Platoon

Origin: U.S(Cinema 86, Hemdale ) 1986
Length: 120 minutes
Format: Color
Director: Oliver Stone
Producer: Arnold Kopelson
Screenplay: Oliver Stone
Photography: Robert Richardson
Music: Georges Delerue
Cast: Tom Berenger, Willem Dafoe, Charlie Sheen, Forest Whitaker, Francesco Quinn, John C. McGinley, Richard Edson, Kevin Dillon, Reggie Johnson, Keith David, Johnny Depp, David Neidorf, Mark Moses, Chris Pederson, Tony Todd
Oscars: Arnold Kopelson(best picture), Oliver Stone(director), Claire Simpson(editing), John Wilkinson, Richard D. Rogers, Charles Grenzbach, Simon Kaye(sound)
Oscar nominations: Oliver Stone(screenplay), Tom Berenger(actor in support role), Willem Dafoe(actor in support role), Robert Richardson(photography)
Berlin International Film Festival: Oliver Stone(Silver Bear-director, Golden Bear nomination)
Links: Platoon Wiki

---

A savage yet moving look at the Vietnam War, as seen through the eyes of a young soldier, Platoon remains one of the most powerful war movies ever made, and is one of writer/director Oliver Stone's most accomplished films.



Review coming soon...

Vertigo (Matt)

I have heard from a few people that Vertigo is by far the best movie that famous director Alfred Hitchcock ever made. I have to take that with a grain of salt sadly, because as of this very moment I have seen exactly one Alfred Hitchcock movie, that one movie being of course Vertigo for the purpose of this review. I haveve heard that he was an amazing director, so I was glad to be able to finally experience on of his movies.

I can state with confidence that the plot is one of the most twisting things I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing. I did not want to use this cliche, but this film is very much like a roller coaster. It starts slow, with a long buildup - this would be the clackety journey up the first and largest hill of the ride - and then, once the audience is filled with anticipation and curiosity, the bottom falls out. It is difficult to say much more than after the initial buildup, the plot twists and that it twists a lot, so you will have to settle for that. I was taken completely by surprise. I hesitated to mention this at all, so that you readers out there could experience the twists just as blindly as I did, but ultimately I am hoping that the knowledge of such a crazy plot will entice you to go watch this movie. The plot is absolutely wild, and it is absolutely brilliant.

The acting is also very well done. It took me about 30 minutes or so to grow accustomed to seeing James Stewart in such a serious role. My only experience with this actor is the very famous "It's A Wonderful Life", and because of that I had to break the actor out of the mold that I had fit him to. Once I got past that however, he did a great job. His very unique voice was a bit distracting but that too I was able to overlook with time. I think however, despite his performance, that the true star of this movie was Kim Novak. She played her role very well and sadly, due to the secrets of the twisting plot, I can't elaborate much more than that.

The movie was very firmly rooted in San Francisco, which was nice. The city was very well portrayed in the movie. We were treated to beautiful shots of the city, as well as some shots underneath the Golden Gate Bridge and inside a redwood forest. The city felt as ingrained in this movie as New York City does in the Ghostbusters films. If I ever make it to San Francisco it would be interesting to tour the city and try to find a few of the locations in this movie.

The music was not outstanding. In fact, thinking back on the movie, nowhere does the music particularly stand out. This means to me that it was neither exceptionally good nor was it exceptionally bad, rather it was just average.

This movie was a surprise for me. I was not expecting a barrage of plot twists from a movie made in 1958, which likely validates my earlier statement regarding never seeing a Hitchcock film before, and I was absolutely floored by them. The beginning was a little slow, but that was most likely necessary to set up the rest of the movie. I'll give this movie 8 scary nuns out of 10.

~Matt

Vertigo(John)

I have never seen an Alfred Hitchcock film all the way though before this point. However, I do know that he is considered an excellent and prolific director/story-teller. I also know that Vertigo is one of his greatest works. So, I was definitely excited to see this film.

The acting was pretty good. Jimmy Stewart stole the show. His metamorphosis of an ordinary man with a fear into border-line insanity was excellent. Some of his parts were overly dramatized, but I forgave that because of the time period and they didn't completely annoy me. Kim Novak also did a good job of separating the two roles she was required to play. I thought she had a very charismatic presence on the screen. And the chemistry between her and Stewart was also evident. Again, she has some overly dramatic scenes but none too bothersome.

The story was crazy. The first half of the movie, I felt like I was watching something out of the Twilight Zone. And then the second half turns into this suspense film about a guy who was tricked into believing something that was not true. And for good measure, we have a romantic love affair. It was a fairly confusing story to follow. That being said, I think the story was good and definitely kept me on my toes. The pacing was good and I never felt bored. I can see where critics who watched this film when it was first released would have major problems with it. At the time, there was no other film like this.

The camera work was also crazy. Hitchcock implemented this zoom technique that help illustrate the feeling of vertigo. And he pulled it off perfectly. This technique is used all the time in today's movies/shows, but it was brand new back then. The camera angles were also appealing to me. The scene when Jimmy Stewart wakes up after having a nightmare is a good representation of the excellent cinematography.

I think this movie was pretty good. There were some confusing plot points and some very dramatic dialogue. However, the acting was great, the set and sound design was amazing and I enjoyed the Hitchcockian camera work. This may not be the first Hitchcock film you should see, but it should definitely be on the list.

I'll give it a 7.5 out of 10.

- John Murphy

Vertigo

Origin: U.S(Alfred J. Hitchcock, Paramount) 1958
Length: 128 minutes
Format: Technicolor
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Producer: Alfred Hitchcock
Screenplay: Samuel A. Taylor, Alec Coppel, from the novel d'Entre les Morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac
Photography: Robert Burks
Music: Bernard Herrmann
Cast: James Stewart, Kim Novak, Barbara Bel Geddes, Tom Helmore, Henry Jones, Raymond Bailey, Ellen Corby, Konstantin Shayne, Lee Patrick
Oscar nominations: Hal Pereira, Henry Bumstead, Sam Comer, Frank R. McKelvy(art direction), George Dutton(sound)
Links:Vertigo Wiki, d'Entre les Morts Wiki

---

Though director Alfred Hitchcock was then at the height of his critical success and commercial fame, Vertigo was not a well-liked film at the time of its release. Most criticism focused on the intricate and unlikely plot dependent on a fiendishly implausible murder scheme on the part of a thinly characterized villain, whose exposure is about as much of a surprise as the ending of your average Scooby-Doo episode. The climax is so concerned with something else that the killer seems to get away with it-though Hitchcock shot an unnecessary tag, in the spirit of his TV narrations, to reveal that he was brought to justice. Closer to the mark, there was a genuine feeling of discomfort at the nasty little relationship between Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak around which the film turns. But during a lengthy period in which Vertigo was unavailable for copyright reasons, the film was critically reassessed. Now it is held to be one of the Master's greatest works.

A Nightmare On Elm Street (Matt)

Well here we are. It's time for me to write up a review on the introduction of one of the giants of the slasher horror genre. This one character was responsible for many a terrified child and I'm afraid I have to count myself among those ranks. This movie came out in 1984, I was 4 years old that year, and I was very susceptible to horror at that time. In between the ages of 4 and 12 I thought monsters still might exist out there somewhere. It's hard to tell reality from fantasy when you're that age, at least it was to a certain extent with me. My parents would not let me watch this movie and I actually did not see it until I was a bit older, although some of the sequels did sneak into my bedtime TV viewing when mom or dad was not looking.

