 and 2012 are nearly forgotten. Hepburn is well known for her feminist position in life. She was an avid sportsman (or sportswoman) and this is touched on in the film. She advocated woman's rights and demonstrated that women could do anything. In this case, she demonstrated that women could also hold prominent positions in the working world. During one scene in the courtroom, she brings other women on the stand to further prove the prominence of women. One was a renowned scientist, another a circus performer with the strength of a man, and a third with multiple degrees. This aspect of the film defies the notion that women of the 40's were confined to homemaking.

The tension of the case and the difference of opinions regarding the case begins to affect the couple and they almost end up losing each other. It doesn't help that their neighbor, Kip Lurie, (David Wayne) is in love with Amanda and writes a song that ends up being a huge hit on radio. Kip is most unlikable and obnoxious.

Hepburn and Tracy are delightful in this film, but Holliday is magnificent. She plays the blonde bombshell beautifully. One of the highlights for me in the film was when Amanda first met with her. Her naive attitude and retelling of how she shot her husband was flawless and far more gripping or smoothly portrayed then anything you would see on a current episode of CSI or Law & Order.

This film is worth seeing and is a fine look at the social dynamics of men and women in 1949. The story is well done and enjoyable.

Gangs of New York (2002)

Gangs of New York (2002) ★★★★★ 4/5

New York, 1846. The city is wrought with tension. Much of the tension stems from the immigration of Irish into the city. There are the Irish and the American born and they come together to fight for power. "Priest" Vallon (Liam Neeson) leads the Irish. Bill "the Butcher" Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis) leads the natives. The battle ends with Cutting taking the life of Vallon. As Vallon dies in the street, his son clinging to him.

16 years later we catch up with Vallon's son Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio). It is now 1862 and the city is in no better shape then it was when Amsterdam was a child. The Civil War has the city divided politically. Geographically the city is divided by nationalities. The disdain between the groups is so strong that it even resonates in the municipal workers. The firemen are corrupt, the police are corrupt, and the city is lawless.

Amsterdam befriends Johnny Sirocco (Henry Thomas) and finds himself in the midst of Cutting's underworld where he quietly awaits to avenge his father's death. Cutting does not know who Amsterdam is and quickly takes him under his wing.

Amsterdam also comes across Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz). To call her a pick pocket is to say the least. She is a professional thief. Sly and cunning. Her performance is delightful and in my opinion she steals the film. How she was not nominated for an Academy Award is beyond me. To see her step away from romantic comedy and take the risk of appearing in serious drama was quite surprising. While I did not expect anything spectacular from her, I found myself captivated by her performance every moment she was on screen. Diaz wasn't the only treat in the film either. Henry Thomas, best known as Elliot in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, put on a worthy performance as Sirocco. Of course it goes without saying that Day-Lewis and DiCaprio deliver.

The film intensifies as Sirocco becomes jealous of Amsterdam's ability to win the affection of Jennie. Sirocco betrays Amsterdam and informs Cutting that he is in fact Amsterdam's target. He also reveals Amsterdam is the son of "Priest" Vallon. Shortly after this revelation, Cutting and Amsterdam have a showdown of sorts. Amsterdam is quickly taken down and mutated by Cutting. Cutting labels him worthy of being in P.T. Barnum's circus as the only man allowed to live by hand of "The Butcher." After the mutilation, Jennie takes him to the underground caverns and cleans him. Once well and better, he begins to plot revenge. Before long Cutting and Amsterdam are striking at each other by murdering those who were close to the enemy.

In addition to the acting, the sets and costumes are meticulous. Every detail is attended to from the stitching of a dress to the wall paper in the brothel. The task of recreating New York in 1862 was not taken lightly. It is a fine look at American life in New York during the Civil War. Not often do we get to see the impact of that event in films unless it is on the battlefield or if it is examining a family directly affected by the war. Here, the war is not central to any main character in particular, however it's political implications do have an immediate effect on society and how these gangs are further divided based on their beliefs. It also is reflective that the civil unrest is not limited to just the country, but tears the city of New York apart. I love the historical aspect to the film and how it is depicting life in America at that time and expanding on the beliefs of the public. Also intriguing is the actual look into New York at that time. The heathen lifestyles, the disregard for those who are different, the entertainment of the time and the interaction of the groups.

The true highlight of the film is the final scene. The riot is brilliantly depicted and we watch New York crumble as the news wires are delivered. We see looting, murdering, lynching and finally Union troops slaughtering the mob. Cutting and Amsterdam end up face to face in a silent moment, and Amsterdam is finally able to find the closure he has sought for 16 years.

The film closes looking over New York ablaze. There seems to be a hopelessness and that perhaps the city might not recover. However it does. We see the skyline transform bit by bit until we end looking upon the Twin Towers with U2 singing about the hands that built America. Interestingly enough, this film was released the year following the fall of the towers. This leads to thinking about not only those who sacrificed their lives in opposition of the Draft Riots, but those who were taken in modern times by the hands of terrorists. It serves as a reminder that even in the bleakest times there is still hope. It also tells us that the legacies of those who sacrificed will be remembered.

