Reviews written by registered user
|15 reviews in total|
A man must be with his family. If he is not in contact with his family he is
not a man. Problem is the family is part of an organized crime syndicate.
Throughout this film by Francis Coppola we get the opportunity to get a
slice of pie in this family and time period of Americana.
In this grand flow of a film there are two main characters `The Godfather' Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) and Michael Corleone (Al Pacino). Interesting is the evolution of each of the main characters both on opposite points of power (one neutral and one powerful) to switching sides in the end. There is even a key part of the film were Michael joins into the family business and that is during his trip to the hospital.
Through the film I was amazed at all the realism spread about on the mafia and the family. Not to mention the fact that the dealings of the mafia were never shown or totally discussed; this was more about the family and what it took to survive in corrupt New York, New York.
This film is one of my favorites now because of it as a whole. The build of the plot, the music at certain scenes that created a tension from the character, and the mesmerizing visuals placed nicely. I would recommend this film to anyone and the dog skip.
On the presence of faith lost cause is golden. We all have dreams of life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but one man sees that in his destiny.
This is man, who starts out a boy and becomes a man in the world of
Democracy, is Jefferson Smith (James Stewart).
The movie starts out abrupt. A Senator dies and must be replaced by a puppet so to speak. After long harassment Mr. Smith gets elected and is shipped out to Washington D. C. Things start to unfold as he gets to know the dirty business that his town has swept under the bed. Will his sincerity be enough to persuade a Congress to the righteousness of the basic life of the United States of America?
In retrospect of the quality of the flick the directing was two sandwiches short of a picnic. The `subtle' inclusion of the word liberty throughout the flick, and the constant reminder of patriot participation were laughable. The editing and cinematography was so choppy I couldn't help but giggle like a Japanese schoolgirl. However, I do understand part of the choppiness could be based on the restoration used to keep this flick alive.
Since this flick had themes of propaganda I wasn't too fazed by how easily someone with money can control power. That was until I recalled the 2000 presidential election. There was so much corruption in that election that it made me sad. Also, I don't know if society will ever have a happy ending. I would recommend this flick to people who like Jimmy Stewart, and those who like a grand old time looking back on old views of life.
There are times when the world seems to be in chaos. Homes are no longer
homes but a certainty of doom. Where better to go than Casablanca where the
party is. That's right all the French, Germans, and refugees travel to this
hot spot in order to break away from the war and into the slice of life
called United States. Now the sad thing is people here are cheap. Any minute
they can get taken away and found guilty of a bogus crime. Well, what is
there left to do? Go to Rick's All-American Night Club. Though trouble is
brewing as Rick (Humphrey Bogart) runs into an old love Ilsa (Ingrid
Bergman), with many others plot spins thrown into the mix.
At the time this film came out it was current events. Well, sort of cause after it was released into theaters the Germans invaded Casablanca. Rick's bar was quite a novel place surrounded by crazy foreign stuff. Funny how most people want to go to Rick's as opposed to any of the other bars? This is sue to the fact of `anything American' is the best thing in the world. Take for example McDonalds; since they have gone overseas people treat the store as a high ritzy spot.
Rick's past is sort of a mystery. He was kicked out of the U.S., lived in France, and is now in Casablanca. He doesn't stick his neck out for anyone, but things start to change as his old mistress comes to Casablanca with her husband Laszlo (Paul Henreid) trying to escape to the U.S.
This is a love story that came out shortly after radio stations were regularly broadcasting. Which means there was more put into the dialogue than in the effects. It did not take away from the experience, but recent generations will most likely find this style too out dated.
Recommendations: Yes to people who know how to enjoy a real movie, and not something like `the Fast and the Furious.'
In a time of prohibition the streets of Chicago are littered with thugs and
crime lords. During this time Joe (Tom Curtis) and Jerry (Jack Lemmon) are
struggling musicians trying to find work. Though when the two get mixed up
with the mafia they must lay low, so they end up traveling to Florida in
Cognito as `women' in an all-girl band. Not to mention one of the ladies is
Sugar (Marilyn Monroe).
