Deliverance (1972)

If getting your rocks off to Ned Beatty squealing like a pig isn't American, than nothing is.

After living in or near the deep south for most of my life, Deliverance managed to strike a few chords with me. I'm not saying that a good old boy made me squeal like a pig on a canoeing trip, but the film captures the atmosphere of the region really well. It also maintains an impressive sense of tension throughout, but all this tension and atmosphere seems wasted on a movie that really only persists because of a ten minute sequence and a song. Deliverance is a stone's throw from being an extremely potent movie, but it stutters in the important areas of character development and pacing.

When four friends, John Voight, Burt Reynolds, Ned Beatty and Ronny Cox, go on a canoeing trip in what can only be described as the boonies, they run into trouble when the are assaulted by some good old boys. After the kill one of them in self-defense, they are faced with a difficult choice; be honest and face the consequences or hide the body and try to escape alive. The film was successful, both financially and critically, and it managed to pick up three Academy Award nominations including one for Best Picture. Deliverance is an unexpected darling as far as most people are concerned. The film doesn't have any of the obvious watermarks of a critic's favorite, but it's easy to see some of the things that contribute to that status if you are looking for them.

The best things about Deliverance seem to come organically from the film-making. The film is blessed with an iconic soundtrack, some magnificent cinematography and a knack for generating a really unpleasant, "something bad is going to happen" sensation in the pit of your stomach. This helps the film succeed on a base, instinctual level. You just know something bad is going to happen and that sense of dread makes the first half of the movie especially compelling. Best of all, none of these traits seem forced. Each one of these elements feels like it came out of the film organically and each one supports the others remarkably. All of this plays into the wonderful atmosphere of Deliverance. It's a shame that all this tension and atmosphere was so carelessly mismanaged.

You might be stewing in tension and dread, but it never really pays off in Deliverance. There is the famous scene where Beatty and Voight as assaulted, but after that, the film starts to trail off. Nothing else in the movie matches the intensity there and the rest of the movie seems like a rushed afterthought. Most of the interesting material that could be explored is breezed over. We don't spend enough time with all our characters after the assault and murder to see exactly how it's changed or effected them. What we get instead, is a mad dash to the finish that does everything it can to leave the audience in the dark. The same can be said about the characters themselves. We learn awfully little about our characters and how they know each other. While this is initially very effective, they seem so mismatched, it becomes an issue as the movie surges forward and we still know very little about the people we're watching.

Deliverance endures because it's nice to look at and a toothless hillbilly tells John Voight that he has a pretty mouth. It has other admirable traits, but most of them are lost in the frantic pace. It's fun to watch Burt Reynolds be a 70's sex icon an all, but nothing about that screams that Deliverance deserves to be called a classic. I'm not saying the movie is bad, I enjoyed it more than my review would suggest, but be aware that it's probably not going to blow your mind. See it for it's lasting impact on visual style and it's world renowned hillbilly rape scene.

6/10

Mulholland Dr. (2001)

Reinforcing the average man's unrealistic image of lesbians since 2001.

Watching Mulholland Dr. and M*A*S*H in the same week really throws a person for a loop. Both films lack a discernible plot, but they couldn't be further from each thematically. Maybe it's just as simple as the thematic difference, but the most important thing to note is that Mulholland Dr. works and M*A*S*H doesn't. It's not even hard to see why it work. Mulholland Dr. has drama, action and tension that keeps you involved even when it doesn't make an ounce of narrative sense. It succeeds on the most basic level of film-making by making the audience feel something. I can't effectively explain Mulholland Dr. Even after two viewings, my understanding of the film is rudimentary at best, but the film remains a riveting experience even if I can't quite explain why.

It's best not to think too hard about the plot in Mulholland Dr. If you haven't seen a David Lynch film yet, I wish you luck. Try not to let it hurt your brain. You don't watch Mulholland Dr. for the story, so I won't even include it here. The cast is chock full of relative unknowns, but Naomi Watts clearly stands out as a familiar face in some unfamiliar territory. The film was always well recieved critically, but was mostly ignored early in it's lifetime. Since then, it has picked up a lot of steam, topping many lists as the best film of the decade. While I don't necessarily agree with that, Mulholland Dr. does have an awful lot to offer adventurous film goers.

