161 of 1001 Movies: Chinatown (1974)

Chinatown is very dark and moody. Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway carry this movie heavily with the chemistry they are capable of having with one another as well. Without the movie would have had a lot more lulls to deal with a long the way. Roman Polanksi does well in creating the atmosphere, and slowly pulling us into the film as we build up toward the end with a lot of twist and turns.

Summary: J.J Gitties is just a detective who takes on many matrimonial cases, so when a woman, Evelyn Mulray comes into the office wanting to investigate her husband it doesn’t stand out as any big deal to him, and he does what he can to find out as much as he can about him. After a little bit of investigating though he begins to find out that he is not hired by the real wife, especially when she shows up herself in the office. After Mr. Mulray turns up dead things get very complicated and he can’t seem to untangle himself from getting further involved in the issues that led to his death and his mysterious hiring to investigate him.

Acting: Jack Nicholson does some of his best acting as J.J. While he can always make the same faces, and such he always brings something individual to each character that just works. He also has great chemistry with Faye Dunaway who is Evelyn. I haven’t saw Dunaway in much, and Bonnie and Clyde was an odd start, but she really does have the ability to act that is just appealing. She has a way it seems of conforming with the time she is in and making it work. She just fits the era her characters land in very well. You also have John Huston as the very eerie Noah Cross. I haven’t seen him act in anything, but it was cool to see the director show up on screen.

Filming: The filming showcases the era well. It has nice pacing, and while the story might be slow in development, since they move through different scenes a little quicker it knows how to build the suspense. Plus, Polanski does utilize a lot of techniques of film noir very well to make it seem like we have stepped into a 1950’s movie that is now in color. The scenes have this sort of dark, shadowy feel that contribute to the mood, and we have the usual setting of this detective at his office. There is also the adultery that runs rampant!

Plot: The plot becomes more intriguing as it goes, but you have to really stick with it. This isn’t a movie that will just instantly pull you in. The first hook though will be when J.J. discovers he has been deceived to do someone’s dirty work. After that you can’t just leave the movie but it feels you must live it through. It certainly doesn’t fail to surprise you either. Just when you think there can’t be anymore twist one does churn itself out again.

Chinatown conveys the era it’s set in nicely, and it feels a little timeless to be a movie from the 1970’s. I like how the scenes progress, and it feels like no scene is wasted on anything else but developing the story and characters. You get a little violence, but not really any action. It’s one of the few very well done film noir movies after film noir took a slight dip in popularity.

Rating 8 of 10.

http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/3aifeXlnoqY&source=uds

(function(d,s,id){var js,stags=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if(d.getElementById(id)){return;}js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id; js.src=”http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/imdb/plugins/rating/js/rating.min.js”; stags.parentNode.insertBefore(js,stags);})(document,’script’,’imdb-rating-api’);

154 of 1001 Movies: The Conversation (1974)

Francis Ford Coppola hasn’t delivered a fail with me yet. I enjoyed The Godfather movies, Apocolypse Now, and Dracula, so I was pretty excited to watch The Conversation, which is probably his most dated film, and one that features the least action. There is something about this movie that just grows on you as you are watching though. It begins very subtle but just becomes bigger and bigger as you’re watching, and then by the end it just freaks you out. It shows Coppola’s really great ability to build suspense at it’s best and earliest.

Summary: Harry Caul is a bit of a loner who likes to play his saxophone. He is also is a surveillance expert who has had his own share of troubles, and the people he is currently spying on remind him of his own struggles from his past. His conscience is raging war on him after he thinks the couple he is spying on are set to be killed by the people who have hired him to spy. This rips apart Harry’s world, causing his paranoia to magnify. His paranoia though really blinds him to the truth of what was happening.

Acting: Gene Hackman is the star as as Harry. Comparing him to other roles I’ve seen him in he can really switch his persona very well, and it makes him a great actor. I didn’t even realize he was all Royal Tenebaum until a week after I watched this movie. He makes the transition well into fitting in as an odd character. John Cazale is also one of the major stars, and probably most other notably known for his work in the Godfather movies. He is Harry’s other guy who helps on the scene, Stan. Harrison Ford also makes one of his earliest appearances, Martin, an associate of the man who hired Harry. Ford plays rich and arrogant very well. Lastly, Robert Duval also makes a few appearances that liven up the movie.

Filming: As always you have brilliant filming from Coppola. The movie is lively with color, and the whole movie just pop with life from how he picks those bits. The suspense in the film is also really well built too. you never know when something will happen that will build Harry’s paranoia. The film does have scenes that just felt too long to me. Unlike, The Godfather, The Conversation is missing pacing to make it feel spot on. As he film nears the end some suspense techniques really heighten and turn the film around thouh.

Plot: The story is an original story written by Coppola. The fact that it’s just his own work all the way around makes it highly interesting, and I think it definitely has a little personal heart because of that. Harry is a very well developed character, because without his development the movie would have just struggled. I guess for me the plot just could have been wiggled down about 20 minutes.

The Conversation isn’t probably one of Coppola’s more talked about works, but it is one of his highlights of his career. It was even nominated to go up against his other film for best picture, Godfather Part 2. Also, the use of the electronics is a little dated, but still very relevant as well. I had never pondered just how bad electronics might have made paranoia worse in our society, and almost rightfully so, because with time the electronics have only gotten better, but more easily accessible.

Rating 8 of 10.

http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/vrhRsZ56b4g&source=uds

Bookshelf: Stephen King’s Carrie

Carrie was Stephen King’s first published novel, and to this date probably his most famous work. They have made two movies from the novel, and spawned a failure of a sequel. While definitely a bit rough patched in some areas, there is something about the tragedy of Carrie that pulls any reader in. Maybe it’s the topic of high school bullying, the supernatural elements, or the insane mom, but there is still something that by the end has you snagged into the story. There are still some strong Stephen King traits that the novel holds even when he was starting out that make it one of his interesting reads to see how he has developed and stayed the same.

Summary: The story begins in a locker room where we meet Carrie. Not exactly meet her, but more so meet her through the eyes of others. After beginning her period in the locker room the girls decide to tease her, especially since she already is the subject of teasing, this is just a thing they found to make it easier to tease her about. Becoming a woman though is something that is about to spark off a violent side to Carrie that she didn’t have full access to before though, her telekinesis. There is one person though who beginning to feel really bad for Carrie, and that is Sue. She even makes her boyfriend, Tommy, take her to prom to make up for it. There are teens that hate Carrie really bad, and Sue has unknowingly opened the door for them to ridicule Carrie in the worst way of all.

Characters: For a novel that is mostly wrote as if it is from excerpts from books and newspapers it actually does develop the characters well. I can only imagine how close the connection would have been to the characters had we had it written as if it was a narrative instead. In a lot of ways though this book should be imagined as a movie as much as possible to get a full grasp of the characters. The way it is set up really does transition the characters in a way that feels like clips and glimpses. Where they are supposed to be likable they are and where they are supposed to be unlikable then they really are. There are also the minor complexities of other characters who do mock Carrie but also feel bad for their ways despite their habitual slip up of doing it. Carrie though is one the book is about but even by the end we feel we barely know her, and that seems to add to the horror.

Writing: As noted earlier the writing style is one that mimics as if it is a lot of excerpts from different perspectives and sources that contribute to showing how the end happened. This does add to the story feeling real, and a lot of the action. Especially near the end of the novel where we switch from perspective of the surviving citizens being questioned and the evens of Carrie reigning evil over the city. This somehow builds up the tension. I do think the writing style leaves some disconnection, and depending on who you are you may like the questions it leaves or hope for more of a story.

Story: The story is heavily based in horror and the supernatural. This does cause it to rely on some stereotypical tools of horror from that time as well including the insane Christian mother, and the kids who only have a mean streak in them. There are some scenes with Carrie though that really make you wish you could be in her head though like when she seems to sense confusion about the murders she commits and when she swiftly switches from the nerd to this girl who has a lot of power. As said though, if the story had explored her further we might have lost of the terror only left in the fact some things were unknown. It is well developed though and grows on you as you read.

