Spellbound (1945)

Nominee

When I think of Alfred Hitchcock I think of Rear Window, Psycho, Vertigo, The Rope, North by Northwest, and any number of other prolific films. So you can imagine my surprise when I pulled this one off the shelf and was blindsided by his name stretching  across the cover, along with those of the beloved Ingrid Bergman and Gregory Peck. Why had I not heard of this film? Does it lack something that gave the others longevity?

Well after viewing the film two things were made very clear to me: 1.) This is truly a hidden gem, and 2.) It is innately flawed in a number of ways that interfere with its status as a Hitchcock great. It is this dichotomy, perhaps, that makes the film so compelling. 

The film tells of a psychoanalyst, (Ingird Bergman), who falls for a man, (Gregory Peck), who is accused of murder and suffering from amnesia. This risky love story unfolds with perfected suspense, and pulsating energy up until the final frame with solid performances from these enduring costars. Yet where the film looses some weight is in its rather heavy handed use of dated psychology, and its blatant sexism. 

The film bases its entire core on the very early work of Freud, and although psychology still acknowledges his dedication to the field, much of what he said no longer holds water. Not to mention there is much conjecture involved in the application of his findings, which ends up undermining some major plot points in this film. In addition, you can only watch Bergman get hit on so many times by various co-workers, and strangers before it grows a little tiresome. 

Yet even taking these things into account, what remains is still worth lauding. It is still shot with Hitchcock's incredible subjectivity. It's still keeps you holding on until the end. And it even has something that none of his other films have: collaboration with Salvador Dali. Because, lets face it, when making a film revolving around dream psychology it if best to bring in the resident surrealist genius, and the result is remarkable.  

Overall: I almost see this film as a rough draft for Psycho, it's not quite as good because it's a little too direct with some of its content, but practice makes perfect. And what Spellbound does have is one of the most memorable artistic collaborations I have ever seen, along with solid performances and great cinematography. Definitely worth a viewing. Happy Watching! 

A Passage to India (1984)

Nominee

Even David Lean, the director who brought such cinematic classics to the screen such as Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia, is not able to withstand the curse that is eighties cinema. This film based on the E.M. Foster's novel by the same name may attempt to grapple with the some of the socio-political, and racially important topics of a specific era, but fails to truly tell a compelling story based on a number of failed components of the film.

For starters, Miss Quested, the woman who charges a local Indian man for supposedly sexually assaulting her, is a completely baffling character. Perhaps it is my own lack of empathy towards people who are portrayed as wispy and confused, but she was utterly frustrating due to her idiocy throughout. She causes so much trouble for no apparent reason besides that she is 'overwhelmed' by being in a foreign land. 

In addition, the editing of the entire film was stilted and repetitive. It got to the point where I was counting down to the next shot and hitting it exactly every time. This kind of comfortable formula is tiresome, particularly in an almost three hour film. 

The acting was also rather melodramatic, with the exception of Peggy Ashcroft, who was quite compelling as one of few level headed characters in the whole story. And although  I love Alec Guinness, this now dated performance reads as rather insensitive. You cannot tell me they could not find an Indian actor to play Professor Godbole, especially in a story that is about British/Indian tensions.

Overall: I think Lean may have hoped this to be another sweeping exploration of place such as Lawrence of Arabia or Doctor Zhivago, but ultimately it just did not have the story to support the visuals. It was just a rather long, awkward film. We're going to treat this like Godfather III, and pretend this did not happen. So go watch Lean's other work instead! Happy Watching!

Atlantic City (1981)

Nominee

Now here is a film that finds its footing in the exploration of person and place, as opposed to a narrative. We do not descend upon this New Jersey beach city to be told a story, but instead discover the aging gangsters, and young dreamers that make up this city in transition. And as the city struggles to justify the old and the new, so do the characters stumble through their awkward interactions.

Burt Lancaster plays Lou Pascal a former Mob bodyguard who finds himself living with just the memories of times past and regrets that he never achieved anything to make his mark. Living next to him in his apartment complex is Sally Matthews, played by Susan Sarandon, who has come to Atlantic City to get away from her past, but her family and their problems catch up to her. Their two lives become entangled and as their confusing relationship unfolds a basic human fact is discovered: People in transition are in constant motion, and will leave as fast as they come. While those who have remained stationary for so long, become synonymous with place. 

Overall: Both Lancaster, and Sarandon do a solid job in the film. And although it's perhaps not a great film, it is a a rather nice exploration of innately human dynamics. Not a bad watch. 

Towering Inferno (1974)

Nominee

It has been almost a year since I last posted and in that time I successfully completed my undergrad! While I am looking forward to new exciting things I am so very happy to once again have some time to watch films for pure enjoyment.

I think two things I value most in great films are their timelessness and exceptional special effects. However these two forces are constantly at odds with each other, for although the effects may have been extraordinary for their time they later have a tendency to date the film. I mean, even films from a decade ago now look, well, old. Don't get me wrong films can overcome this dating issue by their sheer impact on the industry or cultural scope. (Think King Kong (1933) or Lord of the Rings) However, this particular film does not achieve that, which is unfortunate because it had a lot of potential.

Take for instance the cast: Paul Newman, Steve McQueen, Faye Dunaway, William Holden, and Fred Astaire, just to name a few. I was floored when I saw this line up by the sheer magnitude of what they could accomplish. Not to mention the film is scored by John Williams! Perhaps all this good karma was negated by the suspicious number of wife murders also in the cast (OJ Simpson and Robert Wagner, I am looking at you). But more likely it probably was the horrible script writing, coupled with the a 165 minute run time.

