Some Like It Hot (1959)

Director: Billy Wilder

Cast: Jack Lemon, Tony Curtis, Marilyn Monroe, George Raft

Stars: 5

One problem with judging comedies is that they tend to be generational. Especially one from the 50s. However, Some Like it Hot, is an old black and white comedy that is still hilarious in 2010.

It takes place during the Prohibition Era, and follows two struggling musicians Joe (Crutis) and Jerry (Lemmon). They loose their jobs when the speakeasy they play at is raided by the police, and they narrowly escape arrest. The only job openings they hear of is an all female band. In attempting to find another job they witness a a local mob boss kill his rivals. The mob boss knows who they are and they are now desperate for jobs and to leave town. So what is their only option? To dress like women, join the all female band, and head down to Florida. Hilarity ensues! Now, Geraldine and Josephine, the two try to figure out how to maintain their disguises while trying to hit on a train full of beautiful women. Including Sugar Kane (Monroe), the most beautiful and striking of them all.

The plot of this comedy is a familiar one in 2010, but it is the first of its kind. On screen chemistry between Lemon and Curtis is great. The two play off of each other well, creating the a timeless classic in the comedy genre. The tension between Sugar Kane and Josephine/Joe is also remarkably. Joe is attempting to seduce Sugar without giving up his disguise. The lengths at which are taken show the comedic brilliance of the writers of this film. Some Like it Hot, is a must see for anyone who enjoys a good comedy.

Schindler's List (1993)

Director: Steven Speilberg

Cast: Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley, Ralph Fiennes, Embeth Davidson

Stars: 5

Schindler's List has been one of those movies that have been on my list for many many years, and only now have I gotten around to seeing it. This movie is considered an all time classic. It was ranked number 9 on AFI's greatest 100 movies and moved up to number 8 ten years later. Even the 1990's sit-com Seinfield used the movie as a joke in an episode where Jerry and his girlfriend were caught making-out during the film. And it certainly has lived up to all the hype.

Schindler's List takes us into the disturbing, emotional, and controversial topic of the Holocaust. It follows the businessman Oskar Schindler (Nesson) who becomes an unlikely humanitarian. Schindler runs his own business in Nazi Germany and is a member of the Nazi Party. He begins to use Jewish slave labor. Instead of hiring Germans to work in his factories, he uses the Jews in the ghetto's and internment camps. He can pay them cheaper or nothing at all and make pure profits during war time. He forms a relationship with one specific man, Itzhak Stern (Kingsley), Schindler's accountant and business partner, and a Jew. Stern begins to hire extra, unneeded people to save them from death camps, at the reluctance of Schindler. Soon, Schindler begins to use his business as a safe-haven for Jews. When his business is moved deeper into Germany he is allowed to take workers with him, and he creates a list of nearly 1,200 people, who says are all "essential workers," who will be saved from horrors of the camps.

It is difficult to do a movie on the Holocaust and not stir up emotions from anybody, even if you have no connection to it. Speilberg is able to sir up even stronger emotions than typical. The director captures the pure terrifying feelings of the people living from day to day wondering if this day would be their last. From a scene of a group of women being shaved and brought into the showers and an 8 year old child jumping into a cesspool to avoid capture from the Nazi's. The cinematography is great. It is shot in black and white and color is only used to highlight candles and a girl in a red coat. The contrast is incredible.

The only issue I have with this movie is the length. Just a shade under 200 minutes this movie takes a while. However, there is never a dull moment, nor does the movie drag. But, it is my opinion any movie that breaches that 3 hour mark, is generally too long. With that being the only real tarnish on an otherwise fantastic movie, it lives up to its reputation. A deeply moving and classic piece of American cinema.

Spellbound (1945)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Cast: Ingrid Bergman, Gregory Peck, Michael Chekhov, Leo Carrol

Stars: 4

Psychoanalysis is a method of therapy developed by psychologist Sigmund Freud. In general, it is defined as a method of mind investigation, especially of the unconscious mind. One of the most interesting forms of psychoanalysis is dream interpretation. Basically, dream interpreters believe that our dreams hold the key to unlocking our repressed emotions and drives. When you dream, your mind uses symbols whic can tell you plenty about your current life. Thus, it is the dream interpreters job to understand the dreams symbols and what they represent in order to learn more about the patient.

Spellbound is a psychological mystery thriller which takes you into the field of psychoanalysis and dream interpretation. The movie begins at Green Manors, a mental facility and we are introduced to the main character, Dr. Constance Peterson (Bergman), who seems to be an aberration among her colleagues not only because she is a woman, but also because she seems to be abnormally emotionless in her work. The director of the hospital is Dr. Murchinson (Caroll) who is being forced into early retirement because it is believed he is not fit for the position anymore. His replacement is much younger who has much less experience, Dr. Anthony Edwards. Peterson and Edwards immediately forge an attraction to each other. However, Edwards begins to display some rather odd mannerisms and reactions to certain things. Soon, they doctors at Green Manors learn that Edwards is not who he pretends to be, and the search begins for what happened to the real Dr. Edwards, who the impostor is and why he is impersonating Edwards.

Spellbound is a murder mystery, psychological thriller, and a love story rolled into one. The murder mystery and psychological aspects are intricately linked as they use psychoanalysis and dream interpretation to attempt to solve the mystery. The on screen chemistry between Bergman and Peck is prefect. Enough is worked in to the movie to add the relationship story-line with out making it an overbearing typical "chick-flick."

The employing of the psychoanalytical techniques to attempt to solve the mystery is a fascinating one. However, in order for the movie to work, the main character has to follow her love interest despite his deceitfulness through the entire ordeal. Its hard to understand this at that point. Why would a person, especially a psychologist, follow somebody who was so dishonest and deceitful so blindly? Overall that is my biggest problem with the movie. However moving on from that the on screen chemistry is excellent, the cinematography is visually pleasing, and the plot superb.

Spellbound is excellent murder mystery which takes us down the proverbial rabbit hole of psychoanalysis and dream interpretation. A must see for any lover of movies.

The Maltese Falcon (1941)

Director: John Huston

Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet

Stars: 3

Humphrey Bogart stars as private investigator Sam Spade. His partner and him meet a perspective client, Brigid O'Shuagnessy (Astor), who claims to be looking for her missing sister, who is suppose to be with a man named Thursby. Spade sends his partner, Archer, to follow him, and Archer ends up dead. Soon it is learned that Brigid may have been lying and is really in search of something else, the Maltese Falcon.

The story then spins you in many different directions, following a diverse cast of characters including Joel Cairo and Mr. Gutman. All of them are on a hunt for the seemingly invaluable falcon statue. The story constantly takes you in different directions. The answer lies almost always somewhere else, even when you thought you figured it out, you probably didn't.

While the plot line is excellent, the movie overall, is a little slow. Which is an accomplishment since it is only about 100 minutes long. While you are fascinated with figuring out the answer to the murder mystery, it seemingly takes a long time to get there. However, the plot and acting are superb. Its probably just a generational thing for me, but because of the pace it gets taken down another star. Nonetheless, this is a movie that every movie buff should see.

This is Spinal Tap (1984)

Director: Rob Reiner

Cast: Christopher Guest, Tony Hendra, Michael McKean, Harry Shearer, Bruno Kirby

Stars: 4

Well this will probably be a short review. Why? Because I just don't know what to say.

This is Spinal Tap, is a mockumentary, that is a documentary comedy film, about the fictitious and inept band Spinal Tap. The band itself is just downright absurd. They have 2 lead guitarists, a bass player who is always dressed up in some type of bondage, and have gone through at least 7 different drummers because they seem to die in mysterious ways. The absurdity of the lyrics, album covers, and album names demonstrates the craziness of the band.

Not only is the band terrible and ludicrous but the people around them give them no help. The manager carries around a cricket paddle just so he can hit things if he gets mad. And often the people setting up the scenery behind them often screw up which creates epic fails on stage.

The sheer ridicolousness of the band and its groupies and what is what makes the film so comically. I should give it an 11! And remember you can't dust for vomit!!

