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...