Chariots Of Fire (1981)

Chariots Of Fire (1981) ★★★★★ 1/5

There seems to be, at least for me, a period in film that seems familiar, yet completely distant at the same time. Chariots Of Fire is one of those films for me as are so many from the early 1980's. I was at the time 8 years old. I do recall watching the Academy Awards and being completely confused at the unknown movies nominated for awards and could not possibly understand how a film like Chariots Of Fire could win over Raiders of the Lost Ark. It made no sense. Who would even watch a movie like Chariots Of Fire? The 80's would continue to confuse me with the winning pictures. Movie that were slow and boring. They were all about dead people! Amadeus, Gandhi and The Last Emperor were some of the winners. Of course I was too young to understand and sit through these types of movies at the time. Somehow, as I grew older I never went back to them. So for me, this book is a great opportunity to see what I missed. Chariots Of Fire is the first of the serious 1980's movies that I am getting acquainted with.

Sadly, after watching this picture, I still do not think it should have won Best Picture. However I no longer think it should have gone to Raiders of the Lost Ark either. I think of the nominees that year, the most triumphant and deserving film from that group was On Golden Pond. I found Chariots Of Fire to be excruciatingly slow and tiresome. It hardly enthralled me or captivated me. The score was absolutely horrid, yet somehow that too won the Academy Award for it's category. I think this is probably because "Chariots of Fire: Titles" probably wasn't eligible for Best Song as it has no words. While I loathed the creepy synthesizer based score, I do like the iconic single and find that it was properly placed in the film - and properly parodied to this present day. On top of the score, which I feel would have fit better in a horror movie, was the odd editing style used. I found the edits and transitions used in racing sequences to be odd. They didn't feel right and I was not in tune at all with whatever the director was trying to relay.

The whole story of this movie revolved around two runners with a goal of making it to the 1924 Olympics. Eric Liddel (Ian Charleson) is a devout Christian and Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross) is of strict Jewish faith. Their racing techniques and goals revolved strictly around their religious beliefs. They run for God. Liddel runs to honor God and turns it into a huge deal when he finds out one of the races is on Sunday. Because of this, he won't race and has to switch which race he will run. Abrahams runs because he is "Jewish." Both win their races for the glory of God and the honor of their country.

Not impressed at all with this movie. There were some things I can give praise to. The costumes were great. Very well done. That was an Oscar the film was deserving off. With the costumes, they captured the spirit of 1924 and reflected the different styles from the different nations participating in the Olympics. I also like seeing Ian Holm as Abrahams' trainer. This was his only Oscar nomination in his career as of 2012. A long illustrious career at that!

But, my favorite part of the film was when Liddel met with The Prince of Wales (David Yelland). The reason I like this scene is because after seeing The King's Speech (2010) I had become quite enthralled with the history of the Royal Family during that period of time. The Prince of Wales would later become King Edward VIII, and leave the throne to marry Wallis Simpson. It is interesting, for me at least, seeing different historical aspects brought to life across various films. This also helps piece together history and create strong timelines. It will be interesting to see the movie W.E. (2011) and find where this falls into the historical timeline. This is part of why I feel films portraying historical events should stay true to being factual. It makes the viewing experience of not just that movie, but other movies dealing with the same characters or issues so much easier.

Other then the scene involving The Prince of Wales and the costume design, this film did nothing to spark my interest. even the scenes with the competition were not compelling to me. I feel that the characters were not very identifiable and I could not connect with them. For the first half of the movie I had a hard time keeping the characters straight. It was not easy to follow who some of the people were, or who was who. In many scenes the cast members looked very similar.

I understand this movie has topped favorite lists and is ranked with high praise. I am completely missing that and am not sure why I can not find why this movie is held in such high regard.

Braveheart (1995)

Braveheart (1995) ★★★★★ 4/5

Huge issues here. Issues so big they completely take away from the movie. The issues I have with Braveheart are the same issues I had with Gunfight At The OK Corral.

Braveheart is a film about a historical figure. The figure being held tribute to is William Wallace. Wallace, played by - as well as directed by - Mel Gibson, was a Scottish rebel who launched campaigns to overtake England's King Edward (Patrick McGoohan) and his reign of Scotland by England. The film is set in the 1300s and does a wonderful job of portraying a feudal society where Nobles lease land to peasants and farmers in exchange for their protection. The system has major societal issues and are examined in the film. Among these issues are the abuse of power. Sadly, the film made up laws enforced that never really existed. The law in question here is one that gave nobles the right to sleep with a bride on the night of her wedding. Not true. Didn't happen.

Not only is this not true, but the vast majority of the film is a bevy of fabrications. Edward II's (Peter Hanly) wife Isabella (Sophie Marceau) has several meetings and an affair with Wallace. The truth is Isabella never met Wallace, let alone slept with him. The revolution against England didn't start because a noble executed Wallace's secret wife (Catherine McCormack). But above all the falsifications the worst is the actual name of the movie, referring to Wallace as Braveheart. In fact, the nickname of Braveheart was given to Robert the Bruce (Ian Bannen). It's all very bizarre.

The movie is well done and it is very enthralling and gripping - until of course you look into the truth of the film further. According to Mel Gibson storylines were changed to make the film more compelling. I find this highly offensive as a movie goer. If I am watching a movie about a historical event, I demand accuracy. If someone is going to blotch the script up so much that it has no relevance to accuracy, then reevaluate the entire film. Why not make up a new set to the story. Make up new characters. I absolutely despise and loathe films that alter historical facts.

Had it not been for this, I would have easily gone 5 stars on the movie. This knocks it down to 4 - almost 3. The cinematography is breathtaking. The editing has some flaws if you are watching the film closely. The only reason I mention this is because the the film was nominated for an Academy Award for editing. It did not win and those minor flaws, probably unnoticeable by the untrained eye, probably cost it that award. But it did win a slew of others including Best Picture.

Yes, it is a compelling and emotionally charged movie. It captivates you and enthralls you. But if you really want to enjoy this movie, don't ever bother to ind out what really happened in the life of King Edward, King Edward II and William Wallace. The truth is a much better story and knowing this will make the movie disappointing.

Network (1976)

Network (1976) ★★★★★ 5/5

In this film there are four major television networks; NBC, ABC, CBS and UBS. Clearly this is before the days of cable, television and satellites. When the film opens, the viewer is "overloaded" with information from the networks. The screen is filled with four television sets to represent each of the networks broadcasts.

UBS' top news anchor is Howard Beale (Peter Finch) and is baout to be fired by his boss, Max Schumacher (William Holden) as a result of failing ratings. Beale is given a two weeks notice and on his next broadcast he reveals to the public his plan to committ suicide on air at the end of the two weeks. He is immediately fired. However when ratings skyrocket the next night because all the other news netwroks are covering the story, Max gets him back on air so he can apologize and bid the public farewell in an appropriate manner. Beale comes back on air and rants and raves about everything being "bullshit." Again, ratings go up. His third night on air during his final two weeks is the big "I'm mad as hell speech." Perhaps one of the most famous fits in the history of film. Beale defies everything about 1970's network news and rants and raves.

Diana Christensen (Faye Dunaway) sees nothing but dollar signs and ratings in this fit and talks her boss, Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall) into giving Beale his own show. His show essentially becomes what would today be nothing more then a Fox News or CNN ranter. Perhaps a Glen Beck or Nancy Grace so to speak. The whole point of the show is for Beale to speak his mind, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. His viewpoints however, completely ungrounded and not thought out, interferre with the business of international loans, debts, and money exchanges. Over time, his rants cause problems with the network financially in more ways then one. Ratings fall and Christensen can't have that. Ultimately, the only way to bring ratings back up and to get rid of Beale is to kill him...on air. This is done with members of a political opposition group who is about to be given their own show. This stint would be the perfect tie in to that show and a great way to get the largest share of viewers.

The movie is well written and extremely ahead of it's time. When you watch it, you have to remember the concepts were somewhat foreign at the time. People didn't speak their mind on the news. Perhaps this was an introduction to real networks using personal viewpoints as the basis to their shows. Was UBS an inspiration to FOX becoming the 4th network with shocking, controversial material to get viewers. Watching this movie today is probably more interesting now because you can see the impact it had on the industry. In 1976, the ideas in the film were probably quite comical and extreme. There are several references to the current culture of the 70's - particularily other shows on air and the Patty Hearst headline. Which was followed by their version of the story with the heiress being named Mary Ann Gifford (Kathy Cronkite).

The only part of the movie I didn't like was when Max left his wife (Beatrice Straight) to start a love affair with Christensen. It was a relationship you knew wouldn't last or work. It slowed the movie down. I think maybe it was just to show Christensen as being cold and heartless and to exemplify how all she cared about was ratings. It seemed like pointless filler, but it did provide Beatrice Straight 5 minutes and 40 seconds to be in the film as Max's wife.

Academy Awards wise, this film has some interesting records. This is the only film that won 3/4 awards for the acting category: Peter Finch as Best Actor, Faye Dunaway as Best Actress and Beatrice Straight as Best Supporting Actress. Straight had the shortest amount screentime for an Oscar performance. Finch was the first to win the award posthumously.

The Nutty Professor (1963)

The Nutty Professor (1963) ★★★★★ 4/5

In watching this I was not anticipating much as I had seen Eddie Murphy's 1996 version of The Nutty Professor. I am not a fan of screwball comedies. Especially those of modern film where the humor is forced, exaggerated and primarily based on insults and crass humor. As I viewer, I require more substantial plots, humor and comedy. Jerry Lewis created a comical masterpiece with this film. I was disappointed when I read that Lewis produced the 1996 version and the 2000 sequel to that. That disappoint turned to relief when I further read that Lewis regretted his participation in those films. His disappointment and regret came from the crass humor Murphy used to get laughs.

This film is a fine example of how comedians could tactfully evoke humor without stooping to low gags and cheap one liners. This film brilliantly portrays Professor Julius Kelp (Lewis) failing in every way as a Professor. He blows up classrooms, has no respect from other administrators and is bullied by his students. The last straw is when a student throws him into a cabinet in front of the entire classroom and he is rescued by a beautiful student Stella Purdy (Stella Stevens). It's time for a change and he decides to take up going to the gym. Not getting the results he wants, he creates a serum to help him gain confidence. The results are far more then he could have imagined. Not only is he confident, but he is dashingly handsome, smooth talking and an instant social success. But there are side effects. His new alter ego, Buddy as he goes by, is cocky, arrogant and egotistical.

On his first night out as Buddy, he dazzles club goers with a stint at the piano crooning "That Old Black Magic." He gives a lesson in etiquette to a bartender and teaches him how to make a new drink. He keeps the boys in line and the women in awe, particularly Stella. With his smooth talking, he gets her to take him to a make out destination where he completely offends Stella with his arrogant, sexist attitude and expectations for her to provide some action. Being a complete sweet talker, he turns everything around and lays the romance on her. She is swooned and helplessly in love. As the connection between the two becomes strong, Buddy's voice begins to change. Instantly he goes from a smooth talker to the nerdy Professor. Before Stella can fully understand what his happening, Buddy disappears. Stella is left stunned, thinking only of Buddy. Upon seeing him in class as the nerdy professor, she does not connect, nor does anybody for that matter, that these two completely different men are really one in the same.

