My Favorite Movies

The Greatest Film Ever Made.

At the end of the 1950's Alfred Hitchcock saw all of these cheaply made B-movies coming out of Hollywood and came up with an idea: what if I made a movie on a shoe string budget that was actually good. After doing the big budget films Vertigo and North By Northwest, Hitchcock took his TV crew and started to shoot a film with the working title "Wimpy". And that's how Psycho, the masters greatest work, was born.

Psycho is about a young women who runs off with $40,000 from her employer to her boyfriend. It's a fairly simple story during the first 45 minutes until it's shattered in a way that takes the film down a totally different road becoming the story of the young inn keeper and his domineering mother.

Yes, I am actually writing this review as not to spoil the film for the three people who don't know what the big twist is.

Hitchcock steered away from the Vistavision films he had made for the previous decade to make a gritty kind of film- black and white, no Grant or Stewart, no matte paintings. This was like guerilla filmmaking for Hitchcock and it's one of the reasons that this film works so well. Another is the way that Hitchcock presents a cheaply made horror film to his audience. This isn't a film about werewolves or reanimated eastern Europeans. It could be about that deserted house down the road or the hotel near the ball park. It's centered in reality and makes you think that these could be your friends and neighbors. This was revolutionary in 1960. A tight production, it used every dollar to its fullest. It's like Hitchcock painted the Mona Lisa with a box of crayons. The only thing that Hitchcock carried over from his 1950's high end films was music by Bernard Herrmann, which probably was the final cog in the machine that is Psycho. Herrmann's score is legendary and improves a film that was perfection to begin with.

Other than John Gavin's semi-stiff performance, the rest of the cast give their roles great personality, especially Janet Leigh as the unlucky thief Marion Crane. Of course, the real stand out is Anthony Perkins. He becomes Norman Bates and plays the part to perfection. This is probably one of the best examples of acting ever captured on film. Perkins lives as Norman Bates. He conquers the role with all the mannerisms, such as knowing when to stutter the line and when to pour gasoline on the fire in his eyes. A legendary performance.

You can say that Hitchcock's career peaked with Psycho. He never produced the same kind of quality film again (excluding Frenzy) as they were always compared to Psycho. As the '60's wore on he continued to direct big budget films with big names (Connery, Newman, Julie Andrews) but none of them would come close to the greatness of that little production titled Wimpy.

In my previous reviews of Taxi Driver and Raging Bull I mentioned that Martin Scorsese was screwed by the Academy in not receiving and Oscar for either of those films. Goodfellas is the third one he got screwed on. It's the story of a Brooklyn youth who slowly becomes indoctrined into the Mafia and how the world of gangsters in New York City worked in the '50's, '60's, and '70's. It sounds like a simple story, but it isn't. There's a ton of threads rolling around in Goodfellas, but Scorsese is able to present them in a way that keeps the viewer entranced with what's going on before them.

The core Goodfellas are Robert De Niro, Ray Liotta, and Joe Pesci with Liotta playing the lead role of Henry Hill. These three work together so well that they become their characters and you feel like they've known each other for the three decades that this film follows. De Niro plays the sort of patriarch gangster Jimmy Conway, who isn't quite the boss (who is played masterfully by Paul Sorvino) but has a lot of pull and is feared in the underworld. Joe Pesci won the Oscar for best supporting actor for his role as Tommy DeVito, a psychotic hitman who is still pretty damn likable throughout the film.

Goodfellas is based on the book Wiseguy by Nicholas Pileggi who co-wrote the screenplay with Scorsese. There is no specially written soundtrack to this film as the director has opted to go with music from each era that's represented, which helps with the effect. The films pace is breathtaking as we go from one event to another. A lot of time and information is covered, yet you don't feel bombarded nor do you feel like something's left out. It's perfect.

Goodfellas is probably the best gangster movie ever made. When compared to the Godfather this is a grittier film that feels more true to life than Coppola's epic. What's really funny about Goodfellas is that it's really a film about a fall from grace, but not like the way it's typically portrayed. It's a classic.

In the early 1980's I remember pretending to be Indiana Jones during recess and jumping over a five foot wall trying to save "Marion" from the Well of the Souls, which led to hand holding later on in class (yes, Indiana Jones introduced me to girls). Twenty-five years later I STILL want to be Indiana Jones.
Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of the best films of the last thirty years, if not all time. The story would be B-movie fodder if not for a superb cast, a superb story and script from a still relevant george Lucas and Lawrence Kasdan, and excellent direction by Steven Spielberg (dare I say that I consider this Spielberg's best film). All of these come together and take hwta would normally be the B feature into a highly polished masterpiece that has worked itself into Americana. This is a movie that can be watched over and over and you'll never get tired of it. If you haven't seen it, please exit the cave ASAP.