Ultimately, the film turns into a nearly three hour advertisement for what not to do in a fire while in a skyscraper. The dialogue is stilted and underdeveloped making the characters, well, stilted and underdeveloped. And when these flat melodramatic characters haven't garnered your empathy their deaths end up laughable.

I do applaud the film for the spectacle it must have been for the time, but this was the same year as Godfather: Part II, and Chinatown, I expect complexity and intriguing plot lines.

Overall: As my sister said: "This film could probably be used in schools as a prolonged advertisement for fire safety." But, as long as you know to stop, drop and roll, and that you are supposed to leave a building when the fire chief tells you, feel free to skip this one.

The Butler (2013)

                Any medium of expression may be used to provide a venue for catharsis of the collective imagination. Our nation's history, although proud, is also riddled with fading memories of extreme violence and segregation, making it of the utmost importance that these topics are engaged in the mainstream media today so that the necessary discussions are neither lost nor forgotten. Lee Daniel's The Butler takes on the momentous task of grappling with recent black history through the eyes of Cecil Gaines, a man who serves on the White House Staff through many a presidency, and his son Louise, who joins various black empowerment movements against the counsel of his father.

The film accomplishes a number of things worth lauding, but ultimately comes up a little short. The positive aspects can be seen in the acting of this ensemble cast, the reflection of the themes in the editing, and the honest brutality with which it addresses its content. With Oprah reemerging into film, and names like Forest Whitaker, Terrence Howard, Vanessa Redgrave, Cuba Gooding, Jr., Lenny Kravitz, Robin Williams, Alan Rickman, and Jane Fonda,  the viewer expects skillful performances, and they are delivered. Whitaker gives us Cecil with a strength and subtlety that makes him incredibly accessible to the audience, which is precisely what he needs to be. The film rides on our understanding how fragile his circumstances are: he serves his country faithfully, but his country does not serve him. This is echoed visually through crosscutting throughout the film, as the imagery frequently juxtaposes Cecil and his son. In one instance, Cecil sets the table for a White House reception, while his son is abused at a diner for refusing to sit in the section designated for blacks.  This cruelty, particularly when interlaced with the refinement of life in the White House, is quite striking, as is much of the imagery throughout the film of the violence that was instigated against the African American community. Daniels has shown in both this film and his 2009 film, Precious, that he is willing to push the limits of his audience to provoke real emotions in them.

Yet, the film was also not without its shortcomings. For one, it suffers from the classic issues faced by all bio pics. The screenplay was, overall, not exceptional. Relaying just the necessary details, it merely results in predictability and falls quickly into an easily identifiable narrative pattern. In addition, the way the movie depicted the presidencies seemed rather gimmicky. Feeling akin to  Forrest Gump, the presidents are only there to place time period, in essence becoming somewhat superfluous to the actual plot. Which in turn makes the film feel unnecessarily long.

Overall: I applaud the film for attempting to engage an important topic through extraordinary circumstances. However, the writing just did not match the magnitude of the film itself, and the shots  were formulaic to the bio pic genre. This is a film that needed to be made but was not groundbreaking in its approach. This story deserves to transcend into historical importance but this film may not have been the vehicle for it.

And Again.

MOVIES I HAVE SEEN BEFORE:
(Most of which deserve more than a blurb but so it goes...)

Casablanca (1942)
Academy Award Winner, AFI TOP 100:3
What can I say that hasn't been said? An incredible script full of emotion and real humor executed by some of the greatest. Bogart's got his gritty leading man going, and I love it. This may not be Inglorious Bastards, but beating the Nazis is definitely a plus. It is always worth a re-watch. SPECIAL WARNING: You will be quoting for days.
5/5 Stars

Dr. Stangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
Nominee, AFI TOP 100:39
Another Kubrick classic that directly satirizes its time period. It's an important historical film, while also being quite funny. It drags a little at times, but Peter Sellers makes up for it. Now get your cowboy hat and go ride a bomb! YEE-HAW!
3.5/5 Stars

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
Nominee
This tense little family made up of losers is perfectly flawed. They find their way into your heart because they are so messed up, and they stay their because they make you laugh. They may fail at being a family, they may even fail at being themselves, but it's fun and touching to watch them keep trying. Also I promise you will never forget the ending.
4/5 Stars

Pulp Fiction (1994)
Nominee, AFI TOP 100:94
The film that made Tarantino Tarantino. He showed that an audience can be held with a non-linear narrative and we will not only stay but rejoice. Quirky, and edgy this film is one of my all time favorites. Taratino puts the everyday moments in ridiculous situations, and makes a style all to his own.
5/5 Stars

And Now for Something Different...

I am desperately behind on my posts, so think of this like speed dating...but film criticism... 

MOVIES I HAVE NOT SEEN BEFORE:

Witness (1985)
Nominee
So what we have here is your standard Harrison Ford Action flick, that is at the beginning and the end. What's in the middle you say? Silent sexually tense stares complete with the Amish and 80's synthesizers.  Not a bad film especially if you have a Harrison Ford crush and, lets be honest, who doesn't?
3/5 Stars

Scent of a Women (1992)
Nominee
What??? AL PACINO IS AMAZING YET AGAIN??? Surprise!  Pacino gives a great performance as a blind Lieutenant Colonel who spends a weekend with a Prep School student in New York on what may be his last days alive. He's loud, crass, and I want to be his best friend. The script is sharp, although toeing at some cheesiness but overall well executed.
4/5 Stars

The Full Monty (1997)
Nominee
Whelp think Magic Mike? Except with older British men who are down on their luck and need the extra cash. I found the film actually quite human and charming, which I did not expect. No it's not a great cinematic creation but certainly worth an hour and a half of your time.
3.5/5 Stars

Love Story (1970)
Nominee
NO.
And I am not sorry because I don't have to be. (I am trying to tell you I love you.)

-2/5 Stars