Mulholland Dr. is, at it's core, an admirably ambitious film. It's narrative makes little discernible sense, especially on a first viewing, but it's just so affecting that it's hard to not be impressed. It sticks with you for a long time after watching it, growing and gnawing in the back of your head, and that's a pretty impressive feat considering how much other stuff is out there to distract you. Mulholland Dr. might best be described as a horror film. It's a haunting exploration of some of the darkest places in the human mind.

Mulholland Dr. is only going to appeal to a certain segment of the movie going audience. It's easy to hate, but those brave individuals willing to give it a legitimate chance, will find a lot of really fascinating things inside the film. It's a film that gets better and better every time you watch it. I'm not going to jump on to the "Mulholland Dr. is the best thing since sliced bread" train yet, but as far as modern expressionistic film-making goes, Mulholland Dr. is the tops.

8/10

Manhattan (1979)

Pygmy Jews get all the ladies.

Woody Allen annoys me. I don't find his neurosis charming and I don't think he is a very good film-maker. However, he does have a particularly distinctive voice as a writer, actor and director and that, by itself, is worthy of some praise. Manhattan may be Allen's least annoying work. It's still full of his trademark voice and directorial style, but it doesn't devolve into senseless wackiness like some of his other films. Manhattan is, at it's best, a genuine attempt by Allen to make a movie about life and love in the city. At it's worst, it's a dull, wordy and surprisingly unprofound look at existence.

If the plot of Manhattan sounds familiar, don't be surprised. Like most of Allen's older films, it takes place in New York City and it involves the love lives of a handful of writers and intellectuals. It stars Allen in the leading role and Diane Keaton playing second fiddle. There's no reason to go beyond that. If you've seen one Woody Allen movie, you know the plot of all the rest. The film picked up a pair of Academy Award nominations and had a fair amount of box office success. It's been a critical darling for 30 years now, but I tend to agree with Allen on this one. He has constantly expressed confusion over how Manhattan became his most successful film and, while it's significantly better than the other Allen films I have seen, it generates substantially more praise than it deserves.

It's hard to discuss Woody Allen because he does so much in his films. Manhattan is written and directed by Allen and he stars in it. As an actor, I find him highly irritating, but his nervous energy would be impossible for most actors to replicate. This forces him into a lot of his own films since he loves to write about himself. In Manhattan, you see his best and worst sides. He is sometimes really funny, dropping impressive one liners, and other times he is just painfully dull. This inconsistency is attributed both to his performance and his writing. The movie has it's genuine and interesting moments, but it's mostly bogged down by Allen's intellectual babble. It feels like he writes with a thesaurus in his hands at all times. What's worse is that he tries to force this sort of dialog on the other characters as well, so what you end up with is a constant stream of pretentious nonsense. As a director, Allen is capable, but nothing to write home about. I will say that Manhattan suffers from some major editing issues though. Scenes are cut together very poorly, creating extended pauses between lines of dialog that should be on top of each other. I normally wouldn't notice something like this, but for some reason it stood out clearly in the film.

While Allen certainly isn't the masterful film-makers that some people make him out to be, he certainly makes a name for himself by being different. His voice, as a writer and actor, are unmistakable and his importance to the landscape of American cinema can't be understated. Even with all of it's shortcomings, I liked Manhattan. It's quirky energy was refreshing and it was often times extremely funny. This is best demonstrated in the really interesting opening to the film. I am a big fan of movies without opening credits and the opening of Manhattan sets the tone for the rest of the film marvelously. It felt a little weird initially, but I really grew to appreciate it. I can't say the same for the ending of the film though. While I like my movies a little open-ended, the ending of Manhattan doesn't feel right. There is too much left out in the open and it gives the film an incomplete feeling.

Manhattan is sometimes a painfully dull experience, but it's also funny and charming other times. It's a textbook example of inconsistent film making. Personally, I found the humor outweighed everything else by a substantial margin though. As far as I am concerned, Manhattan is Allen at his best. While that still doesn't make the movie particularly special, at least it's enjoyable.

7/10

Tropic Thunder (2008)

Guess what? Black-face is O.K. again!