Kubrick's outer space masterpiece that even in an era of digital Gungans seems fresh and amazing considering that it was filmed and released before man reached the moon. Is it dated? Yes, it some places, but so are Han Solo's mutton chops in Star Wars.

In my review of Taxi Driver I said that it was Martin Scorsese's first screw job at the Oscars. This one is the second and probably the most painful.
Raging Bull is the definition of a masterpiece. The greatest acting, direction, editing, etc. It all came together in this film.
Raging Bull is the story of middleweight fighter Jake LaMotta. I like to think of this film as the negative image of Rocky. Rocky works his way up from nothing while Jake flushes himself down to it (Ironically produced by Robert Chartoff and Irwin Winkler, producers of Rocky). The fight sequences in Raging Bull are simply amazing. Scorsese makes you feel like you're in that ring and you can smell the sweat and the blood. You can feel the heat of two guys beating the living shit out of each other.
But Raging Bull isn't a sports film. This isn't Hoosiers or Rudy. This is a character study. How can a man fall to pieces? Scorsese tells you how.
Robert DeNiro give us his single best performance in his career as LaMotta. You watch this film and he IS Jake LaMotta. DeNiro's performance is so intense that the sheer power behind his performance is enough of a reason the see this film.
Joe Pesci plays Jake's brother Joey, who seems to be the glue that holds LaMotta together. Pesci probably gives his best performance in this film as well.
Raging Bull is one of the greatest films ever made. There's nothing more that can be added to that.

Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of Anthony Burgess' novel tells the story of Britain in the near future that is over run by crime and violence. Malcolm McDowell plays Alex DeLarge, a remorseless criminal leader of a gang who serves two years in prison before volunterring for an experimental treatment that will cure him quickly.
A Clockwork Orange is like that dark ride that Alex and his Droogs take to the writer's house near the beginning of the film. Just when you think Alex is at rock bottom, the state pushes him to even further depths. The film is full of irony, mainly in plot points dealing with the writer.
A Clockwork Orange's reputation as a film of repeated violence is unwarranted. The fact that it was excessive for 1971 and Kubrick's request to remove it from the cinema due to death threats seems to have given the film that reputation. It's not a film about violence, it's a film about one boys reaction to violence. What gets him off during the first half gives him a negative reaction in the second half.
The funny thing is that when I read reviews of Clockwork that are lukewarm or condemning the film it seems that people complain about this not being like Kubrick's other films. When the hell do Kubrick films match anyway? Kubrick's style was that he had no definable style and that's why it took years for him to put out a film whereas other directors could pump one out every year, but you had a good idea what you were going to get. Kubrick was like the lolipop that was in the mystery wrapper. It was always something new and you may like and you may not.
A Clockwork Orange is a masterpiece of filmmaking. The visuals are amazing. For example, the way that Kubrick's sets seem to be designed to point toward a horizon point like a painting. If you were to view a film as pure art this would probably be the closest example you could get without going with some Italian or Eastern European film makers.
Art isn't always pretty.

Everything Sergio Leone did before 1966 built up to The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly. A Fistful Of Dollars and For A Few Dollars More steadily increased the epic western that Leone envisioned until he released what is probably his greatest creation and the film that sealed Clint Eastwood's star power.

As gritty as its predecessors, The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly is set during the Civil War as the title trio goes on the hunt for $200,000 dollars in stolen gold. The Good is Blondie, played by Eastwood as he reprises his Man With No Name character. The Bad is Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef), a cold blooded killer who happens upon the gold story while working for another man. The Ugly is Tuco (Eli Wallach), a degenerate criminal hell bent on getting vengeance on Blondie, but is forced to change his tune when Blondie gains the key information to the hidden gold. The quest for gold begins in front of the back drop of the Civil War as battles impede the movement toward the buried coins and the gritty, bombed out towns serve as a refuge to the treasure hunters.

This is the third and final film in the Dollars trilogy and shows how popular and profitable Leone's vision had become. Given a larger budget for TGTBATU, Leone builds a larger world than in any previous dollars film. As in the others the west is a dirty place where there are no cowboys in black and white, just everyone wearing a shade of gray. The Good really isn't very good, he's just a man in his element.