I was not safe however, from the stories of my friends. I heard all about Freddie throughout elementary school and I was terrified. I would occasionally see his picture on a sign or on a t-shirt or in a commercial or such and that's all it took to trigger scared Matt time. I can remember lying in bed knowing that Freddy was after me but too scared to run to mom and dad in their bedroom because I knew that he would wait in between my room and theirs for me to do exactly that.

I'm telling you this so you know the impact that this character had directly on my life. He terrified me in a very real sense, and this is his beginning.

Now that I'm a grown man, of course, this seems very silly. I can separate fantasy from reality and that allows me to actually enjoy movies like this and even laugh at them. I can recognize exaggerated stereotypes aimed at provoking fear in usually a teenage audience and can enjoy the movie for what it is. So that said, here is what I think of this first movie in the series.

The first thing I notice when watching this movie is the music. The opening credits are dark and this eerie music starts to screech out from the TV speakers. That music is creepy and it sets the mood perfectly. A lot of horror movies will employ terrible music on purpose in order to get the view to feel uncomfortable, this movie however pulls off the same effect with music that doesn't make you want to yell at the TV to stop. For that it gets points.

The acting in this movie is second rate for the most part. This, I suppose, is to be at least a little expected. Most of the actors were either first timers or were young and this definitely shows. There are a few scenes that feel forced and this has the tendency to take you out of the film.

The settings are pretty great, especially those used in the dream scenes. The boiler room set, the foggy outside scenes, the school, they all looked great. I enjoy how during dreams the rooms would start out being just a little bit off from reality; maybe the lights are too bright or too dim, or perhaps there is a thick mist covering everything that surrounds you. Then as the scene progresses things start to get weirder and weirder until you don't know what is real and what is not. This was a highlight of the film for sure.

In my opinion the true star of this movie is the monster Freddy. It's hard for me to think of another horror film that has such a brilliant idea for a story. Freddy lives only in dreams, and that single character fact instantly connects every single human alive to him. We all sleep. We all dream. We all might run across him someday. This is scary stuff, and I love it. The more I think about it the more I am amazed at this idea. It's amazing, and I'm glad it brought New Line a lot of money.

The movie is showing it's age a bit now. The clothes look strange and the teenage characters are a bit harder to connect to, at least for those who didn't live through that time period. I have to say though, this movie still is a great watch. It's scary, it's fun, it's.. well it's Freddy.

I'd give it 8 bloody body bags out of 10.

A Nightmare On Elm Street(John)

This movie I have cherished for many years. I believe I first watched it when it came on TNT. It was edited for television but I still enjoyed the film. To see that it made our list makes me very happy. This movie is a classic horror film.

The acting was okay. This movie was made for very little money and one of the reasons is many of the actors were no-names at the time. One of the most annoying actors in the whole film was Nancy's mother. She had crazy, crazy eyes and creeped me out during the entirety of the film. This would have been okay if she was involved in the horror pieces. I think Johnny Depp did a good job for it being his first film ever. And Heather Langenkamp was also good and although she was 20 at the time, made me believe that she was younger. It bears mentioning, however, that there was one actor who stole the show. And that actor was Robert Englund. He didn't have much dialogue at all. But he made Freddy Krueger the scary, intimidating, and yes charismatic character that everyone knows and loves. In other hands, Freddy could have been a minor footnote in the history of horror.

The story was a very intriguing one for its time. Imagine a man who can haunt your dreams. And whatever happens in your dreams translates to real life. If you get cut in your dream, the cut is still there when you wake up. If you die in your dream, you die in real life. Add on top of this the fact that the man who haunts your dreams is a sadistic, finger-knife wielding, trash talking mad man and this becomes a dangerous combination. The movie has the typical horror tropes, but it manages to scare and entertain even to this day. There is a little bit of humor in the film. But, this one has nowhere near the laughs that the sequels have.

The music is another classic piece of this film. To me, the music during the dreams sounds like a haunting version of a lullaby. It is amazing. This really got me when I was younger. It made me anticipate even more finding out how Freddy was going to jump out and claim his victims.

This movie is a classic. If you haven't seen it 1) Shame on you and 2) Go rent it now! This movie is an excellent representative of horror films done well. It's scary, has a solid story and the acting is good enough. It stands the test of time which is always rough for horror flicks.

I'm giving it a 9.5 out of 10.

- John Murphy

A Nightmare On Elm Street

Origin: U.S(Media Home Entertainment, New Line, Smart Egg) 1984
Length: 91 minutes
Format: Color
Director: Wes Craven
Producer: Robert Shaye
Screenplay: Wes Craven
Photography: Jacques Haitkin
Music: Charles Bernstein, Steve Karshner, Martin Kent, Michael Schurig
Cast: John Saxon, Ronee Blakley, Heather Langenkamp, Amanda Wyss, Jsu Garcia, Johnny Depp, Charles Fleischer, Joseph Whipp, Robert Englund, Lin Shaye, Joe Unger, Mimi Craven, Jack Shea, Ed Call, Sandy Lipton
Links: A Nightmare On Elm Street Wiki

---

Wes Craven's signature film, A Nightmare On Elm Street was at once a critical and commercial success that managed to creatively combine horror and humor, Gothic literary motifs and slasher movie conventions, gory special effects and subtle social commentary. And it let loose a new monster in America's pop culture consciousness: That wisecracking, fedora-wearing teen killer, Freddy Krueger.

12 Angry Men (Matt)

12 Angry Men is a movie that is pretty unique. It is about a group of men on a jury having to decide the verdict of a 18 year old kid that is being tried for killing his father. If they convict him then he will be given the death penalty. The entire movie (excepting I think 2 or 3 scenes) takes place in a single room. There isn't any action really, no clear antagonist, just a group of men debating the innocence of a man on trial.

This movie addresses a lot of major social issues including prejudice and apathy. It makes a very clear point that when it comes to issues people tend to generally accept what they "feel" on first glance instead of actually thinking it through and reaching an educated decision.

I'm going to start this off by saying I honestly feel like this movie should be required viewing for American citizens. The point that is makes so matter-of-factly is very important. The life of this man hangs in the balance of the jury's decision, and in the beginning they almost all are ready to send him to his death. He was from a bad part of town, he must have done it. He had a bad childhood, I'm sure he killed his father. When the facts were analyzed these assumptions were disproven and the men learned a bit about themselves as well.

The acting I think speaks for itself. The entire movie is nothing but acting. In fact, this could have just as easily been a play. The movie is all dialogue, and the emotions portrayed by the men are easily readable yet still they reside on the edge of complexity. You can relate to every character in there and you likely know several people just like them, which is a big kudos to the writing as well.

I can't say much for the cinematography, as there was only one room to shoot, however I will say that the cameras working with the set made the entire movie feel claustrophobic, which I've read was the intent of the director. So that is worth mentioning.

The way that this story is told is very interesting. We see absolutely none of the trial take place. All the details of the trial are given to us via the men discussing the verdict. As they talk to each other and debate the young man's fate, slowly a picture of the crime scene begins to form in the viewer's minds. We first have only what the juror's mention to form the crime in our minds, and as a result it's easy to fall into league with the men and assume that the verdict should be guilty. As we hear the men debate though, new things come to light and we are brought around just like any of the men could be. This was amazing. Whoever wrote this deserves major accolades.

