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