This was a grand comedy directed by Billy Wilder. The topics brought up in the flick were pretty borderline for its time. The mix of a couple songs here and there from Marilyn was kind of cool. As they flick moved along it started to get more interesting.
Now, would I recommend this flick to everyone? No it is only good for people, who want to see a fun comedy. This isn't the greatest, but I enjoyed it while it lasted.
Confusion. Honor. Love. Death. Wrapped up in a tiny bottle of teen angst,
and one will find Nicholas Ray's flick `Rebel Without a
The flick features a young Jim Stark (James Dean) as a friendless new kid, who always gets into trouble, and doesn't take kindly to people calling him chicken.
The flick starts out with Stark drunk in public playing with a toy monkey. Later he is in a police office where the audience meets the other main characters: Judy (Natalie Wood) and Plato (Sal Mineo). Another notable actor is comedian Jim Backus who plays Frank Stark.
The bases of the flick transcends through a couple days of ups and downs. Either the story was in extreme high emotion, or in the deep depths of trouble. Not to mention the story went a little too fast, but hey it's a rebel without a cause.
A fun ride of `teens gone bad' and also being a James Dean flick I would recommend this to anyone.
Peeking over the window to get a feel of the outside is all fun and games,
but not as a hobby. A man recovering from a serious accident is left in his
apartment while his neighbors go on living. This man is L. B. 'Jeff'
Jeffries (James Stewart), who is a photographer with quite an imagination.
This Hitchcock flick has to do with Jeffries possibly seeing a murder by one
of his neighbors.
The set for this film was gigantic in the sense the studio was smaller that the set. The entire movie being shot in a studio Hitchcock did a great job at making it seem believable. Also, there was no score for this movie. Only background music was used as the score.
How the characters did were pretty good in the sense most of them had no dialogue. The way it was filmed was to show the protagonist `spying' on his neighbors out of boredom. During the movie there is much talk on `spying' being morally right.
Now this filmed started slow at first, but gradually picked up speed. At the end it was suspenseful to a good degree, and I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes Hitchcock.
Of all things in the 1960's, one must be afraid of someone going psycho. No,
I'm not referring to psychedelics, but psychotic people. Now, in any case
there is always a psycho person roaming about. Though aren't we all a little
psycho at one point? Which brings me to a point that at some point people
tend to go into the dark side. Total control blinded by instinctual desires
of a greater existence. Though what end will one end up? That's what I feel
about the aura of the movie Psycho' by Alfred Hitchcock.
In most suspense movies, or even horror the most crucial element is sound. Now, the music for the film created a tense feel, which made it feel subtly unsettling. As I delved into the score I felt a little bit cheated by the repetitious use of the theme song throughout the movie. This did not however take away from the suspense.
Movies like this are not to be spoiled. For the way the movie was filmed it created a sense of mystery. While certain key elements of the plot play through, Hitchcock was a master at distorting the truth. Having the camera at an angle to not see a face, or make it seem very closed in. Under these styles of filming the suspense lasts throughout the entire picture.
Now, I'll be brief on the shower scene. Everyone and their mother have at least heard of this scene. The woman was Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), who is also the main character. Well, as I watched this scene in its entirety I was a little shocked by how it was filmed. Now I know it must have been painfully hard to film the scene and not reveal too much skin. Though how it was done was more artistic as opposed real.
Finally Hitchcock is a man of many surprises. To build a multi-perspective on what is going on in a film has been adapted into many works after his time. For this movie I would gladly recommend this to anyone, who can see past its age. Though I feel this film has the strength to live on. I guess it is how Hitchcock used his skills. His movies are bittersweet. One part all is well, and the other part is psycho.