You should see this movie. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, watch it and pay attention to it. What it has to say is very important and is worth an hour or so of your life.

9 broken fans out of 10

~Matt

12 Angry Men(John)

When we think of movies, we generally think of actors portraying a specific role. They act out these roles in many locales. It may be from a train station to an apartment building, but these setting are there to push the story forward and give the audience some kind of perspective. In 12 Angry Men, the film manages to do this with only one setting: a jury room.

Ok, acting. There was an all-star cast in this film. Henry Fonda, Ed Begley and John Fiedler are just a few of the stars in the film. The performance that shined the most to me had to be either Lee Cobb or Ed Begley's character. Cobb played this very hard man with unshakable resolve and Begley played a very loud-mouthed prejudiced man. Both of these performances I thought were great. Cobb's character was diverse. He was a tough man who yelled a lot but at the same time, he was a loving father who had shunned his son. Because he hadn't spoken to his son in some time, he subconsciously was taking his anger out on the jurors and the boy who was on trial. Begley's character was interesting simply because he was openly prejudiced against the boy. I thought the scene where he was trying to make his case and no one was listening was a very powerful scene and had a lot of truth to it. Every character in the film had their own personalities and it was interesting to see them co-exist for a short time in the jury room.

The story was quite simplistic. A jury of 12 is tasked with determining if a boy killed his father. The way the story was told was the amazing part. The entire trial is told in the third person by the jurors as they try to determine if the boy is guilty or not. As the movie played out, I started to imagine the crime scene and the boy on the witness stand. Since we the audience were not shown the trial, it is up to us to imagine what it was like through these men talking about it. I think it is really amazing that this movie was able to pull this off so flawlessly. I loved the little side-stories that we were told about some of the characters. For instance, the information we learn about Lee Cobb's character was particularly interesting and very important to the plot.

The camera work was sufficient. There were a few scenes where the camera kept zooming in on the old man and I found this very odd. I didn't understand why they felt the need to zoom in on his face but not others. To add to this, the man kept making creepy faces. This is a small complaint but I could not help but laugh during these scenes and I'm pretty sure they were not meant to be funny.

This is probably the best black and white movie I've ever seen. It's not my favorite but it definitely is the best. The achievement of telling a compelling story within only one setting is enough for me to recommend it to anyone. Add good acting, well developed characters and excellent dialogue and it becomes a must watch.

I'll give it a 9 out of 10.

- John Murphy

12 Angry Men

Origin: U.S(Orion-Nova) 1957
Length: 96 minutes
Format: Black & White
Director: Sidney Lumet
Producer: Henry Fonda, Reginald Rose
Screenplay: Reginald Rose
Photography: Boris Kaufman
Music: Kenyon Hopkins
Cast: Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Jack Klugman, Ed Binns, Joseph Sweeney, George Voskovec, Robert Webber
Oscar Nominations: Henry Fonda, Reginald Rose(best picture), Sidney Lumet(director), Reginald Rose(screenplay)
Berlin International Film Festival: Sidney Lumet(Golden Bear, OCIC Award)
Links: 12 Angry Men Wiki

---

Sidney Lumet's courtroom drama enjoys enduring popularity because it is a hothouse for smart performances, sudden twists, and impassioned monologues. Uniquely, the brilliantly economical and riveting drama of 12 Angry Men does not actually take place in the courtroom- except for a brief prologue as the jury is sent out with the judge's instructions - but during a single, sweltering afternoon in the jury room.

Lumet's much loved, engrossing debut film makes no apologies for its theatricality but makes a virtue of its claustrophobic, sweaty intensity. And each actor makes his mark in this showcase of superb characterizations and ensemble dynamics, from Martin Balsam's insecure foreman to a leonine Lee J. Cobb's belligerent, embittered Juror #3. Class and ethnic prejudices, private assumptions, and personalities all come out in a colossal struggle for unclouded judgment. The film won the Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival but its greatest accolade is that after seeing this picture no one ever enters into jury duty without fantasizing about becoming a dogged champion of justice a la Fonda, whatever the case at hand.



Review coming soon...

Amadeus (Matt)

I watched the following trailer before I saw this movie.

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi498467097/

After seeing it I ended up having no idea what to expect from it. I thought it was a biopic about Mozart until I watched the trailer, and afterward I was lost. I tell you this so you can know that I went into this movie with a blank slate, at least for the most part. Several of my friends like this movie quite a bit, so there was a little bit of bias in that aspect, but that seems to be the case with any movie that we watch here that anyone I know has seen beforehand.

Lets start off with the acting, because it was great. Tom Hulce, who played Amadeus, won the Oscar for best actor for this film, and it was very well deserved. I do feel, however, that F. Murray Abraham, who was also nominated for best actor, deserved it more. His acting was amazing. We get to watch the court composer, Salieri, succumb to his own jealousy. The transformation is fascinating to watch. I have zero experience as an actor, and my knowledge of the art is limited to the movies and plays and such that I have watched. That said, it seems that playing an eccentric character would be easier than playing a normal one. The audience is more forgiving with inconsistencies with eccentric characters. They don't have to be believable. A normal character seems to me much hard to play convincingly. This is one of the main reason that I feel Abraham got stiffed.

I want to mention the costuming. Wow. The costumes are amazing throughout the film but I want to mention in particular the masquerade ball around the middle of the film. What an amazing scene that was. Elaborate costumes and masks are swirling around and dancing, lots of laughter and music filling the ears, and the glum black costume of Amadeus' father looming amongst it all. It's quite a scene, and it was easily my favorite part of the film. This movie won an Ocsar for costuming as well, and once again, it's easy to see why.

I should also mention the music. Most of the music in the film was taken directly from Mozart's actual work, so it wasn't anything new. What made it mentionable though, is the way they used it. In scenes where music is being played it completely dominates the scene. All other sounds are blocked out, and all you here is the loud, booming productions that the composers create. It's quite an experience. The music was also used in another way however, that I also thought was amazing. This was portrayed when the composers were reading sheet music. As Salieri reads through the scores created by Mozart, we hear what he reads. He knew music well enough that he can hear the entire piece simply by reading the notes, and the way the movie showed me this was awesome.

Really there isn't much I can say that's bad about the movie. Take a look at the list of Oscars that the movie won:

Best Actor In A Leading Role
Best Art-Direction-Set Direction
Best Costume Role
Best Director
Best Makeup
Best Picture
Best Sound
Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium

Now we aren't done yet, these are the nominations that the movie recieved but didn't win:

Best Actor In A Leading Role
Best Cinematography
Best Film Editing

Seriously! This movie was nominated eleven times, and it won 8 of those nominations. This would have been nine but two of the nominations were in the same category.

My only complaint is that the movie got a bit slow at times. I did find myself a bit bored at moments, wishing for something to happen to move the story forward. I'll give this one 8 annoying laughs out of 10.

Amadeus(John)

I first saw this movie when I was in about seventh grade. Mrs. Bull, our band teacher, brought the movie in for band class. I don't remember her reason for having us watch the movie. I guess she thought it would make us appreciate music more. And, I would have to say, it fulfills that role as well as appreciation for many more aspects of the film.