Eventually the dual roles catch up with him and he learns a valuable lesson about liking who you are. Stella reveals she always liked him or he was and order is restored as is romance.

What does conuse me about this movie, and maybe it was explained and I missed it, is where this takes place. It seems to be a University as the teachers are all professors and doctors. But then they have a senior prom implying it is high school. Which o course raises questions as to the teacher/student relationship. Other then this irritating act, the ilm is enjoyable. The transormation from geeky professor to swingin' ladies man is well done. Unlike it's 90's counterparts this film is fresh and the comedy is based on the plot rather then unneccessary crass jokes or one liners.

Black Narcissus (1947)

Black Narcissus (1947) ★★★★★ 5/5

Far up in the most remote mountaintops of the Himalayas sits a run down temple. This temple soon becomes a convent of nuns brought in to teach and heal the poor people of the nearby Indian villages. The convent is run by Sister Superior Clodagh (Deborah Kerr) who is young and inexperienced. Her first obstacle is making the place operational. Locks are missing, the plumbing is bad, and the water is causing sickness. Her second obstacle is that she has discovered the people coming to the convent are being paid to do so. There is no interest by the people coming to the temple to learn or grow. They just want to be paid. Yet another obstacle is that these people are superstitious and there is a fear that if a sick person were to die under their care, the rest of them would see the place as cursed and leave immediately.

British agent Mr. Dean (David Farrar) is an ambassador of sorts who lives in the convent and in a sense oversees the nuns. He offers his services which include repairs and advice. The advice often delivered with a tone found offensive to the nuns. Mr. Dean also brings them Kanchi (Jean Simmons). Kanchi is a local problem girl. She is 17 and at the age where she should be married off. She speaks no English and is a little too sexy for the nuns liking. A Young Indian Prince (Sabu) comes to the Convent and pleads for the nuns to take him in and educate him. Dean fears that there may be issues with Kanchi and the Prince.

The Prince does indeed catch the eye of Kanchi, who seductively gazes at him and indulges in his scent. His scent is a cologne from England called "Black Narcissus." Narcissus is a species of plants which includes Amaryllis and Daffodils. The smell does not only affect Kanchi, but it also takes hold of Sister Superior Clodagh who begins to reminisce of her days before taking to the habit. Apparently in 1949 these scenes were considered inappropriate by the Catholic Legion of Decency and were removed for the film's showing in the United States. While they seem completely harmless, I would imagine at the time this was released the Catholic Church did not feel it appropriate to see nuns as anything other then spiritual and holy. My guess is that they did not a nun to be perceived as a typical woman longing for romance, jewels, and wealth. In remembering her past, Sister Superior Clodagh seems to miss some aspects of her previous life.
The memories are generally triggered by Mr. Dean and the Prince.

But Clodagh is not alone. The other sisters become swayed in their thinking. They begin to long for other things in life. They become confused about what they want and what they are there for. With clouded judgement, one begins to have impure thoughts about Mr. Dean, another requests a transfer thinking the place is having a negative impact on her thoughts, others lose their compassion, and one sister kills a sickly newborn baby to prevent him from a slow death. The death of the child was also the death of the convent. The villagers fled the convent and abandoned the nuns.

Sister Ruth (Kathleen Byron) eventually snaps. She defies the sisterhood by failing to renew her vows, then donning a somewhat sexy red dress, applying make up and hunting Mr. Dean down to confess her love. She sees red and blacks out in a crazed frenzy. When she awakens Dean sends her back to the convent and she attempts to murder Sister Superior Clodagh. It is a brilliant and suspenseful scene - the pinnacle of the movie.

Black Narcissus won 2 Academy Awards. One for Cinematography and one for Art Direction. That was no surprise as the landscapes shot in both the Himalayas and Ireland are of sweeping landscapes. There is a stark contrast between the two and each is beautiful in their own way. The imagery is bright and bold throughout the film and colors are used extensively through murals on the temple walls and clothing of the Indian people.

The film is worthy of the list and should be watched. It is suspenseful and dramatic. The musical score carries the plots and changes quite well. The dynamics between the nuns and the changes they go through is exciting. Initially I was not expecting much from the film. Seriously, how entertaining could a movie about some nuns be. But this is far more then a movie about nuns. It is about how these women deal with and respond to their environment and their suppressed desires. The breakdown of Sister Ruth is climatic and clearly an influential scene in the development of film as far as portraying and conveying a mental collapse. The film transcends from a film about nuns to a film about one woman's insanity. Everything changes in the film at that point. The angles from which the film is shot to the colors, sounds and music. Tension is heightened flawlessly. For this scene alone it is worth watching, but you should watch it as a whole of course to fully capture the emotion.

The Apartment (1960)

The Apartment (1960) ★★★★★ 5/5

Absolutely love this movie. It is one I have seen before and was thrilled to find it as an upcoming movie on the DVR. Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine make a dynamite onscreen duo in this fantastic film. Lemmon plays C. C. Baxter, an corporate employee of an insurance company who makes his way up the corporate ladder by loaning his apartment to senior executives who use the pad to carry on affairs with their mistresses. When he is given the promotion, he finds out his boss, Mr. Sheldrake (Fred MacMurray), is wanting to take advantage of the apartment himself. The first day of the promotion, Baxter plans to go home and sleep off a cold. But instead, Sheldrake gives him tickets to see "The Music Man," so Baxter tries to take advantage of it by asking out the cute elevator girl, Fran Kubelik (MacLaine).