Of course all of the Leone trademarks are present; the close ups and the grand vistas borrowed from John Ford. It's a drastic change from the almost crystal clean westerns of decades before. Is it realistic? Probably not, but life appears a lot closer to real human nature than other westerns. Survival of the fittest is the main theme in these films.



When looking at the cast the three leads are perfect. Eastwood's character is obviously a very good rehash from the previous dollars films, but Eli Wallach's Tuco is a sight to be believed. He appears to be bungling, but is actually way ahead when you really delve deeper into his character. "If you're going to shoot, shoot. Don't talk." The real switch is Lee Van Cleef, who played the fatherly Mortimer in For A Few Dollars More. In TGTBATU he is one of cinemas first natural born killers. A professional at what he does in every sense of the word.

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly has a legacy that has followed it since its release almost two generations ago. The west got harsher. The line between good and bad became blurred, bringing on a decade of the anti-hero. This film still influences directors and writers throughout the world. It is a masterpiece of film making with a story that is epic. Not only one of the greatest westerns ever made, one of the greatest films ever made.

Martin Scorsese's first masterpiece (and first screwjob at the Oscars) Taxi Driver represents what 1970's film making was all about. It was dark, it was gritty, it was sarcastic. The period from 1970-1977 was an era that produced the underbelly of cinema with A Clockwork orange, Straw Dogs, and Deliverance. Taxi Driver was the last of this era that abruptly ended with a little film known as Star Wars and it is probably the best (yes, better than A Clockwork Orange). Robert De Niro doesn't portray Travis Bickle- he becomes Travis Bickle in a legendary performance. De Niro's portrayal of a man that simply slips away from reality is one for the ages. You feel sorry for the character. Jodie Foster plays Iris, a 13 year old hooker that Travis becomes obsessed with, trying to save the child from the scum and the sewer that is New York City. Cybil Shepherd plays the campaign worker that Travis is initially obsessed, going so far as getting a date but blundering it because of his social ineptness. Albert Brooks, Peter Boyle, and Harvey Keitel round out the cast, but none of them is the real star. The real star of the film is New York City. This isn't the New York City of Woody Allen films. This is Scorsese's New York- a dirty, dark, immoral universe where a husband can casually plot his wifes murder in the back of a Taxi cab and a mentally ill young man can be a hero by accident. This is New York before it became Disneyland. This is probably one of the most important films of the 1970's.

Ridley Scott's orgy for the senses Blade Runner is about a bleak future (notice how the future is always bleak in cinema) and the technology that man has created that has gone out of control. Harrison Ford plays Deckard, a Blade Runner whose soul job is to "retire" Replicants, man made humans that are illegal on Earth and have a life averaging four years.
Harrison Ford is great in the Deckard role, a loner who is trying to retire himself but gets pulled back in when four Replicants (played by Joanna Cassidy, Brion James, Daryl Hannah, and the incredible Rutger Hauer) land in Los Angeles. In the process Deckard meets Rachel, a Replicant that doesn't know she's a Replicant.
Blade Runner is still a visually stunning film, even with the advent of CGI and new ways of hocus pocus. What gives Blade Runner its style is the way that the film hypnotizes us with its beauty, even though the film is all night scenes and grungy exteriors. In one shot you can see the marvel of progress in the background while the past lies in decay in the foreground.
Blade Runner is one of the greatest noir films ever made. The dark tone of the film and Deckard's relationships with his superiors and Rachel is pure noir at its finest. It's the sci fi twist that pulls you in. This could be another detective story, but with the futuristic direction and Scott's fabulous direction it becomes the classic that it deserves to be.
Scott may have tweaked his project over the years (four released cuts that include his Final Cut, which is what I reviewed) due to the harsh atmosphere that the film was originally produced in (you can give him the George Lucas criticism, though it doesn't really stick since Scott doesn't pretend the other cuts don't exist ala Lucas). Over the years Scott has molded this film into a dark exploration of mankinds push for technology that backfires in its face.
Blade Runner is a film that can't have judgment passed upon its first viewing, which also depends on which cut your a viewing. It's a great film that deserves the praise it has gotten over the years. A true classic that everyone should view at least once..

Alfred Hitchcock was used to doing films on small set pieces. Rope was a series of continuous takes shot in one apartment. Dial M For Murder was more of the same, also being shot in on apartment set. With Rear Window you can almost call it the biggest small set movie ever made- most of the film takes place in L.B. Jeffrie's (Jimmy Stewart) apartment but it looks out onto a magnificent New York apartment courtyard set.

The story follows a wheelchair confined Stewart going crazy in his small New York apartment in the middle of a heat wave. Now this was before DVD players and Ipods, so all poor Jeff has to do is stare out the window and watch his neighbors as they exist in the courtyard. It's while he's passing the time that he thinks he says a neighbor (Raymond Burr) across the way murder his wife.It becomes an obsession with Jeff and his uptown girlfriend (the beautiful Grace Kelly) to prove that the wife was killed before he skips town.

Such a simple premise, yet Hitchcock weaves a film that has more layers then you go in expecting. Take the relationship between Jeff and Lisa (Kelly). Lisa is practically throwing herself at him, trying to get him to settle down and he seems totally against the idea, even to the point of making comments leading the viewer to believe that she's too perfect. But as the film rolls along and she starts getting more adventurous in the endeavor he looks at her with an admiration that was lacking earlier in the film. There's more personality in this film than is on the surface.

For more personality just look at the courtyard and the other neighbors that aren't butchering their spouses. They all have a different personality and no two are alike. The musician, the spinster, the easy girl, the newlyweds, etc, etc, etc.

Hitchcock's real triumph is the way he makes you feel like you're a peeping tom. The way he cuts from what Stewart is looking at to Stewart's reaction makes you feel what he's feeling, be it shame, humor, or disgust. And when the killer's staring at you down the lens you get a start, even though you're just a casual visitor in Hitchcock's New York world.

Rear Window is a masterpiece from the master. It is a film that is re-watchable and like most great films, doesn't age to terribly. Rear Window is one of the best.

The career of Stanley Kubrick seems to be him taking on a popular genre and blowing the competition out of the water. 2001 was his answer to the sci-fi films of the 1950's and '60's. A Clockwork Orange defined the ultra violent films that would follow it during the 1970's. The Shining was his attempt to make a good, psychological horror film. Full Metal Jacket follows the line by tackling a genre that exploded during the mid 1980's: the Vietnam war film. From Platoon to Rambo the topic had been tackled, starting with glorious fare like Apocalypse Now and the Deer Hunter. Now it was Kubrick's turn.

The film is unlike other war films. Instead of taking you straight to the "shit" it opens with a group of recruits in the Marine Corp going through basic training. Each character is given a new name by the drill sergeant (played by the incredible R. Lee Ermey) that they go by throughout the rest of the film. The narrator is Private Joker, a name given for being a smart ass on the first day. Joker is almost like a modern day John Boy Walton thrust into the Vietnam era equipped with all the cynicism that writers had during the era. The other character that Kubrick pays particular attention to is nicknamed Private Pyle (Vincent D'Onofrio) for being what Sgt. Hartman (Ermey) calls a "disgusting fat body!". Pyle is a screw up, only being good with his gun. otherwise he is a failure at discipline who incurs the wrath of Hartman and the other members of the platoon.

The main reasoning for basic training is explained by the sergeant early on. He's there to train killers. His job is essentially to put them through hell and weed out the failures and push on the killers into the jungles of Vietnam. Consider his job as quality control. As an example when Hartman announces the assignments for the recruits he announces that Joker is going into military journalism, leading Hartman to explain that he's not Mickey Spillane. He's a killer. Of course quality control fails sometimes...

The film shifts gears during its second half, almost becoming another movie. We still follow Joker into the jungles of Vietnam, but it's vastly different from Paris Island. Buzzed hair and pristine uniforms have given way to shaggy hair, untucked shirts, and insubordination to his superiors at times- something that Hartman would have kicked the shit out of him for. Set during the Tet Offensive Joker is sent out with a new photographer to follow the carnage during Tet. He stumbles onto a buddy from boot camp Cowboy (Arliss Howard) and ends up following his platoon into some heavy "shit" in small urban eras throughout Vietnam.

The film is a question: Did Hartman create killers? Through all the screaming and war faces was he able to turn average boys into hardened killers to be dropped into the jungle and kill everything they see. You get your answers throughout the film, realizing that every one of these men had a Hartman pushing them to kill, kill, kill. We find out the answer to that question numerous times. Some men had it in them and some men didn't. What's striking is that in the end the boys haven't really gone considering the song they all sing together to close the film.