So, the acting in the film is phenomenal. There is an all-star cast in this film and each one of them plays their part to the tee. F. Murray Abraham leads the film with his emotional narrations and his ability to play a man his own age as well as a senile older man. However, while F. Murray Abraham did an excellent job, the most outstanding performance for me would have to go to Tom Hulce, who played Mozart. His interesting portrayal of Mozart really sucked me into the film. Hulce basically had to play two different people. While Mozart was working on his music, he was focused and very devoted and serious. However, when he wasn't working, he was a womanizing alcoholic with childlike tendencies and a grating laugh. It was very interesting to see the shifts in his personality and it was executed perfectly.

The story was great. We are treated to an excellent story about Mozart's life, however inaccurate the story may be. We start all the way back to when Mozart was 5 and playing for Kings and we end as he dies. The interesting part is that the movie is narrated by Salieri, his rival. We see almost as much about his life as we do Mozart's. It was interesting how Salieri kept referring to Mozart as God's instrument and how Salieri has forsaken God because he chose Mozart over him. This theme was used throughout the movie. The last few scenes of the movie are the scenes I remember the most from when I watched it back in seventh grade. I don't know why they stuck with me over others, but they were definitely powerful scenes.

The music was amazing in the film. Almost all of the music were actual pieces that Mozart composed. I loved how the film started with some of his more light-hearted pieces and by the end the bombastic, dark and disturbing music was filling my ears. It was very fitting and set the tone for the scenes in the movie.

The set design was also very good. The costumes looked excellent. I could not believe how much detail was put into the scenes that involved the plays. It was as if there were whole operas and plays inside this one movie.

I tried to think of things that I did not like about the movie. But, really, I can't think of any. One thing that I would've liked to have seen would be a more accurate telling of Mozart's life. Although, I think we would've experienced a much more different(and possibly boring) film. This movie kept me at the edge of my seat the whole time. And there isn't even any action! The action scenes are the moments when Mozart is directing an opera, and this works so well.

I'm giving this movie a 9 out of 10.

- John Murphy

Amadeus

Origin: U.S(Saul Zaentz) 1984
Length: 160 minutes
Format: Color
Director: Milos Foreman
Producer: Saul Zaentz
Screenplay: Peter Shaffer, from his play
Photography: Miroslav Ondricek
Music: Johann Sebastian Bach, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Antonio Salieri
Cast: F. Murray Abraham, Tom Hulce, Elizabeth Berridge, Simon Callow, Roy Dotrice, Christine Ebersole, Jeffery Jones, Charles Kay, Kenny Baker
Oscars: Saul Zaentz(best picture), Milos Foreman(director), Peter Shaffer(screenplay), F. Murray Abraham(actor), Patrizia Von Brandenstein, Karel Cerny(art direction), Theodor Pistek(costume), Paul LeBlanc, Dick Smith(makeup), Mark Berger, Thomas Scott, Todd Beokelheide, Christopher Newman(sound)
Oscar Nominations: Tom Hulce(actor), Miroslav Ondricek(photography), Nena Danevic, Michael Chandler(editing)
Links: Amadeus Wiki

---

Czech director Milos Foreman's casting of American Tom Hulce as the giggling Austrian composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart contrasts with the opulent sets and period details on display throughout the epic biopic Amadeus. But Hulce's wild, over the top performance as the brilliant enfant terrible jibes with the theory that larger-than-life music must flow from a larger-than-life personality.



Review coming soon...

The Cow (Matt)

The Cow is the first movie that I have ever seen that was created in and by Iran. It was created in 1969 and is filmed in black and white. In this 105 minute long movie we stay inside a poor village in which live a smattering of country folk. The town's greatest asset is a pregnant cow, owned by the stories main character, Hassan. He absolutely adores this cow, and the director goes to great lengths to make sure we realize this. All is well until a group of bandits appears and starts to bother the town. Hassan has to travel to work for a day and while he is gone the cow dies. It's never made clear exactly how the cow is killed. Hassan, to put it lightly, doesn't take it well. He goes insane and the villagers struggle to save their friend.

I'm afraid that I walk the middle road for this movie. The pros and the cons mixed together to create a very neutral point of view. Lets start with what I didn't like about it.

This move is boring. The first half of the film is dedicated to showing the audience that Hassan really loves his cow. We see him 'ooo' and 'ahh' over it, he gives it a bath and feeds it and makes baby noises at it the entire time. These scenes are long and incredibly boring. Imagine watching a bearded man in black and white cooing at a cow for about 45 minutes, ok now you can skip forward past the entire beginning of the movie. The only other important point of the beginning is that there are a group of bandits around the outside of the town that occasionally raid the villagers livestock. Aside from that however, it's just a dude and a cow in black and white.

The music is a bit obnoxious. I suppose it is culturally sound, and for that reason I should tolerate it, but it sounds in a lot of places just like a dude banging around on pots or plucking a guitar randomly. The melody is hard to obtain. This can be useful in establishing a mood sometimes, sort of like in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but mostly in this film it just made me wonder what the heck was going on in the orchestra pit.

I very much enjoyed the cinematography. It's filmed with very little light and this combined with the black and white and the quality of the film (which appears poor) creates a very ominous mood at night in the village. I'm not positive if this was the directors intent or not but regardless it's amazing. The shots were different from the usual shots that I would expect in a film, and that made it more interesting. This was the high point of the movie for me easily.

I also thought that Ezzatolah Entezami, the actor that played Hassan, was pretty great. He pulled a convincing insanity act, and kept the audience on their toes wondering what he would try and do next. He had good crazy eyes, and was also good at moving in discomforting ways. Just seeing him move made you think he was nuts.

So there you go, two good things and two bad things. I guess to stick with the balance here I'll give this a score of 5 PETA complaints out of 10.

~Matt

The Cow(John)

This is probably the weirdest movie I've ever seen. Although, it wasn't really hard to become that. An Iranian movie made in 1968 in Black & White about a guy who goes insane over losing his cow...yeah.

Let's start with the acting. Really nothing to write home about. I think the best character in the movie had to be Hassan, the main character. He did a good job and he really sold the insanity. The other supporting cast was just ok. None of them stood out to me...except for the guy who never left his home and was always saying "Ephram, is something wrong?". The comic relief, I guess.

Ok, story-wise is where this review gets tricky. As I said before, this movie centers around the loss of a cow. Now, as Americans living in the year 2010, it's going to be hard to relate to the film. What I did was imagine that the cow was Hassan's son. This way, I was able to at least understand a little more the events that took place. And, really, the story wasn't that bad. I kept thinking of it as an episode of The Twilight Zone or Outer Limits that took place in Iran. Kind of odd, yes, but that's what I was thinking. The story follows the typical Aristotelian flow: beginning, middle and end. In the beginning, we gain sympathy for Hassan and his cow, in the middle we learn that the cow has died and see the townspeople attempt to hide this from Hassan, and in the end we see the breakdown of Hassan.

The technical aspects of the movie was the shining star of the film. For a third world movie made in 1968, I think this movie performed above and beyond in this category. There were a lot of creepy shots in the movie and it really provided the needed suspense. If the movie wasn't shot as good as it was, I really think this could've been a boring movie. The black & white also aided in the film. The shots at night looked really really dark and we were only provided with vision when it was needed.

Overall, I guess I would say that I liked the movie but I could not recommend it to others and will more than likely never watch it again. I thought the acting was sub-par, the story was okay and the camera work was really good. I was not bored and it definitely exceeded my expectations. This is a movie you can watch that a majority of American audiences have never seen and will never see.