The star-studded comedy film is about as old as film itself. It always seems like a good idea. Let's take five of the funniest, or most popular, comedic film stars and drop them in a movie together. That should work just fine. The problem is that it usually doesn't. Tropic Thunder is a sometimes funny, generally silly, comedy that's only real remarkable trait is the controversy surrounding Robert Downey Jr's make-up.

Ironically, Tropic Thunder is an all-star film about an all-star film and it's no surprise that both films are relative failures. The story follows a group of the biggest stars in Hollywood and their efforts to make a Vietnam war movie. There are dozens of conflicting egos and some rampant drug issues. Things go south when the cast is dropped off in the middle of the jungle, their only guidance blown up by a land mine, and one of the cast members falls into the hands of a drug gang. The cast includes Robert Downey Jr, Ben Stiller, Jack Black, Tom Cruise and Matthew McConaughey and a boat load of other recognizable faces. Written and directed by Stiller the film was relatively successful critically and financially. It even earned Robert Downey Jr. an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor, more on that later, but it seems to be falling off the face of the earth each successive year.

It's no surprise that the film has disappeared from a lot of people's memories. While funny at times, Tropic Thunder is the definition of "flavor of the month" comedy. The jokes have no real longevity and, once the controversy and subsequent praise for Robert Downey Jr. being in what amounts to black face died down, the movie really didn't leave anything lasting. Even it's attempts at satire seem misguided and unprofound. Yes, it makes some funny observations about Hollywood and about the actor mentality, but none of it is all that interesting. That leaves us with the juvenile humor that permeates the rest of the movie. There are some funny sequences of Tom Cruise dancing awkwardly, some jokes about gay pop stars, a few TeVo jokes and a lot of Jack Black being fat, ugly and shirtless. None of these things are really worth the extra thought, making the movie a great tune-out movie, but movies that encourage you to tune-out and enjoy while you watch them rarely stick around.

If I've been harsh on Tropic Thunder, that was not my intention. The movie certainly has it's funny moments and it is very easy to enjoy, but, even for movies of this sort, it was underwhelming. If you are in the mood for something to turn on and just idly enjoy a couple of hours, Tropic Thunder will do the trick. I would just suggest you pick something else.

5/10

The Road (2009)

Viggo Mortensen gets naked again and, this time, there are cannibals.

Some movies are feel good movies. If they seem depressing, don't worry, they make sure you know that everything will be alright in the end, just wait. The Road is not this kind of movie. Sticking remarkably close to the source material, a Cormac McCarthy novel, The Road is a bleak and frank look at the best and worst parts of human nature. The film is about as a good as it can be, but most of the truly profound stuff is lost somewhere in the transition from book to film.

The Road is a surprisingly simple movie. It's the story of a man and his son, they don't have names, trying to get to the coast. It would be a lot easier if they didn't have to walk hundreds of miles through a post-apocalyptic wasteland. They spend their days dodging cannibals and scavenging for food and their nights huddled together as winter gets closer. The cast is full of solid performers, Viggo Mortensen, Charlize Theron, Robert Duvall and Guy Pierce, but most have only a tiny amount of time on screen. Based on a novel by Cormac McCarthy, who also wrote No Country for Old Men, and directed by newcomer John Hillcoat, the movie stays exceptionally close to the book and this both helps and hinders the film as a whole.

While I try to stay away from analyzing novel adaptations against their source material, The Road demands a look to the book to figure out where some of the films missteps originated. While the film is generally effective, but it doesn't quite reach any of the powerful emotional notes that the book achieves. This is partly due to time and pace. For the sake of movie watching sanity, the film's pace is accelerated, but this gives us less time with our characters. This, coupled with the removal of some of the more tender moments between the man and his boy left me a little unimpressed with the emotional resonance of their relationship. The narration in the film never quite reaches the ironic, poetic, beauty that the book achieves. This is a major factor in what makes the book so interesting and powerful to read and it's missing from the film. I'm not saying that the movie needed more of the man's narration, just that it needed to compensate for it's removal.Other than these minor changes, I was pleasantly surprised by how closely the film followed the book. It's nice to see an novel adaptation where the director's whims don't entirely overshadow the source material.