Although the story is quite complex as to the dynamics and relationships between the characters, the setup makes it easy to follow along and anticipate what will happen before it actually occurs. The audience knows before it even happens that Kubelik won't show up for the date. They also know that the girl that Sheldrake is going to meet is going to be Kubelik. In spite o the predictability, the film holds up amazingly because they seem to be setting the viewer up for the character's emotional reactions rather then the actual event happening.

The characters in this film are so likable, yet at the same time so vulnerable that you want to reach into the screen, shake them and tell them what to do. It is an interesting take on married business men and one that has been examined in film so often that it seems as if in 1959 that the notion of having a mistress was nothing out of the ordinary. They have a boys club. They have their mistresses and work very hard at scheduling in their affairs and congratulate each other on their conquests. The workplace in the film was so sexually charged. There is ass slapping, there are secretaries who are love interests and there are no female employees with high paying positions. Kubelik and her relationship with Sheldrake is so stereotypical, but at the same time still common in media and news stories today. The married man sleeping with a young, beautiful woman, but constantly telling her that he loves her and is going to leave his wife. He strings her along and in doing so MacLaine gracefully conveys what effect that has on a woman. Her vulnerability leads her to a suicide attempt. It leads to loneliness, self pity, self loathing, self depreciation and confusion. We see the whole thing played out and it plays out brilliantly in her face alone.

Lemmon as Baxter shows the same emotion and same vulnerability. He unwillingly loans his apartment out to the unfaithful executives. He is forced to sleep outside, stay at work late, and wander the streets because his home is in use. However, he can't build up the courage to say no because he needs his job. When he makes the connect that Kubelik and Sheldrake are having an affair, we see how hurt and alone he is. When he finds Kubelik overdosed in his bed on Christmas Eve, he takes the blame for that - as he did with constant noise complaints his tenants would make. He is a martyr of sorts for the boys club and you just want to grab hold of him and tell him to stop.

By the film's close, Baxter and Kubelik both make personal changes. These changes help make the movie even stronger. There is nothing more satisfying in a film then when the main characters overcome adversity and there is an evolution as to who they become. As the film ends, and the couple play gin on New Year's Eve, there is a solid sense of closure and a rewarding feeling that the main characters did stand up to their biggest challenges. For Baxter is was reclaiming his apartment. For Kubelik it was accepting that she did not have to settle for a married man who used women.

An excellent film and a deserving winner of the 1961 Oscar for Best Picture. Shot in black and white, the film is timeless. Great movie! And keep an eye out for a very young, and very nice looking Ray Walston.

Duck Soup (1933)

Duck Soup (1933) ★★★★★ 4/5

Duck Soup starts immediately with an extremely current topic. The government of the fictitious Fredonia has gone Bankrupt and is looking for funding from alternative sources. In this instance, the extremely wealthy Mrs. Teasdale (Margaret Dumont) plans to donate millions of dollars, but only if the current leader steps down and allows the country to be run by Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho Marx).

The leaders of Fredonia agree that the present leader should step down and soon Firefly, along with his assistant Bob Roland (Zeppo Marx), is heading the country. While the budget issue is resolved, there is a new threat of war from a neighboring country of Sylvanian lead by Trentino (Louis Calhern). In an effort to gain the upper hand as the threat of war approaches, Trentino hires two spies. These spies, Chicolini (Chico Marx) and Pinky (Harpo Marx) are completely incompetent. Eventually they become associates of Firefly and when battle ensues, they help Firefly win the war.

The plot of this movie is nothing more then a stage for the Marx Brothers to use witty dialogue and fast paced gags. The movie is quick. Constant movement and play on words comprise the bulk of the movie. It's a film you can't look away from because you might miss something. Chances are even if you are watching you will miss something. One liners delivered through the film are play on words that in some cases are so subtle that you might not get them until after they have been slung. Poor enunciation of several words is used to further bring along dialect unexpected. Many times I was actually throw back as to how sexual in nature some of the comments were. While today, sexual dialogue in movies is nothing new, the implied meanings of some of the lines seem quite bold for 1933. Clearly, this film was years ahead of it's time in the medium of film.

Physically, the comedy is a combination of what the Marx Brothers learned in their Vaudeville days with a new twist as a result of editing. Smooth choreography and constant motion allow for antics to be performed throughout the film. Chico Marx and Harpo Marx work well together in scenes where they antagonize a third part. There are two scenes in particular here. One involving their report to Trentino on Firefly's activities. Another involving a lemonaid salesman
(Edgar Kennedy) who the duo annoy beyond belief. Amazingly, Harpo Marx does it without speaking a work . . . or even blinking. Halfway through the film I realized Harpo Marx never blinked. I then became fixed on trying to find a moment where he blinks. I failed to find that.

There are subtle things throughout the film which help to make it a classic in the sense that you will never see the same film twice. Everytime you watch it you will pick up on something new. Whether it be a missed one liner, a subtle physical movement or the references. Throughout the film, the music used comes from other sources. It is a primitive form of sampling and for those of you who know music well, you should be paying attention to what is playing in the background during different scenes. The music picked correlates to the scene. Another thing you may notice the second time around is the costume changes. This holds particularily true in the war scene. I also couldn't help noticing how fit Zeppo Marx was.

Of course the most famous scene in the movie is the mirror scene. In this scene, a giant mirror is broken. This happens while Groucho Marx chases Harpo Marx. In having no place to hide, Harpo Marx goes on the opposite side of where the mirror would have been and mimicks Groucho Marx move for move. A very well done and entertaining scene.

The influences of this movie can be seen even in comedies of today. Whether it is playing music related to a scene, editing in/out props, slapstick, one liners, gags, or whatever, this movie really did have an impact. Let's not forget that each of them played a character and stayed true to that character from film to film, and even from film to television. While true it is not a great movie in terms of story, it is a fine exmple of why the Marx Brothers were such a powerful force in entertainment from the 20's to the 70's. This movie solidifies their existence as major stars. Every movie buff and pop culture junkie knows who these brothers are. Admittedly, if it wasn't for this book, I probably never would have seen this movie. I am glad I did because it helps to see why the Marx Brothers are held in such high regard. You must see this movie to appreciate how the Brothers transformed from Vaudville to Film, as well as how comedy was intially presented in the medium.

Return of the Jedi (1983)

Return of the Jedi (1983) ★★★★★ 3/5

Once my favorite of the original trilogy, it has been removed of that title. Not by time, but rather by George Lucas himself. Because of his meddling in the film over time, it has completely ruined it. While in music it is a fairly common practice to remix and revise songs as time progresses, this practice does not hold true for movies. Upon their creation and release, the audience has the choice to either embrace it or disregard it. When Return of the Jedi was released, I embraced it. Now, I disregard it because of revisions made to the movie.

Over the course of time, George Lucas has altered the film repeatedly. Whether it be sharpening the imagery, adding effects, or worst of all completely altering scenes, his actions after initial release have ruined everything about the film.

The story is that of Han Solo's (Harrison Ford) rescue from Jabba The Hut. The entire cast reunites in the beginning of the film for an epic battle involving beasts, bounty hunters and odd creatures. However so much has changed. There is a ridiculous dance/music number by Sy Sootles and a bunch of other superimposed new characters. There are wide panning shots in the exterior with herds of mythical creatures. The shot looks so incredible animated and fake to begin with it doesn't even belong in a film. It looks like it should be in a video game. The Sarlac Pit where Solo and Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) are sentenced to die is a bizarre pink color and suddenly has a head that looks like it was borrowed from Little Shop of Horrors. I had no idea what I was watching.

With the help of C3-PO, R2-D2 and Chewbacca, Solo, Skywalker, Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) and Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams) are saved. The group teams with the Rebel alliance to help destroy the newest Death Star being built. The main action occurs on the Ewok's planet Endor. On the ground, Solo, Leia, the driods and Chewbacca work with the Ewoks to battle Imperial troops on the ground in a effort to disarm the protective shields around the Death Star. In air, Calrissian and the Rebels attack the Death Star. Meanwhile Skywalker is on the Death Star battling his Father Darth Vader (James Earl Jones & David Prowse) as the Emperor (Ian McDiarmid) cheers for the Dark Side of the Force.

In the overall experience of the full 6 part series, Return of the Jedi does a wonderful job of closing the story line. The first 3 films in the series (which actually follow the release of Return of the Jedi) really do a nice job of tying in the characters and bringing us to the point where we see Palpatine go from a corrupt Senator to an evil Emperor. If this movie would have been left in it's original state and not tampered with, I would have easily given it 5 stars. There is too much damage done though and the film does not allow viewers to savor the originality of the film. Furthermore, the final scene has been altered to the point where it can not be fixed. As the Rebels celebrate, a ghostly image of Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness), Yoda (Frank Oz) and Anakin Skywalker (Sebastian Shaw) smile onward. It is a beautiful conclusion and all is well. Or is it? In the new version of the film, Anakin is shown in his younger years as played by Hayden Christensen in the recent prequels. He doesn't fit at all. It looks awkward in every way possible. This alteration made me feel sick. It completely ruined a fine and tender moment in the trilogy. Horrid.

George Lucas has cheapened and ruined his film. His alterations do far more damage then good and I can only hope that no other director or producer decides to go back and take such liberties with other films. Complete disgrace!

The Paleface (1948)

The Paleface (1948) ★★★★★ 1/5

With no question this is the worst movie I have seen in my journey through 1001 movies you must see before you die. I almost couldn't bear to finish it. The Paleface stars Jane Russell as Calamity Jane and Bob Hope as Painless Potter. Potter is a completely dimwitted, moronic dentist who gets caught up with Calamity Jane in a Western adventure turned comedy.

While I always held high regard for Bob Hope for his musicals with Bing Crosby, his USO work and his unparallelled gigs as the host of the Academy Awards, his performance in The Paleface was a complete let down. If you took Jack Black and threw him into a 1940's movie, it would be no different then Bob Hope's performance in The Paleface. The comedy was forced, over the top, and in no way funny at all, although you can tell Hope thought he was hysterical. There is no doubt in my mind that a lot of this film was ad-libbed and everyone working on the set laughed out of obligation and they kept it in the film. It was so ridiculous. You can even tell just by looking at the poster for the film.

Jane Russell on the other hand was brilliant in the film. She plays Calamity Jane, or a very loose adaptation of her. She is strong, confident and independent. Her character and performance breaks the genre's stereotype of the women being either victims or weepy, lovesick romantics. The film opens with a jailbreak. Jane is the one being broken out. It turns out the jailbreak is orchestrated by the Governor who requests Jane's assistance in preventing the sale of firearms to Indians in exchange for a pardon from a 10 years sentence.

Jane is smarty, savy and cunning agent. She works to figure out the plan to smuggle the arms to the Indians, and to fight them off. In all of her conquests, Potter comes out looking like a hero with growing confidence that only increases the unnecessary one liners.

If it was not for Hope this would have been a great movie. I just couldn't get past the stupidity of his character and the humor which was not funny in any way whatsoever. Interestingly enough, the film spawned Hope the biggest musical hit of his career. "Buttons and Bows" was not only a huge hit for him, but it also ended up winning the Academy Award for best song. The musical numbers in the film are sparse and done so in a way that they fit. Singing and dancing segments do not just pop up at inappropriate places. Hope sings "Buttons and Bows" while they ride along on a wagon trail. So it is not like they just break out into song and dance which would be somewhat unfitting for a Western. On another positive note, I will say that the use of Technicolor in this film makes it easy on the eyes. the colors of the sets and costumes work well in the film.

This is a movie that does not need to be on the list. The only reason to see it is to become better acquainted with Jane Russell. Of course there will be more to come from her in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953) - which incidentally does belong on the list.

The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

The Empire Strikes Back (1980) ★★★★★ 5/5

This is a special movie for me. It brings back amazing memories as the first movie I really, clearly recall seeing in the theater. I was six years old and my Dad took me to see this on a snowy night. It was playing in one of those old theaters with the balconies on either side of the screen, the red velvet curtains draping around the screen, plush carpet with oriental designs. This was long before the movie plexes when theaters were in the heart of small downtown streets. Watching this movie in that theater was epic. Being a kid and looking up at the screen full of action and adventure. The sight of that movie on the big screen has always been embedded in my head.

Watching the film on a 60" LED, HD TV from Blu Ray brought back everything. The movie still holds up and is just as good now if not better. To my relief the additions Lucas added to the film were much more minor then what he added to Star Wars. There were no added dinosaurs or flying droids. It seemed that the bulk of the revisions were simply in making the colors brighter from explosions and lasers.

In this sequel to Star Wars, Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) and Han Solo (Harrison Ford) find themselves on the run from Darth Vader (David Prowse & James Earl Jones) with Chewbacca and C-3PO. Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) makes his way to The Dagobah system with R2-D2 where Yoda (Frank Oz) begins training him as a Jedi Knight. Leia and Solo make their way to Cloud City where they can hide from Vader with the assistance of Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams). However Vader beats them to Cloud City and already has arranged for Calrissian to assist in capturing them. Once captured, Vader surrenders Solo to Boba Fett (Jeremy Bulloch), a bounty hunter who is going to take Solo to Jabba The Hutt to claim a reward for the price on his head. Vader uses Solo as a test in a carbon freeze chamber. When Vader sees that this device stores prisoners without harming them, he decides to lure Skywalker there in hopes of freezing him in the same manner to deliver him to the Emperor. Skywalker does come to resuce his friends but is too late. Instead he must face Vader where we learn the truth about their relationship. "Luke, I am your Father," Vader says in an effort to bring Luke to the dark side. Skywalker does not give in and chooses to drop hundreds of stories to the bottom of Cloud City where he is stuck hanging from an antenna. While this is happening, Calrissian overthrows a small group of Stormtroopers and rescues Leia and Chewbacca. They flee to the Millennium Falcon and leave Cloud City. As they fly off, Skywalker dangles from the antenna calling to Leia. She senses his trouble and can comprehend where he is. Once Skywalker has been saved, the film closes with Skywalker, Leia C3-PO and R2-D2 safe in a space station looking out upon the universe. The stage is set for the rescue of Solo.

Initially, I always found this to be my least favorite of the original trilogy. Looking at The Empire Strikes Back now, I feel I was wrong. I think this is actually the best of the original three films. The romance between Solo and Leia is classic Hollywood. They have a love/hate relationship with sexual tension so thick you can cut it with a knife. The storyline between Vader and Skywalker is well played. Fighting scenes are exceptional with astonishing visual and sound effects. The mastery in the beginning of the film where the Rebels battle the Empire on the planet Hoth is orchestrated beautifully. Flying fighters take down giant machines. Costumes are far more advanced in this film then the last. While I would say this movie is superior then Star Wars, it also has to be said that this film shouldn't be seen without first seeing Star Wars.

Swing Time (1936)

Swing Time (1936) ★★★★★ 4/5

This delightful story starts off smart and fun right as it opens. John "Lucky" Garnett (Fred Astaire) is about to head off to be married to Margaret (Betty Furness) after finishing work. However his coworkers know that if he gets married his career is over. Since Garnett is the star attraction of their dance troupe, they know their performances wouldn't bring in any money. To prevent the marriage, Garnett's "friends" do everything they can to hold up and stall the wedding. The big ploy is telling him his tuxedo trousers need to be hemmed. "Pop" Cardetti (Victor Moore) is instructed to take the pants to be altered but the alterer will not make such changes to tuxedo pants. Eventually Pop brings the unaltered pants back and sends Garnett to be married. When he reaches the bride's home he finds the guests are gone, the wedding is cancelled and the Bride's Father is furious stating he will never allow Garnett to marry Margaret after this incident. Garnett suggests Margret and him should be married if he can make $25,000 and the Father agrees. So Garnett heads to New York City with Pops to make some money.