I'm giving it a 6.5 out of 10.

- John Murphy

Gaav (The Cow)

Origin: Iran (Iranian Ministry of Culture) 1968
Length: 100 minutes
Format: Black & White
Language: Farsi
Director: Dariush Mehrjui
Producer: Dariush Mehrjui
Screenplay: Dariush Mehrjui, from play by Gholam-Hossein Saedi
Photography: Fereduyn Ghovanlu
Music: Hormoz Farhat
Cast: Ezzatolah Entezami, Mahmoud Dowlatabadi, Parviz Fanizadeh, Jamshid Mashayekhi, Ali Nassirian, Esmat Safavi, Khosrow Shojazadeh, Jafar Vali
Berlin International Film Festival: Dariush Mehrjui(OCIC award- recommendation, forum of new film)
Links: The Cow Wiki

---

Rumor has it that after seeing The Cow, the Ayatollah Khomeini opined that perhaps there might be a place for filmmaking in the Islamic Republic, thus creating at least the theoretical possibility for the Iranian cinema of Abbas Kiarostami, Mohsen Makhmalbaf, Jafar Panahi, and others. The first Iranian feature film to attract significant international attention, The Cow was the second feature by the UCLA-educated Dariush Mehrjui, who returned to Iran determined to create a new kind of filmmaking comparable to the new Third World cinema then just emerging.

Below is not a trailer for the movie. I could not find an official(or unofficial) trailer for the movie. This is more of a snippet:

Into The Wild (Matt)

This movie tells the story of a man who forsakes all that he has in order to live the life of a hobo.

What a great opening sentence. I've been trying to think of a way to start this review for quite a few minutes and I think I finally came up with a winner.

So yes, Into the Wild is a story of a young man, fresh out of college. He has good grades, he has around $25,000 in the bank, he's qualified to attend Harvard Law, and he parents want to buy him a new car. He's living the dream. The only problem is he's living somebody else's dream. He feels like all the material things that he owns are nothing but distractions from the actual living of his life. Indeed it seems the only possessions he seems to value at all are his books. He gives all his things away and sets out on his own.

Armed with only his knowledge he sets out on a quest for happiness. As the story unfolds we find out a bit more about his motivations and we begin to understand why someone who has so much would set out with absolutely nothing, and I personally found this quest to be very noble. I am to a certain extent, even jealous of him for being able to just strike out with nothing like he did.

Well you might have guessed this by now, but by far to me the best part of this film was this story. I felt close to the character, and even felt some of myself in him as I watched him tramping around the country, into Mexico, and eventually even all the way to Alaska. I was never once bored, despite the lack of action.

Emile Hirsch, who played Chris McCandless, was amazing in this. He portrayed his character with a certain dignity that must have been hard to put into place on what was essentially, just a hobo.

The music is interesting, mainly because the vocalist on every track is none other than Pearl Jam's Eddy Vedder. He lends his voice to slow folk sounding acoustic songs and the result creates a very human, very low tech sort of experience.

There are moments where the movie gets a little slow. I know I mentioned above that I wasn't ever bored, and I stand by that, however this movie runs around 2 and 1/2 hours long, and some of the scenes could have probably been shortened or cut all together. This movie tries hard to stay close to the book and to the truth of the character, this longness is most likely a result of that. If you aren't enjoying the story however, I can see how someone could get tired of this film after a while.

8 magic buses out of 10.

~Matt

Into The Wild(John)

When watching movies, I tend to enjoy movies that make me feel emotion. If I can connect with the characters and the adventures they have, I generally think I just watched a good movie. Into The Wild was an exception to this rule. I liked the movie, but I felt so aggravated throughout the whole movie, that I was not able to connect with the characters(well one character in particular).

The acting was very good. I can see why Hal Holbrook was nominated for Best Supporting Actor the year this came out. He was very convincing and I felt disappointed that he was in so little of the film. Emile Hirsch played his part well. Seeing his transformation from being brought up in a privileged home to living out in the Alaskan wilds was truly amazing. I am always in awe when I see actors put so much into their roles. This was actually an all star movie. Hal Holbrook, Kristen Stewart, Emile Hirsch, Kathryn Keener, Zach Galafanakis and Vince Vaughn all starred in the movie and they were all pretty good.

I know this is a true story, so I will give my thoughts on the story and then say some things about how I felt during the movie. Normally I wouldn't delve outside the standard review, but I feel like this will help people understand my review better.

The story was told very well. I was drawn to the screen the whole time. This boy's journey was truly epic. To travel from Atlanta, GA all the way up to Alaska over a span of two years is quite a feat to say the least. This may be weird to say, but I kinda got a Neverending Story vibe from the movie. This boy is on a journey and along the way, he meets people who eventually become his friends and they help him complete his journey. I guess really, this movie was like any other adventure movie but I was thinking Neverending Story a lot.

Now, here's why I was aggravated. This boy thought that he had to travel all the way to Alaska with no money and no car. On top of that, he couldn't tell his parents(or his sister, whom he seemed genuinely fond of at the beginning) where he was going. In order to experience freedom, he had to do these things. My question is, why? How would picking up the phone and calling his sister take away from his experience of freedom? It's not like he didn't want help because he sure got a lot of it along the way. This was like a whole level above being your typical hippie. Even the hippies in the movie didn't really agree with what he was doing. Why could he not just face his problems head on and experience life? Everybody has problems, but true freedom-I think-is being able to tackle those problems and come out on the other side. Obviously, Chris didn't feel this way and, I guess, to each their own.

The music was amazing. Eddie Vedder provides most of the music in the film. He has never sounded better. Vedder has such a unique voice and it really complimented the movie. Most of it was just his voice with some guitar accompaniment, but that was enough.

I hope this didn't come across as negative. I thought the movie was good and the fact that I felt so much when the movie ended reflects that. This is a really solid movie and it should not be missed. Maybe you will agree with what the main character does, maybe you won't. But, either way, you will probably feel something.

I'll give it a 8.0 out of 10.

- John Murphy

Into The Wild

Origin: U.S. (Paramount Vantage, River Road Entertainment, Art Linson Productions) 2007
Length: 140 minutes
Format: Color
Director: Sean Penn
Producer: Sean Penn, Art Linson, William Pohlad
Screenplay: Sean Penn
Photography: Eric Gautier
Music: Michael Brook, Kaki King, Eddit Vedder
Cast: Emile Hirsch, Marcia Gay Harden, William Hurt, Jena Malone, Brian Dierker, Catherine Keener, Vince Vaughn, Kristen Stewart, Hal Holbrook
Oscar Nominations: Hal Holbrook(best supporting actor), Jay Cassidy(best film editing)
Links: Into The Wild Wiki, Into The Wild novel Wiki

---

After graduating Emory University in 1992, Christopher McCandless, an idealistic young man from a privileged background, gave away all his worldly possessions and set out to discover his place in the world. He denied himself the comforts of contemporary life and struggled to achieve an old-fashioned sense of truth. Hitchhiking to Alaska, he made camp in the wilderness of Denali National Park, where he lived in the raw until the exigencies of circumstance took over and he slowly starved to death. When his body was later found inside an abandoned bus, his story became a cause celebre. On the one hand, his pursuit of basic truth and happiness was seen as laudable, even heroic; on the other, he died foolishly and alone, a cautionary tale about human kind's inability to live beyond the realms of civilization.

The Big Red One(John)

I had never heard of this movie before we decided to watch it for the blog. I knew most of the names and faces: Lee Marvin, Robert Carradine and Mark Hammill. So, I expected to be blown away. However, I think, all in all, this movie fell a little short of that expectation.

From an acting perspective, I think there was really a lack of emotion in the movie. Very rarely did I feel like the people in this epic war movie felt any kind of pain or sadness. I'm not sure if this was the intention of the film but it really sucked the realism out of the film for me. However, despite the lack of emotion, I thought the delivery of lines and the situations the actors were put in were pretty good. Lee Marvin was born to be in war films. His face and general demeanor fits perfectly in the genre. I was a little off-put by the narration by Robert Carradine. I felt he didn't fit the part to do the narration and I would've much rather preferred Lee Marvin. Of course, that would've changed the film. I think Mark Hammill was my second favorite in the acting department in the movie. When you compare his performance in Star Wars: A New Hope to this, it's like comparing apples to oranges(oranges being much much better :P). When I said very rarely did I feel emotion from the actors in this movie, ninety percent of the exceptions came from Mark Hammill. He did an excellent job and I am glad I got to see him shine in this movie.

There were a few confusing parts in this movie that I didn't understand. Some of the military "tactics" really threw me for a loop. However, the story is definitely where I think the movie's strengths lie. The underlying message of the movie is that soldiers don't murder, they kill. You are presented with this early in the movie and it gets brought up quite a few times until the closure at the end. I thought this was an interesting message and it's ambiguous enough that much debate could be had. As far as how the movie gets to the ending, I thought it was a good showcase of what WWII would've been like. I'm not entirely sure that everything that happened in the movie was believable but maybe for the most part, it was.

The cinematography was pretty good. The camera explored a lot of different angles that I found to be interesting. The opening scene's coloring technique I had seen before in Schindler's List and I wondered if this is where Spielberg got it from. And, I wasn't sure if the film's grainy quality was on purpose or just a sign of the movie's age, but I liked it nonetheless. One thing that was off-putting was the grenade explosions. It was extremely obvious that it wasn't a real grenade. The setting was very authentic and made the world come alive. Lastly, the sound was pretty darn good. I could hear the release of an empty clip from a gun. The gunfire was really good and explosions were quite loud.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. There were some moments that confused me, the acting was really devoid of emotion and there were some effects that didn't come through for me. But, I did enjoy the story and the underlying message and there were some interesting camera shots going on that kept me eager to see the next scene.

I'm giving this movie an 8.0 out of 10.

- John Murphy

The Big Red One (Matt)

This movie interested me primarily because the director, Samuel Fuller, was actually a member of the Big Red One during World War 2. Many of the events that occur in this film were actually experienced by him, and being able to see a direct translation of the experience of war to the screen by someone who actually lived it is an opportunity that I did not wish to pass up.

That said I wasn't a great fan of this film.

I had a difficult time connecting with this film. I was not able to follow the story very well, I didn't care about the characters like I felt I should, and I spent the majority of the time watching it wondering exactly what was going on.

The acting wasn't that bad. It's nothing to write home about, but it's not bad. The action was solid. The sets were well done. I think if I have to blame a single element of this film for my disconnection, it would have to be the storytelling. There is just too much going on. This is likely not entirely the fault of the director, as apparently his original film was cut down by an hour or so, but coming from a time where long stories are told in episodic movies, I can't help but feel that this movie should have been a series of several movies and not one long disjointed mess. If the story had guided us through a single event I would be saying something very different, but as it was I just didn't like it.

The movie isn't all bad though. The acting wasn't horrible, and Lee Marvin was actually pretty great. He was easily my favorite character of the movie. His acting captured the spirit of the sergeant, and I found myself seeing him as I believe the other characters in the movie did. He carried an aura of authority and knowing that could have only been portrayed through good acting.

The sets were also well done. I'm not sure where the movie was filmed but I never once doubted I was in Europe during WW2. The crumbling towns, the Italian landscapes, the concentration camp, all were a visual delight to see. It was like being transported through time, and definitely deserves a mention.

I guess I'll give this 3 cold butts out of 10.

~Matt

The Big Red One

Origin: U.S. (Lorimar Television) 1980
Length: 163 minutes(restored version)
Format: Metrocolor
Director: Samuel Fuller
Producer: Gene Corman
Screenplay: Samuel Fuller
Photography: Adam Greenberg
Music: Dana Kaproff
Cast: Lee Marvin, Mark Hamill, Robert Carradine, Bobby Di Cicco, Kelly Ward, Stephane Audran, Siegfried Rauch, Serge Marquand, Charles Macaulay, Alain Doutey, Maurice Marsac, Colin Gilbert, Joseph Clark, Ken Campbell, Doug Werner
Cannes Film Festival: Samuel Fuller(Golden Palm nomination)
Links: The Big Red One Trailer, The Big Red One Wiki

---

The most ambitious war film in Samuel Fuller's career, a chronicle of his own First Infantry Division in World War II, The Big Red One was a long time coming. When it finally made it to the screen, a wholesale reediting by the studio and a tacked-on narration(by filmmaker Jim McBride) made it something less than Fuller had intended - he originally provided the studio with four-hour and two-hour cuts, both of which were rejected. Fuller enthusiasts still hold out hope that either or both of these versions might someday be restored. Nevertheless, it's a grand-style, idiosyncratic war epic, with wonderful poetic ideas, intense emotions, and haunting images rich in metaphysical portent.

There Will Be Blood (Matt)

If you would have asked me before I saw this film if I thought a movie about a guy in the early 1900's building an oil company literally from the ground up would be interesting I would have laughed in your face. That just sound boring. In fact, the first time I saw this movie I was hardly excited. I was dug in and prepared for 2 hours and 30 minutes of quality snooze time. That sleepy never came however. Not one time during this movie was I bored, and that includes two separate viewings.

So you might be wondering, why is this movie not boring? How could a movie about a guy building an oil company be that interesting? Well read on and I'll tell you.

Lets start with the cinematography. Beautiful. The stark landscape of America in the 1900's was surprisingly a visual feast. The days were very bright and the nights were very dark. The landscapes were dusty and covered with sparse grass, and all of the colors seemed muted to the point that the entire movie seemed washed with tans and browns. The shots were set up to showcase this in spades. The sets and costumes were created in such a way that I felt transported to that time period. I never once doubted that I was in the middle of America around 1900. All of these elements were crafted wonderfully by the movie crew and then captured with a near perfection by the director.

Next up is the music. This is one of the strangest movie scores that I can remember, but it completely fits with the context of the film. It almost feels like a horror movie score in a lot of ways, there is a lot of violin tones to be found here, and sometimes in unusual places. It is used as a tool to create tension in most cases, and it does that quite well. When you combine the unpredictability of Daniel Plainview with the tense violin tones you come away with a very unsettling experience.

Last and certainly not least is the absolutely amazing acting. Daniel Day-Lewis proves that he is one of the most qualified actors in Hollywood in his performance. He won the Oscar for male performance for this movie and it was well deserved. He takes a character that has got to be hard to portray and just runs away with it. Every scene he appears in, which is with very few exceptions the entire movie, is just magic. This quite honestly is one of the most amazing acting jobs I have ever seen. The character of Daniel Plainview is complicated, it's hard to describe him. He is smart but he is also crazy. He keeps a lot of himself hidden inside and yet he has an explosiveness inside him that his craziness tends to draw out occasionally. Daniel Day-Lewis was able to take all of this and put it into a performance that left the character completely believable. It was incredible.