Kubrick creates a great atmosphere considering he never left England to make it. Casting the film with relative unknowns, including Ermey who was only an advisor before being picked by Kubrick to take the Hartman role, Kubrick created a film filled with what could be called the boys next door. They could be our sons, brothers, nephews, paperboys, or the kid that mows our lawn. Boys thrown into hell. Kubrick shoots the film in a style that feels guerrilla compared to Kubrick's other work, which is high end compared to most directors. He directs the film with basic military precision except for two shots that will remain in your head, each one coming from one of the halves of the film. The first is a view of Hartman shouting at you while your on your knees from a nice gut shot. A grisly shot that shows an animal hovering over you. The second is the view from a Vietnamese snipers nest. Kubrick crafts the shot so well you feel like you're in the head of the sniper.

Full Metal Jacket is another masterpiece from Stanley Kubrick. It's a well produced war piece that was a breath of fresh air compared to Rambo and Missing in Action. In many ways it's superior to Platoon in that it gives us more explanation in the demeanor changes of men in war time situations. It's also well paced and doesn't drag in any parts as compared to a few parts of Platoon.

I've often said that directors fall into two categories: Hitchcock and Kubrick. Hitchcock directors can take the same basic premise and make a masterpiece over and over again. Kubrick directors can make a different film every time and still create a masterpiece. That fits Kubrick to a tee.

Yes, this film is as good as you've heard. Arguably one of the greatest films of all time, The Godfather is a cinematic masterpiece that continues to mesmermize with its riveting story and A+ acting.
By looking at the artwork attached to this film you would think that this is the story of Don Corleone (played by the Godlike Marlon Brando), but it is actually the tale of his youngest son Michael (Al Pacino) who descends into the business not for himself but for his family.
There's not much you can say about this movie that hasn't already been said. It's a masterpiece.

A film that was 40 years ahead of its time.

Christopher Nolan's sequel to the magnificent Batman Begins, The Dark Knight tells the tale of the conflict over Batman's (Christian Bale) acceptance as a means to an end in fighting crime in Gotham City and how his presence has given the criminal element a sort of upgrade in comparison to his crime fighting. Things seem to be getting better in Gotham City with the election of a new District Attorney (Aaron Eckhardt) That upgrade is in the form of the Joker (Heath Ledger) who is in it not for personal gain, but to "watch the world burn".
The film is stunning visually. Nolan has once again painted a dark picture to represent Gotham City that is both realistic and frightening. The effects are excellent, yet they don't overtake the film like some of the recent comic book adaptations. A great looking film.
Christian Bale once again takes the Batman/Bruce Wayne role and plays it in a way that seems to be the equivalent of Christopher Reeve's performances as Superman: Bruce Wayne and Batman are different characters and need to be played that way. A conflicted figure Bale plays Batman not as a man in a cape but as an entity in itself. He becomes wrapped in the cowl.
But it's Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker that totally dominates this film. You are not watching Heath Ledger's last film. You are watching an actor totally become his character, crafting what should garner him a nomination for the Oscar. Ledger's mesmerizing as the Joker, yet he doesn't dominate the film. Once he leaves the screen you're just dying for him to show back up for more murder and mayhem. This is Ledger's swan song and he left us with his peak performance.
Two of the other actors who may be getting overshadowed by the other actors and the film itself are Gary Oldman and Aaron Eckhart. Oldman proves once again that he can be anything you want him to be. He could play a 6 year old black girl in the antebellum south and make it convincing. Eckhart has one of the hardest roles in the film- going from the white knight Harvey Dent to the split Two Face. I'm afraid that Ledger's performance will overshadow Eckhart, who gives us a Two face that is actually a more haunting and tragic figure than he was originally conceived. A great performance as well.
The Dark Knight will spoil the comic book genre. This is the gold standard that all other films of this type will be compared to. Christopher Nolan has recreated the comic book genre, just as Hitchcock recreated the horror film with Psycho. This is a watershed point that will be remembered as the maturity of these kinds of films. You can make a masterpiece out of this genre beyond the fan boy ideals. And that's what The Dark Knight is- it's a masterpiece of design and acting that drags you on a journey that is your basic second act (hopefully) of a three act play. Yes, I'm calling this the Empire Strikes Back of comic book films. This is just one of those films where everything not only clicks, but works like a precision instrument.