Every year it's the same old Christmas. Though, it does come with some
quirks. A little up, and a little down it can be during the holidays. WE all
know how that is. Well, Bob Clark (Director) found Leigh Browns (Author)
story `A Christmas Story' as a great example of those moments and placed
them in his Holiday extravaganza.
Well, the movie is about a kid Ralph 'Ralphie' Parker (Peter Billingsley), who wants a Red Ryder BB gun for Christmas. Set during the 1940's Ralphie runs into the problem that his mom thinks he will shoot his eye out. During the film it has Ralphie trying his best to succeed. Though can he do it?
With this story being also a reflection of childhood, as it unfolds in first person, the flick was all right. Filming wise was a little cooky sometimes, but was decent. The acting was good, but sometimes they had to act too overdramatic. Though that does give the flick some flavor.
I would say this film is only good if one is interested in a Christmas satire. I myself found moments to be good and funny, but after awhile it got dull and boring. I would say this film is OK to watch one time through. Other than that it is really tedious to sit through.
Coming from an era of post World War the world was happy. People needed a
`positive' reminder to love themselves. Around comes a flick to inspire this
intrinsically need for happiness. Directed by Frank Capra is a movie
focused to tough the heart at the average white Christian American.
The film in retrospect is about a man George Bailey (James Stewart) going through a really bad time, and chances of going south arise. In the opening scene their was a panel shots of houses with people saying a pray for George. Resulting from this was a shot of two cluster of stars representing two biblical characters, who call for an angel without wings Clarence (Henry Travers). From here most of the movie is shown about George's life and what led him to the now.
I felt the movie was great on the acting, sound, and directing. However, I detest the subliminal propaganda conveyed in the story. The movie was definitely intended for the Christian audience by all the good that it brings, when times are hard. The message was good in the interpretation of that one person can effect a great number of people in life, and should be humble, when times get you down. The bad message was that if not for Christianity people in hard times would just die and have no guidance.
Now comes my decent. Most people would quickly say this film is the best; I would have to disagree. On the sense that the directing was down rather well. I can't get over how exaggerated it was imposing on Christianity being good. There was no truth except for the simple message purposely link together to mislead the common people. I would never watch this film again, and hope that whomever reads my review sees another side to not just this movie, but the U.S. society. The U.S. has two parts: The majorities opinion on what it should be like, and the minorities opinion on the realities. Though, I will admit that the world is not black and white. There is a lot of shades of gray on both sides, and the majority wins out in the end.
Christmas is a grand affair filled with many things: joy, happiness, and
gifts. Though it is nothing more than another day if it is not celebrated. I
myself don't celebrate Christmas, but many others do. Of those people were
George Seaton (Director) and his idea from the story by Valentine Davies
`Miracle on 34th Street.' A flick that not only was tiresome to watch, but
also was just another movie to push Christmas to the mainstream further than
it already was.
Made in 1947, and released oddly during the summer this flick is barely a different Christmas story. It has to do with Kris Kringle (Edmund Gwenn) trying to persuade a single mother Doris Walker (Maureen O'Hara) and her daughter Susan (Natalie Wood) to believe in him. Looking at the perspective of one `in tune' with Christmas this flick has the good touchy feely message. Aside from that it is nothing but a recruit to influence the public into the belief that there is a `spirit of Christmas.'
For it's time the acting in the movie was the usual. If it were compared to any other time period after it was very stale, and too contrived. Don't get me wrong they was maybe a few good acting spots, however there was no real emotion from the actor interpreting the character. I would say this flick is just another Hollywood movie using their `top stars' for the next big extravaganza.
Amid the movie I viewed; color was added to give it more appeal. It was better than some jobs in the past. Though it was a little harder to identify the original lighting and camera use. This is not a special movie looking at the flicking process.
Now, I still view this movie as a tool to make Christmas stay in mainstream. Ideas they used were dull and boring. Maybe the director wanted a quick buck by making this flick, I don't know. I personally would not recommend this flick to anyone other than Christians, Consumers, or naive people.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |