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?