10 wooden bowling pins out of 10.

~Matt

There Will Be Blood(John)

There is a reason this movie was nominated for so many Oscars. There is a reason Daniel Day-Lewis won the Oscar for best actor. This is a freaking amazing movie and, whether you like it or you hate it, it's the pure definition of a movie you must see before you die.

Answer: Daniel Day-Lewis's performance. Question: Why is this movie so amazing? Time and time again, Daniel Day-Lewis has awed audiences with his performances. His performance in There Will Be Blood does not disappoint. He's known to be a very methodical actor and very picky about the movies he is in. This man shows us a perfect progression of a person whose greed an insanity basically destroys him. Daniel Plainview gets his wish: wealth beyond measure. But at the same time, he loses his sanity and his family because of that greed and competitiveness. I rarely find myself smiling during a movie, not because of a humorous moment, but because of the elation that I am feeling watching this person act on the screen. If Daniel Day-Lewis was not cast in this movie, it may very well have been forgettable. Not to leave the supporting cast out, the boy who played Eli/Paul Sunday was also excellent. He was able to be annoying and sympathetic at the same time which was very critical to the movie. The little boy(H.W. Plainview) also did a pretty good job.

The plot is fairly streamlined. Daniel Plainview is good at a certain thing and he has a specific goal in life. We follow his realization of that goal throughout the movie. Along the way, things hinder him from completing the goal. The main reason for this movie is to show the genius(and insanity) of Daniel Plainview. Plainview is a genius oil man. He's at the top of his game. But when it comes to connecting with other people, he's never been able to do that very well. We as the audience, learn exactly what's most important to him: wealth and winning. So, although the plot is minimal, what we experience along the way is amazing. Lastly, the last line of dialogue in the movie I thought was so perfect. It summed up the movie in numerous ways and was perfect.

The music was interesting. The music really consisted of clanks and clacking noises to simulate suspenseful moments and smooth swaying sounds when things were calm. I almost think this was a detriment to the film. When watching No Country For Old Men, there was hardly any music. And I think that made me more engrossed in the film. I wasn't taken out of the film with the music in There Will Be Blood, but I think it wasn't really necessary in some places. The visuals on the other hand were stunning. More than once, we are treated to these shots that pan out and give us a birds-eye view of the land. That combined with the authenticity of the sets made me truly get sucked into the world of 1900s oil drilling America.

There Will Be Blood is a movie that probably won't appeal to everyone. It takes a willingness to get sucked into the world of oil drilling and the insanity that Daniel Day-Lewis provides. But if you get sucked in, get ready for one heck of a good movie. I'll give it a 9.7 out of 10.

- John Murphy

There Will Be Blood

Origin: U.S. (Ghoulardi Film Company, Paramount Vantage, Mirimax Films) 2007
Length: 158 minutes
Format: Color
Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Producer: Paul Thomas Anderson, JoAnne Sellar, Daniel Lupi
Screenplay: Paul Thomas Anderson
Photography: Robert Elswit
Music: Jonny Greenwood
Cast: Daniel Day-Lewis, Paul Dano, Kevin J. O'Connor, Kevin Breznahan
Oscars: Daniel Day-Lewis(best actor), Robert Elswit(best cinematography)
Oscar nominations: Daniel Lupi, JoAnne Sellar, Paul Thomas Anderson(best picture), Paul Thomas Anderson(best director), Paul Thomas Anderson(best adapted screenplay), Jack Fisk, Jim Erickson(best art direction), Dylan Tichenor(best film editing), Matthew Wood, Christopher Scarabosio(best sound editing).
Links: There Will Be Blood Trailer, There Will Be Blood Wiki, Oil! Wiki

---

Paul Thomas Anderson's excoriating study of greed and the both constructive and destructive powers of competitiveness and ambition is a stunning achievement by the still young writer-director. Using Upton Sinclair's muckraking 1927 novel Oil! as a jumping-off point, Anderson creates a vastly cinematic, darkly personal tale of one man seemingly without a single redemptive characteristic. The nuance of the storytelling, concentrating on long, almost silent passages and huge, open panoramas, There Will Be Blood delves to the most painful depths of a man who, by many measures, would have been considered both a success and a genius, but in Anderson's hands is painted as a charismatic sociopath.

A Night at the Opera (Matt)

I'm going to go ahead and say it right now. This is one of the funniest movies ever made. I say that entirely free of impressions of Kanye. It's a simple fact. This movie was made in 1935, that means it is 75 years old, and I laughed harder watching it than I do watching the vast majority of modern comedies. It holds up that well. I think that is a huge compliment to give a comedy as humor seems in many cases to be tied to periods of time. A great example of this is the early episodes of Saturday Night Live. They have some funny skits occasionally sure, but most of the material when viewed today is just not funny at all. This movie completely transcends that restriction and remains as funny now as it was when it was created.

Lets start with this movie being black and white. This, as I have stated previously, tends to be a block to me enjoying movies. I get bored without the color. I hate admitting that but that is how it is. If a black and white movie is not exceptionally entertaining, I have a terrible time connecting with it. This movie I didn't even notice was in black and white. Never once was I even close to bored. I never had a chance to be, I was constantly assaulted by comic gags that kept me laughing.

The acting was pretty stereotypical Marx brothers, which is to say VERY animated and overacted. This wasn't a problem however as it is what the audience expects when watching these older comedies. The characters were as believable as they needed to be, which is to say, the characters didn't really matter that much. The acting as well as the story takes second place to the comedy, which really is why anyone would watch this movie in the first place. You don't watch this looking for a beautifully crafted, emotional story. You don't want to see deep characters responding to hardship or bonding. You want comedy. You want to have a good time. That is exactly what this movie provides. I did want to mention in particular the acting of Sig Ruman as the movies antagonist Gottleib. He was quite outstanding. His animated acting and facial expressions place him perfectly into this movie and I like his scenes in particular. He really played a great villain.

I've already mentioned the comedy but I'll say it again. The funniness of this film is absolutely timeless. I laughed for the entire film. I was cheering for the good guys and booing for the bad guys, and every time the Marx brothers pranked one of the villains I was thinking to myself "take that!" and laughing more. Some of the scenes in this film are quite honestly the funniest scenes I've ever seen in a movie. You should see this movie, every one of you.

I don't have anything bad to say. I loved this movie. Every single minute of it.

10 bearded officers out of 10.

~Matt

A Night At The Opera(John)

I believe this is the first straight up comedy that we've reviewed here on the blog. A Night At The Opera is one of those classic comedies that influenced so many other films in the genre. And the best part is, it's still freaking funny.

I'm going to break my usual review structure and try something different. This movie has some pretty bad acting, the plot is extremely minimal. The music is pretty good and the cinematography is fairly dated and crappy(lots of obvious cuts).

Now that all of that is out of the way, we can focus on the real reason you should watch this movie. This movie is freaking hilarious. The film was made in 1935 and stars three of the Marx brothers: Groucho, Harpo and Chico. I had seen bits and pieces of some other Marx brothers movies but I'd never known exactly how funny they were. Until now.