Putting the book aside, The Road is a highly effective film, especially considering it is director John Hillcoat's major studio debut. He couldn't have asked for a better cast and whether or not they put the film on auto-pilot is irrelevant because everything turns out quite well. Viggo Mortensen is the definition of a committed actor and the whole film, luckily, rests on his competent shoulders. He carries the film admirably, but the highlights here are the people he encounters, even briefly, on the road. In particular, Robert Duvall owns the ten or fifteen minutes that he is on screen and I found that his character stuck with me the most. The film is also helped by some magnificent production design. From the barren grey wastes to the abandoned homes, the whole film is beautifully desolate. The look helps push the desperation level higher, keeping the story dramatic even when the action has died down.

The Road isn't going to make you feel good about yourself or the human race, but it will keep your interest. It's a brutally honest vision of a future that seems almost assured. A desolate, broken planet with the few surviving people doing anything they can to stay alive. It doesn't matter how this future will come about because it is coming. When the time comes, how will you survive?

7/10

M*A*S*H (1970)

Does anything actually happen in M*A*S*H? I know, in a literal sense, that things happen, but, was I supposed to care? Robert Altman's films always seem to leave me with these same questions. While a technical mastermind and a brilliant character director, Altman seems to always disregard one of the fundamental rules of cinema; a film without drama is a bad film. M*A*S*H is a movie with absolutely no drive. Watching the film is an exercise in tedium and apathy.

M*A*S*H is the story of medical unit on the front lines of the Korean war. The doctors at this particular camp have an interesting way of dealing with the bloodshed and carnage they see on a daily basis. They use humor. For the next two hours the cast, headlined by Donald Sutherland, Tom Skerritt, Elliot Gould and Robert Duvall, amble along through a series of unrelated and unimportant events until the movie ends. Director Robert Altman lends his trademark style as well. The film picked up a handful of Oscar nominations, winning one for Best Adapted Screenplay, and manages to persist as a 1970's classic despite all of it's glaring faults.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, films without narrative drive are bad films. M*A*S*H is a movie that doesn't go anywhere. I'm not saying that, because it is a war movie, it has to be a serious film, but how Altman made a war movie without conveying the slightest sense of danger is beyond me. Our characters are never challenged and there is never any real threat to them. This trivializes the entire movie and makes it really hard to care about anything that happens. The writing is certainly good, the dark humor, while it errors on the side of blatantly sexist, is generally spot on and the actors commit fully to Altman's style and their characters, but without a dramatic push the movie just feels like a series of unimportant, loosely connected events.

It's no surprise to me that M*A*S*H spun-off into a wildly successful television show. Through most of the film, I was thinking about how shorter, focused episodes on individual conflicts in the camp would suit Altman's vision better than a two hour movie. Bringing in a ringer from American to win a football game against another camp would be a great premise for an episode of television, but it makes for a bad film. The worst thing I can say about M*A*S*H is that it just isn't at all compelling. What's the best thing I can say? It's better than Gosford Park. The score stands at zero for acclaimed director Robert Altman in my book and something troubling tells me that M*A*S*H is as good as it gets.

5/10

8½ (1963)

It's pretty hard to criticize a film that spends a solid portion of it's run-time criticizing itself, but, luckily, there really aren't too many negative things to say about 8½. Federico Fellini's exploration of the creative, film-making process is worthy of all of the acclaim that is lumped onto it. It is one of the best foreign films ever made and it, probably, is the best movie about making movies in existence. 8½ is one of the few films, that I have ever seen, that is entirely self-aware. This self-awareness doesn't distract you from the film or the characters though, it just another layer of complexity on top of a movie that is, already, a mile deep. In addition, the film is effective in a general sense; It's, both, wickedly funny and surprisingly heartfelt at times. All of this leads to a movie that can only be described, ironically, as complete.

8½ is the story of renowned film director Guido Anselmi. Guido, feeling the pressure of his latest film, attempts to relax at a spa as he works on his latest picture. Assaulted by both personal and professional troubles, Guido begins to soul-search, leading him to some wildly unexpected places. His efforts take him through his family life, his troubled school days and his convoluted love life in an attempt to reconcile his failing marriage and to come to terms with himself. Directed by acclaimed director, Frederico Fellini, the film picked up a handful of Oscar nominations and took home the award for Best Foreign Film in 1964.