Blazing Saddles (1974)

Director: Mel Brooks

Cast: Cleavon Little, Gene Wilder, Harvey Korman, Madeline Kahn, Mel Brooks

Stars: 4

Film critic Don Druker called Blazing Saddles "one of the funniest awful movies ever made." That is probably one of the best ways to describe one of Mel Brooks earliest movies. At times it is so stupid it is funny.

The plot is not complicated (are comedy plots ever?). In 1874 the old west is being built on the backs of the recently freed blacks and Chinese immigrants. Rockbridge, the city which serves as the main setting of the movie is in danger because the local political machine wants to force the inhabitants to leave so they can build a railroad there. Just prior to this revelation, the same political machine appointed the first black sheriff in Rockbridge as a publicity stunt and in the hopes that he would do such a poor job that the town would be in shambles. At first, the towns people are horrified. But after he saves the day with the help of the Wacco kid (more than once) he becomes accepted and even loved.

The comedy is simple yet effective. The villain, Hedley Lemar, always corrects people because nobody can pronounce his name properly. The Governor has the letters, G-O-V taped to his back so nobody forgets who he is. A bumbling, stumbling oaf, that everybody is afraid of. The old fastest gun in the west trick. And, of course the bean supper sitting around the campfire, which turns into essentially 5 minutes of farting. Simple, stupid, and hilarious. Any movie making fun of the old John Wayne westerns, which I tend to despise, is probably going to be pretty good in my book.

However, despite it being an excellent comedy, and one of Mel Brooks classics; I would have to say Spaceballs, is still his finest.

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974)

Director: Joseph Sargent

Cast: Walter Matthau, Robert Shaw, Martin Balsam, Hector Elizondo, Earl Hindman, Jerry Stiller

Stars: 4

The plot is simple and familiar but that doesn't keep this movie from being enjoyable. The counting clock scenario is a clichéd one, but Sargent keeps you on the edge of your seat the entire time. While the action keeps you engaged for the 2 hours, the sarcastic wit of numerous characters makes you constantly laugh in the midst of tense situations.

The movie begins in New York City, when four men board subway train Pelham 123 at different stops. Soon, they force the train to stop, and hijack it, hold 17 passengers hostage, and demand $1,000,000 to be delivered to them in one hour, or they will start shooting the hostages. Detective Zachary Garber (Matthau), is the head of transit police, and begins to negotiate with the criminals. He finds they are always one step ahead of the police and have everything worked out to the minute, and the police are left wondering what to do and how they will escape.

One of the movies best facets, is not its generic plot, but the curiosity behind it. These four criminals, Mr. Blue (Shaw), Mr. Green (Balsam), Mr. Grey (Elizondo), and Mr. Brown (Hindman), have purposefully cornered themselves, or so it seems, in a subway tunnel with no escape. The movie is able to keep you fascinated, not so much with the ticking clock, but with attempting to figure out how they are suppose to get away. By all accounts, this is the worst possible situation they could have wanted, yet for some reason they seem like its exactly what they want. After every plausible idea is shot down by the lead detective, you and the police are left wondering what the criminals possibly have planned. As Lt. Rico Patrone (Stiller) says, "I think they will fly the train to Cuba!"

As good as this movie is, the conclusion is a bit anti-climatic and the final scene is a little corny. The reveal of the heist, is in actuality probably the only plausible way to accomplish it, but is rather surprising in that it was unexpected yet at the same time very expected, as it was the only real way this could be accomplished.

However, despite its weak ending, this is an excellent movie, that is a joy to watch. It keeps you on the edge of your seat, and is able to cut the tension with quick witted sarcastic humor, without ever losing its intensity.

The remake some 35 years after the original portrays the same scenario, but not the same movie. While the original is basically a heist movie, the remake takes the lead character Garber, and makes it a redemption movie. The movie isn't about the heist and hijackers, but about the life of Garber (who is not a cop), and how Ryder (the head bad guy) helps him achieve his redemption. Also, they put an interesting twist on the criminals intent.

So which one is better? Well, of course that is all a personal preference. The action scenes in the remake are, of course, better given the technology advancements over the last three decades. However, the original is definitely my preference. An excellent mixture of action and humor, that keeps you thinking. Given that I gave the original 4 stars, the remake would get 3.

Internal Affairs (1990)

Director: Mike Figgis

Cast: Richard Gere, Andy Garcia, Nancy Travis, Laurie Metcalf, William Baldwin

Stars: 2

Have you ever watched a movie and when the credits rolled you thought to yourself “what a damn good movie!?” You were engaged from the beginning of the movie, not only in the storyline, but the action and characters too. And when it was all over, you didn't even realize that you had just spent two hours in front of the TV. For weeks afterwards you talk about the movie to all your friends exclaiming how good it is. Well, Internal Affairs is not that kind of movie.

The plot is simple, familiar, and predictable. Raymond Avila (Garcia) begins his first day in the Internal Affairs Division of the Los Angeles Police Department, and is paired with Amy Wallace (Metcalf) as his new partner. Their first assignment together is to investigate a complaint on an officer, Van Stretch (Baldwin). And guess what? It just so happens that Stretch and Avila were old friends from the academy. Soon their investigation leads them to believe that Stretch's problems go deeper than just emotional stresses, and that his partner, Dennis Peck (Gere), has been bribing and abusing his power as a police officer for years. They begin trying to gather evidence and gain information on Peck's activities and Peck begins to fire back when he realizes what the IA agents are doing. This is when the movie spins out of control.

From here on out it seems to be more of a bad soap opera than a movie. Peck is a senior officer on the force and has been able to do whatever he wants; bribing, "hits," running rackets, and numerous other escapades. He begins to involve Avila's wife (Travis) in order to get back at Avila, and Peck also begins to sleep with almost every woman in the movie, as he continues to attempt to stop Avila from investigating him.

The largest problem with the movie is its very poor storyline. It tends to be a familiar and predictable one. It was no surprise when people died, nor was the conclusion any better. The entire movie seemed to build to the final scene, which was an ultimate let down. There was very little character development, and in a movie with such a lackluster story character development is essential. By the last twenty minutes I found myself not caring where this movie was going.

Overall, it was a long movie that led to a predictable end. I leave this review wondering how the hell this made it onto the 1000 greatest movies list. Then again, it got 88% favorable reviews on Rottentomatoes.com, so what do I know?

The Godfather Part II (1974)

Director: Francis Ford Coppola

Cast: Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton, Robert De Niro

Stars: 5

People often argue that the "Godfather Part II" exceeds the original film. Some rank it as one of the best sequels ever made. However, it is not just one of the better sequels but one of the best films of all time. Francis Ford Coppola's continuation of the Godfather saga lives up to its reputation, and is able to rival the original.

The original leaves us with Michael Corleone consolidating power by assassinating the heads of the five other families and Michael becoming the new Godfather replacing his own father. In “Part II” the film picks up three years later and follows the tribulations of Michael as he begins on his tenure as Godfather of the Corleone family. While showing the life of Michael after becoming Godfather, it also tells the story of the Corleone families rise in the early 20^th century, as Vito (Robert De Niro) goes from “rags to riches.”

The juxtaposition of the young Vito’s rise and Michael’s downfall is a brilliant comparison. On one hand, there is Vito. Young, smart, and trying to make a good living for his family so they can survive, he meets up with Tessio and Clemenza; the most important thing for Vito is his family. On the other hand, 30 or more years later there is Vito’s son, Michael. Attempting to keep together the enterprise his father built. What seems to be most important for Michael is not family but power and respect and in the process he alienates his entire family, and eventually himself so that he does not lose those coveted attributes. Vito, at least in his mind, did only what he had to do to provide for his family and make a better life for them. He did so with a virtuous quality to fight what for what is right and protect the people of the neighborhood justly. Michael does whatever he has to maintain his power, and in the process loses his family.

One of Coppola’s true gifts as a filmmaker is capturing that feeling of raw emotion for his audience. Through the two movies we see the dynamic character Michael, the prodigal son, go from reluctance in joining the family business, to a power hungry mob boss who only cares about his own self-survival, and is willing to keep himself intact at any cost. Coppola is able to capture the pure emotion of the rise and fall of Michael Corleone, and the concluding scenes of the movie rival those of the first film. In the end, we realize the once mighty Corleone empire, which always takes care of its family, has been reduced to a lonely Michael.

Coppola has pulled off a second masterpiece in just a short time. The “Godfather Part II” is an excellent film that rivals the epic and dramatic levels of the first.

Traffic (2000)

Cast: Michael Douglas, Don Cheadle, Benicio Del Toro, Dennis Quaid, Catherine Zeta-Jones

Director: Steven Soderbergh

Stars: 4

This is a movie that I have seen once before but could hardly remember. Therefore, I decided to watch it again tonight and was not disappointed. It won four Academy Awards including Best Director, Best Supporting Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Film Editing and was nominated for a number of other awards including Best Picture and definitely lived up to its reputation.

Steven Sorderbergh takes on the world of illegal drug trafficking between the United States and Mexico through three loosely connected stories. The first follows Mexican police officer Javier Rodriguez (Del Toro) and his partner Manolo, who in the beginning of the movie stop a drug transport and arrest the drivers. However, General Salazar a high-ranking Mexican official soon interrupts them. Salazar decides to employs Rodriguez to help him rid Tijuana of the Obregon Cartel. Rodriguez agrees but soon learns more about the situation he got himself into and his superiors and realizes not everything is as it seems.

The second story line follows Robert Wakefield (Douglass) when he is appointed as the new Drug Czar of the United States. He tries to learn more about the drug situation in the country while many high profile politicians tell him the drug war is unwinnable. Soon, Wakefield learns that his 16-year-old daughter Caroline, who is also an honors student, is using drugs. Soon Caroline goes on a downward spiral to being a full-fledged heroin addict, and her father is now torn between his new position and his deteriorating family life.

The third storyline involves undercover DEA Agents Montel Gordon (Cheadle) and Ray Castro who arrest Eduardo Ruiz in a sting. They soon convince him to become an informant and testify against his boss, drug lord Carlos Ayala. When Ayala is arrested his family is completely in shock who are unaware that he has made his fortune by smuggling drugs into the country. His wife (Zeta Jones), is faced with threats against her son and her husband facing life imprisonment must take a critical role in her husband’s business in an attempt to keep the family afloat and her husband out of jail.

All three stories are eventually loosely connected to each other showing the manner in which the drug world runs and each has their own set of surprising twists and turns in the plot. It shows how drugs not only effect a 16 year old girl who begins by partying on the weekends, but the issues that arise within the higher ups in the American government, as well as how a low level police officer in Mexico is thrown into the forefront of the Mexican drug war. The cinematography throughout the movie was excellent, which is shot similarly to a documentary style and the acting was even better. Both Cheadle and Zeta Jones give excellent portrayals. While at times the plot line may be a bit over the top, it is still fascinating and excellent.

Sorderbergh does an excellent job of capturing the issues surrounding the drug trade in the United States on every level. You may not be inclined to agree with the points the movie attempts to make, but it is still an excellent movie the delivers an inside look of the drug world.

Citizen Kane (1941)

Citizen Kane (1941)

Director: Orson Welles

Starring: Orson Welles, Joseph Cotten, Agnes Moorehead, Everett Sloane

Stars: 4

The directorial debut of Orson Welles is considered by many as the best movie in cinematic history. AFI has ranked Citizen Kane number 1 on its 100 greatest movies list, it made New York Times 1000 greatest movies list, and is still studied in film schools all over the country. Given the movies reputation there is much to live up to. Unfortunately, in my humble opinion it does not live up to its colossal reputation.

The movie begins by introducing us to newspaper tycoon Charles Foster Kane in his last moments. Kane is shown in his elaborate and extravagant estate, Xanadu, located in Florida as he clutches a snow globe in his hands, and utters his last word, "rosebud" just before he dies. His death quickly became sensational news around the country and the newsreel editor decides that until they know who or what Rosebud is they will not have the entire story on Kane. So, he assigns a reporter, Jerry Thompson, to uncover the identity of Rosebud.

Thompson begins researching the life of Kane discovering much background of the newspaper tycoon, but is unable to find any mention of this Rosebud. The reporter attempts to talk with Susan Alexander Kane, Charles Foster Kane's ex wife, however she is inebriated and will not talk with the reporter. Thompson next finds the unpublished memoirs of Mr. Thatcher, Kane's first financial advisor and childhood guardian. After, learning much about Kane's early life from the unpublished memoirs, Thompson was then able to interview Mr. Bernstein, the general manager of Kane's newspaper empire, who then leads him to Jedediah Leland, Kane's college friend. Finally, Thompson is able to find more about the Kane saga through his butler at Xanadu, Raymond. Unfortunately, Thompson is never able to find out the identity of the now infamous Rosebud, however, it is revealed to the audience. The background information found out by Thompson is revealed to the audience through flashbacks, a new technique in cinema at the time.

Despite this movies engaging and fascinating story line, which documents the rise and fall of a newspaper tycoon through flashbacks, it fails to live up to the hype. Quite simply, this movie gets the "greatest movie in cinematic history" title because of its introduction of many new techniques to film, not for the story or artistic value being that much further ahead than all other movies. The film broke ground in cinematography by using the "deep focus," a technique which is when the background and/or foreground is in sharp focus. Also introduced are low angle shots to show ceilings and upward angles throughout the movie. The film also broke from the traditional linear storytelling and told almost the entire story of Kane through flashbacks, as well as multiple narrators, and new special effects. Despite my earlier critiques the film, it is absolutely a landmark in cinematic history.

However, even though it is a landmark in cinematic history, why do we always rank it as the best? Does first always equal better? I would have to say, especially in this case, the answer is no. Was the first prefect game to be thrown the best ever thrown? Is Knute Rockne the best coach in the history of football because he invented the forward pass? I would have to say the answer again is no. Can you think of any movies after Citizen Kane that used these techniques? They may have even done it better. While Citizen Kane is a wonderful movie with a great storyline, it is certainly not deserving of its number 1 ranking simply because of its new introduction in cinematography, sound, storytelling, and special effects. Just because it was first does not make it the best and it remains the most overrated movie in cinematic history. It is certainly a landmark in movie history, but definitely not the best movie of all time.

However, despite its overly high ranking, it is still an excellent movie with an engaging storyline that is a must see for anyone who considers themselves a lover of movies.

Well, my first year of graduate school is over. I spent a lot of time reading, writing, and doing tons of research. It is the summer time now and while I have to do more research for my thesis, I also need a summer project. So, given the fact that I love watching movies and I finished watching Oz, The Wire, and there are only 2 episodes of LOST left I have decided I am going to start making my way down "Greatest Movie Lists."

I have settled on three lists that I want to watch (although this will take much longer than just 1 summer). The first list is the New York Times "The Best 1000 Movies Ever Made." I choose this list for two reasons: 1) It will cover AFI's 100 list, and 2) It's long and will give me a nice project to work on in my spare time for a while.

The second list is Channel 4 (which is a British TV Station the conducted a 50 greatest documentary series) "50 Greatest Comedy Films." I choose this for no other reason I wanted to be more expansive than the New York Times list provided; I didn't feel enough comedy's were on there. This adds 50 more titles to my list. And last but not least is the last 20 years worth of Foreign Language Oscar Winners. So from 1989-2009 I will watch each foreign language film that won the Oscar for that year. This brings a total of 1,070 movies (although there will be a number of overlaps so it won't be as much as it seems) to watch and write reviews on.

All three lists are posted to my blog in the pages section. I will watch all movies I have not seen, or movies that have been so long since I have seen them that I can barely remember them and write a review on each movie I watch but will not write a review on any I have already see. However, there is one exception since the movie Citzen Kane is considered the greatest movie of all time and I have already seen it, my first review will be on that movie. Also, I will rate every movie with your typical star system (I know very creative).

1 star = Hated It

2 stars = Did not like it

3 stars = Enjoyed it

4 stars = Really Liked it

5 stars = Loved it!

The list of movies are up under the "pages" section. Both the foreign language movies and best comedy films list are up. The ones I have seen are crossed through and rated.