I was seriously laughing throughout the whole film. So much comedy comes your way that you will probably have to watch the movie again because you more than likely laughed through some funny parts and didn't hear them. The delivery by the three brothers is unique and yet melds together perfectly. Groucho delivers his comedy in the form of funny body motions and quick, lightning fast jokes. Harpo doesn't speak through the whole film, but is able to be funny by making weird faces and honking his horn and cutting things up with his scissors. Chico was the least funny in my opinion, but he still had his moments.

There were three particular bits that made my sides split. Watching these scenes, I couldn't help but think how before their time the Marx brothers were. I love the Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy and Abbott and Costello. While these guys were very funny, their stuff is your standard fare slapstick comedy. The scenes I watched in A Night At The Opera were amazing and so innovative.

If you are a fan of comedy, there is no reason you should not see this film. It has everything you could want. This will make you want to watch the entire Marx brothers collection of movies. I know it makes me want to. I'm giving it a well deserved 9.5 out of 10.

- John Murphy

A Night At The Opera

Origin: U.S. (MGM) 1935
Length: 96 minutes
Format: Black & White
Director: Sam Wood
Producer: Irving Thalberg
Screenplay: James Kevin McGuinness, George S. Kaufman
Photography: Merritt B. Gerstad
Music: Nacio Herb Brown, Walter Jurmann, Bronislau Kaper, Herbert Stothart
Cast: Groucho Marx, Chico Marx, Harpo Marx, Kitty Carlisle, Allan Jones, Walter Woolf King, Sig Ruman, Margaret Dumont, Edward Keane, Robert Emmett O'Connor
Links: A Night At The Opera Trailer, A Night At The Opera Wiki

---

More than the central scenes, like the crowd gathering in the ship cabin, A Night at the Opera remains such a strong and dazzling comedy thanks to its most elementary moments - a single word or gesture performed with an incredible sense of rhythm. There is much to say about the way the transgressive weapons of the three brothers initiate a crisis in the spectacle of an opera. Groucho's overflow of words and distortion of his body, Harpo's unnatural silence and childlike power of destruction, Chico's virtuosity and "foreign ethos" - all serve to disturb an opera based on a loathing of art, greed, and corruption.

No Country For Old Men (Matt)

Ok, lets start this off right now with a warning. I am going to have spoilers in this review. Below this paragraph you will find spoilers. I am going to talk about the ending, you will find out how the movie ends and what happens to major characters.

I liked this movie very much for the first two thirds. The characters are intriguing, the acting is immersive, the story is great. I have nary a complaint. I was riveted to the screen.

Let me start off the list of positives with three words. Tommy Lee Jones. He is amazing in this movie, and I feel that his part gets a bit overshadowed by Javier Bardem. He plays his character of Texas Sheriff Ed Tom Bell with a near perfection. I couldn't take my eyes off of him if he was in the scene. I can say with no qualms at all that he was my favorite character and actor in this movie. I can't imagine anybody else in this role, and yes I actually tried. Every actor I thought of fell short of this performance.

I also really liked the interactions between Llewelyn and Aton. The sort of cat and mouse game that rose up between them really was great to watch, and it kept me very interested. I enjoyed seeing Llewelyn especially, as he was cautious. I enjoyed seeing all the precautions he took, all of which were clever and well thought out. I liked watching two people who seemed to know what they were doing go after each other.

This movie felt very real to me, and that is another reason I liked it. I could very easily see this actually happening in a manner similar to how it happened in this movie. The characters behaved rationally and cleverly, and that really brought them to life. They seemed more like real people and less like fictional characters.

That said, the last third of the movie was just silly. I didn't like it.

Lets start with Woody Harrelson's character, Carson Wells. I don't see what the point of this guy was. He hired to track down the money and Anton, I get that. However after he is hired he somehow magically tracks down Llewelyn in a hospital in Mexico, and then he himself is magically tracked down by Anton and shot. WHY!?! He didn't really have any point. It felt like he was just added to the film in order to showcase how big of a badass that Anton was. It didn't make sense to me and I think the movie would have been better off without that character.

Next off is probably my biggest complaint of the film. Llewelyn is killed at his hotel by the Mexicans. This isn't so bad in itself. I can easily accept the fact that he dies in the plot. What I don't like or understand about it is that we don't see the death at all! We are in Sheriff Ed's car and we hear gunfire and see a truck driving away. We pull into the motel and see Llewelyn's body floating in the pool. Seriously, that's it. The entire movie up to this point has been about him trying to stay alive and keep the money, and then when he is finally killed we don't see it at all. We don't know for sure why he was in the pool, which is uncharacteristic of him from what we know via the movie, and we don't know how he was ambushed. Nothing. This drives me crazy. Why would you kill off the main character (arguably) of a film after getting the audience emotionally invested in him and NOT SHOW US HOW HE DIED? I really just can't get over that, I'm sure the directors have their reasons, but I don't like it and I don't get it.

Lastly is the end. We have the good sheriff talking to his wife at breakfast. He is retired now and he is telling her about a dream he had about his father. He talks about his father waiting on him in what is presumably the afterlife, although I don't think they actually say that specifically. He tells his wife the dream, and the movie ends. It didn't feel like it was over. We previously see Anton get nearly killed in a car wreck and walk away with a very broken arm, then we see the sheriff talk about a dream, then the movie ends. There is no real conclusion to the story. I can sort of understand this as the movie seems to be pointing towards a theme of crime always exists no matter where you are (past, present, future, US, Mexico). If Anton represents crime then his escape makes sense in that regard, but I don't get the dream description at all. I don't understand it's purpose. This might be due to my own ignorance but I just don't get it.

So how do I rate this movie? I love the first 2/3's of it and don't really like the last third at all. I think I'll give it 6.5 coin tosses out of 10.

~Matt

No Country For Old Men(John)

This was a very interesting movie to watch. The first time I watched it, I wasn't sure it was going to do it for me. I have liked every other Coen Brother's movie I've seen but this one seemed different. Long story short, I was pleasantly surprised.

The performances in this film are phenomenal. Almost every actor in this film makes you think that the stuff that happens is really happening. Tommy Lee Jones is extraordinary. He truly made me believe that he was an aging Texas lawman. And I can now not see Javier Bardem as anyone other than Anton Sugar, a psychopathic killer. Even Woody Harrelson's small role was excellent.

This movie could have been made in the 80s. From the hairstyles to the clothing, from the buildings to the newspapers, this movie is steeped in 80s culture. Making a film with the myriad of details this one had in it can only be a good thing. I didn't notice the music much. I'm not sure if there was much, if any. I think not having music during dramatic scenes increases the realism of the film. Music tends to take me out of a movie, especially if it is bad or not warranted.

There isn't much to the story really. A man finds some money and gets hunted down by people. But, the way the story is told kept me engrossed in the film the entire two hours and thirty minutes. There is so much tension between the characters throughout the whole film that, even though there isn't that much action, I felt like I had just watched a movie with a whole lot of action. I seriously felt exhausted after watching it. The story does come with a message, albeit a very subtle one. I interpreted the message to be this: Times are changing, but not as much as we would like to think. People are not good or evil. There is always a gray area. And even the toughest hombre can be taken out in a split second.

This is one of the best Coen Brother's films I've seen. I would have to say it's probably 3rd behind Fargo and Raising Arizona. This movie makes me want to read the book and see how much was taken from it. If you like Coen Brother's movies, go see this one. If you like tension throughout the movie and then a very very weird ending, go see this one.

I'll give it an 8.8 out of 10.

- John Murphy