At the train station he is intercepted by his friends who try to detain him from the train by taking their money earned at the last performance back. This doesn't stop Garnett and Pops though. The two jump aboard a freighter train and shortly end up in New York . . .with nothing but a quarter. It is with this quarter they meet a beautiful red head. Garnett asks her to break change for the quarter to get Pops some cigarettes. The cigarette machine is a jackpot of sorts, spitting out money and cigarettes. Pops grabs a quarter and tells Garnett to get the original quarter back from the girl. She refuses the exchange and is annoyed by the disruption. When she drops her purse, Pops swipes the lucky quarter from it and she notices it missing. She summons an officer and he sides with Garnett telling her to move along. It is then that Pops reveals to Garnett he has the quarter. Garnett follows the girl to return it learn she is a dance instructor.

At the dance school he learns her name to be Penny (Ginger Rogers) and he opts for a complimentary dance lesson. He pretends to be awkward in his dance and at one point bringing her to the ground. Her boss sees this and fires her on the spot. Feeling bad, Garnett explains she should not be fired and performs a delightful dance with her to show off her ability. This scene is light and elegant. The dancing is superb and a testimony to the perfection of Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire. After seeing the two dance, Penny's boss calls a nightclub and lines them up with a job.

Through the film we watch the couple grow attracted to each other. Garnett wants to be with Penny but can nt because he is still engaged to Margaret. Penny is constantly courted by bandleader Ricardo Romero (Georges Metaxa). To prolong his stay in New York, Garnett makes as little money as he can to avoid going back home with $25,000. When Penny does find out Garnett is engaged, she accepts a proposal from Romero. Margaret comes to New York to tell Garnett she is engaged. Once he hears this, Garnett and Pops stall the wedding between Romero and Penny by using the hem trick that was introduced in the first scene of the movie.

The movie is funny and quite charming. Through the film, the interaction between Pops and Penny's friend Mabel Anderson (Helen Broderick) keep the film fresh. There is witty bickering between them as well as between Garnett and Penny. The dance numbers are entertaining and it is a spectacle to watch Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire move together as one. Seeing this film truly makes you understand why they worked so well together. Fred Astaire also performs a memorable solo in the "Bojangles of Harlem" number where he dances in front of a screen showing three shadow images of himself. Considering production values in the 1930's, this scene was quite spectacular and well ahead of it's time. To this day, the influence of this scene can still be seen in film, tv, commercials and music videos.

Musically, the film earned an Academy Award for the song "The Way You Look Tonight." A song that has been used repeatedly in film and stands the test of time. Other notable songs that one would recognize in the film are "A Fine Romance" and "Never Gonna Dance."

I gave this film 4 out of 5 stars, but almost feel guilty about it. I am on edge with this film thinking it might actually deserve 5 out of 5 stars. It is a must see film for movie lovers and entertains, quite well. I might actually rewatch this again to see if in fact I should bump it up. Watch this one and see what you think!

Star Wars (1977)

Star Wars (1977) ★★★★★ 5/5

One could easily say that movies would not be what they are today if it was not for Star Wars. This is the movie that changed the dynamics of visual effects in every way possible. From the use of tiny scale models to imaginative costume design. From lasers and planets to creatures and weapons. Perhaps no other film has made such an impact on pop culture. The movie spawned everything imaginable including toys, video games, cartoons, Christmas songs, National defense plans, spoofs, parodies and constant homages.

The film earned a total of 6 Oscars, all in technical categories. It has endured the test of time and the characters and plots have become implanted in the minds of every generation. There is no doubt this is a must see movie and when someone says they haven't seen it, it comes off as shocking.

I recently received the new Blu Ray edition of the entire Star Wars series and was thrilled to actually see this film restored and enhanced. The clarity of HD and the pure sound was going to be a real treat as it was with West Side Story. However my expectations fell short. Very short in fact and I was disgusted by the film. In the newly released Blu Ray version of the film, there are extra scenes and added effects. To many added effects in fact. There are things flying about Stormtroopers as they walk through hallways. There are dinosaur like creatures being rode by Jawas and other characters in spots where previously you saw barren land. It is distracting and completely takes away from the magic that was created when the film was first made in 1977. There is also an added scene where Han Solo (Harrison Ford) has a discussion with Jabba the Hut. It's vile and left a bitter taste in my mouth. There is a fine line between film restoration and tampering. George Lucas tampered with the film and in essence knocked the revised edition down from a 5 star movie to a three star movie.

Beyond that, the cast is perfect. Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) and Han Solo make the perfect trio. Skywalker, a farmer by trade with hints of greatness in him, is led by two loveable driods, R2-D2 and C-3PO in the center of a rebellion against the evil empire. Escorted into space for the rescue of Leia with guidance from Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness) and a ship flown by Han Solo and Chewbacca, it's non stop excitement. The group must sneak by guards and imperial troops to make their rescue. All while avoiding Darth Vader (James Earl Jones).

There is action, suspense, comedy and even a little romance as Solo and Skywalker swoon over Leia. There is mystery and intrigue as we want to know more about what has led to these events and what will happen next. The movie is interesting in the fact that it tells a solid story on it's own and would hold up just fine had it been made as a single film. It however went on to generate two sequels and three prequels. Characters unfolded and it essentially became a subtle soap opera. Mystery twin siblings became unveiled, Father/Son relationships were developed, alliances between good and bad were drawn. All this was done while remaining true to what was exposed in other films. No other collection of films so clearly tied all the pieces together so well.

Everyone should see this movie. It is special in every way you can think of. This film has affected pop culture and society in so many ways that if you have not seen it, you are missing more then just a movie.