Both Guido's film, in the movie, and the actual film, 8½, are autobiographical works of their directors. 8½ was meant to be, in some ways, Fellini's autobiography and it's a delight to see the connections between Guido and Fellini. Without launching into an obnoxious analysis of the film, it's enough to say that the connections between the film that you are watching and the film that Guido is trying to make are surprisingly accessible. You can dig as deep as you want, there is plenty of extra stuff buried deep down, but it doesn't take more than a casual viewing of the film to see and enjoy the humor that this creates. I did say humor. It's important to remember that 8½ is a comedy. Fellini is poking fun at himself, critics and the entire movie watching world here. It's delightful to watch and surprisingly insightful at the same time.

It is so rare that a film is both complex and deep, but so thoroughly enjoyable on a simple level. The humor in 8½, while sometimes on the quirky side, is highly effective and enjoyable. It's hard not to laugh at Guido's imaginary harem where the women are sent upstairs when the expire at the ripe old age of 27. It may be odd, but it's certainly funny. The film is also bolstered by fantastic performances from the films leading stars. There's just enough drama here to keep the film moving when it's surreal humor stalls out. Guido's ailing marriage and faltering career are very tangible problems and sources of drama amongst the imagination and fancy of the rest of the film.

With the recent failure of the screen adaptation of Nine, I think it's twice as important to see 8½. It's required viewing for cinema buffs and one that they shouldn't dread. It's a insightful, intriguing and ultimately a very satisfying film watching experience. Calling it an experience might be the only appropriate way to describe 8½. It's more than just a movie. It's like a living, breathing expression of cinema at it's finest.

9/10

It's a Wonderful Life (1946)

Few movies are as recognizable and loved as It's a Wonderful Life by the average American movie watcher.  It's place in the cannon of American cinema is secured and the film certainly earns it in many respects. Saccharin sweet and full of charm and humor, the movie has endured as a family Christmas classic for generations. The thing I hate most about It's a Wonderful Life is that it's so effective. No matter how much you tell yourself that you won't let the movie get to you, it still does. It's a Wonderful Life is a perfect storm of charm, humor and just enough drama to balance the moments of unbearable sweet Christmas cheer.

The film, directed by Frank Capra and staring James Stewart, is the story of George Bailey. Bailey has had a good life, but has had to compromise his own dreams at nearly every turn. He is loved by everyone he knows, has a wonderful family and a rewarding job. One Christmas, things start go bad. After some money is misplaced at the loan office he works for, Bailey has a breakdown and he decides to kill himself. An angel is sent to help him, Capra was a devout Catholic after all, and things get better from there.

Bailey's life has a truly rewarding, and fascinating, arc to it. It seems that his plans are foiled at every turn. His dreams of finally leaving his small town are dashed at every opportunity. It seems that every time he might get what he wants, things go wrong. What's interesting though is that things never go bad for George Bailey. He never gets to leave home, but he becomes a local hero. He marries a beautiful women, has a wonderful family and is one of the best human beings ever put on screen. It's so refreshing to see a character as genuine and nice as George Bailey. Combining that with how intensely likable and charming James Stewart is, and you have one of the most memorable characters ever put on screen.

Things falter a little bit when it comes to the films message though. While it's important that a person should be happy with what they have, part of me rebels against how much George compromises of himself. I'm glad he is happy in the end, but I don't feel like anything would ever totally remedy the loss of his original hopes and dreams. This message makes sense when you consider the film as disgustingly sweet propaganda piece for Catholicism though. Coupled with the silly talking stars at the beginning, the movie doesn't put it's best foot forward. Luckily things get better as we dive into George's life and the drama that comes with it. Capra's intentions with It's a Wonderful Life were simple. Combat the spread of atheism. The movie didn't succeed in that way, but, luckily, it was highly effective in a traditional sense.

It's a Wonderful Life transcends it's own cheesiness by plunging into some surprisingly dark places. The mix between sentimentality, humor and drama only works because of Capra's fantastic direction and Stewart's classic performance. Without Stewart's charm, I don't feel like the film could have succeeded. Few actors have ever been as likable as Stewart and you find yourself rooting for him no matter the character he portrays.  The film requires a trip down the darker roads of human existence to sustain it's sweeter side. The balance here is almost perfect and the film is a classic because of it.

Calling a film a "classic" is a dangerous thing. How do decide which movies are truly "classics" and which movies are just good? There really isn't any debate about It's a Wonderful Life though. It defines the word "classic" in a way that very few movies have ever done. It's enduring charm has made it one of the few must see movies for everyone. Even the most cynical of movie watchers will find it hard not to get choked up at the end. You won't find me screening the movie every Christmas, but I can't deny it's effectiveness and appeal.

8/10

Battleship Potemkin (1925)

I wont lie about the reason I watched Battleship Potemkin. I thought it said Battleship Pokemon.

After the dissappiontment set in, I was also thoroughly underwhelmed by this film and it's inclusion on the 1001 Movies to See list.

Battleship Potemkin is a Soviet propaganda film about a mutinay aboard a Battleship, the one from which the title takes it's name, and the subsequent uprising it causes. The uprising is, of course, put down with extreme prejudice by the pre-soviet Russian government. There's also a baby rolling down some stairs and a  man with no legs..

There isn't much to talk about here. The movie has aged quite poorly, the acting is silent film acting near it's worst and it's just not that interesting. There is a ten minute chunk of the movie, during the uprising in Odessa, that the movie does shine. The film-making is quite effective and surprisingly brutal for a film of the era. I wouldn't tell you to avoid Battleship Potemkin, just that there are significantly better silent films to spend your time with. At least it's not the worst silent from on the 1001 Movies to See list.

4/10

Marnie (1964)

Alfred Hitchcock's acclaim has always been a mystery to me. He is, unquestionably, a pioneer in some ways, but  I wouldn't describe any of his films as particularly special. Marnie is very representative of the bulk of Hitchcock's work. While it hits on some interesting topics and contains some of Hitchcock's trademark, dry humor, bolstered greatly by Sean Connery's delivery, it falls into all of the same pitfalls that his films can't seem to avoid. The film beats it's symbolic and psychological meaning into your skull for two hours and, by the end, I found it hard to care anymore. Worst of all, the film isn't particularly well paced and, like most of Hitchcock's films, it's stylistically overworked.

Marnie is the story of a compulsive liar and thief named, prepare to be surprised, Marnie. Played by Tippi Hedren, the psychologically unstable, man hating Marnie steals money from businesses to send home to her ailing mother, but she bites off more than she can chew when she tries to steal from Mark Rutland. Rutland, who is played pleasingly by Sean Connery, falls in love with Marnie and decides to use all his wealth to try and cure her crippling psychological problems. Since Hitchcock is behind the camera, some twisted things happen and some secrets are revealed before it comes to it's conclusion.

Some of the things that Hitchcock explores are actually pretty interesting, but, like a tree branch crashing through the window, crushing all of Rutland's dead wife's possessions, the film clobbers it's symbolism and psychology into your head. After all, subtly was never Hitchcock's cardinal virtue. This is partly due to the way the film is shot. When something important happens, symbolically, Hitchcock loves to frame it in a tight close up. While this is not always an issue, it makes for some jarring transitions when these things in scenes of high action or tension. Why Hitchcock thought a particular scene of conflict really need an extreme close up of a bowl of nuts hitting the floor we may never know. The symbolism is obvious, but the lack of tact is certainly not a trait I would expect from someone who is acclaimed, rightly or not, as the best director of all time. That single shot sucks all of the momentum out of the scene. While the style overwhelms the film for the most part, there are some things worthy of note in the film.

Marnie is generally successful in the other places that matter. Our characters are relatively interesting, and well formed, there are some moments of Hitchcock style, like the opening sequence, that don't feel like he is beating you over the head with a blunt object and Connery is spot on in delivering the wit and charm that the film demands. I would be lying if I said that I didn't find Marnie's back-story interesting, and, more importantly, surprising. Even though it was explored through a horridly contrived, Sean Connery becomes an amateur psychologist, device, what we learn was at least interesting on it's own. Even with these things working for it, the only real joy I derived from Marnie was from Connery. His one liners and persona were interesting and funny enough to keep me watching even when interest in the film as a whole had waned.

He may have been on the cutting edge of technique, but Hitchcock's use of it gives his films an unpleasant and overworked feeling. There is nothing organic in Marnie. Everything just feels forced. Every Hitchcock film I see puts me one step closer to finally saying something I've been thinking about for years. Alfred Hitchcock ain't no thing but a chicken wing.

5/10