Carrie is a novel that would have made a great Halloween read, and as someone who hasn’t watched any o the movies it spawned I was able to approach the novel with a clear mind without any previous biases. Mostly, the novel will appeal to horror fans though. There isn’t any real scariness to it, but it has a classic horror story vibe I enjoy. There isn’t any character development that makes it worth digging into for fans who are outside the genre either. It does a young author who had a lot of potential early on though.

Rating 8 of 10.

139 of 1001 Movies: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974)

If it is true, then it makes sense as to why Quentin Tarantino would credit Sam Peckinpah as an influence. The way the action is very gritty, has a lot of snappy lines, and builds up good character development in the middle of an odd story line does have it’s similarities. This film somehow gets you connected with the characters without even knowing, and as you see 21 people die in the movie you either care about them a lot, or you don’t. There is one though that is really sad and shocking.

Summary: Bennie is an American Bartender living in Mexico.He is encountered by two bounty hunters while working at a bar as piano player inquiring about a man named, Alfredo Garcia. Alfredo is being sought because he has gotten the daughter of a powerful and rich Mexican rancher pregnant. Bennie decides to investigate on his own though, and finds out from his girlfriend that she knows where he has been buried after his recent death. Thinking that he can make money with this knowledge, and get his girlfriend away from prostitution, he takes the news to the bounty hunters. They tell him that if he can bring the head of Alfredo Garcia then they will reward him financially.

Acting: There are times this sort of feels like a B movie, and that includes times with the acting. Warren Oates though is the lead as Bennie, and rightfully so. I think he sets up a good range of emotions that I wouldn’t have expected. He expresses his anger with a lot of attitude, and when he is being serious with his girlfriend, Elita, you can feel the chemistry as well. Somehow they just set up everyone else outside of those two to just be bad guys, even the bounty hunters. It only leaves you with you two characters you care for.

Cinematography: There isn’t really anything too catchy about how it is show, and it seems to capture everything about Mexico that people usually shoot when they do a film in Mexico. It’s never portrayed as a pretty nice spot, and most the people there are gritty and rough, even the women. There are some good shoot out scenes that are well done, and the quickness of the shots really picks up the pace. We never spend too long on any scene either. The setting is portrayed pretty rough though, and there is so many warm colors in orange.

Plot: The plot isn’t one that really becomes too tangled. It’s pretty straight forward, and most people will get that from the title of the movie. Since the movie just seemed to be straight forward I didn’t expect for many emotions to be captured, but there are these scenes that still stand out in my mind, like when Elita went to sleep with a man to try to get him to spare her and Bennie’s life. There a little too many nudity scenes, and there was a lot they could have cut down on as far as that. It just becomes a little obvious when a woman is being exposed just to be exposed sometimes.

Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia isn’t going to reinvent the action genre for you, but it probably very well established many of the techniques you see in the movies today. While made in 1974 there is something about it that does seem to still carry well now. There are some just gross parts that took away from the movie, but I think the characters and well done action shots move the movie along intriguingly enough.

Rating 7 of 10.

http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/HPaUPU9xdgM&source=uds

119 of 1001 Movies: The Godfather Part 2 (1974)

The Godfather was a great movie, so when beginning to watch The Godfather Part 2 I didn’t think it could rival the first. These movies stand great side by side though as they are great together, but also movies that seem to explore two different parts of someone’s personality. The first one shows the transformation of Michael’s views on his father’s business after he sees his father betrayed, and the second continues to show Michael’s fall into the business and the contrast of how his father handled people versus how Michael does.

In flashbacks Vito Corleone’s beginnings are shared as a young boy in Italy to his arrival in 1920s New York where he would build a life from an orphan to becoming a mafia boss from scratch. On the other end, the present shows Michael continuing his descent into the mafia from a man who never thought he would be in the business to a man who easily takes down his enemies without mercy. He begins targeting people everywhere from Nevada, Lake Tahoe, and even in pre-revolution Cuba. This further step into the business though pushes away his family who isn’t pleased with how differently he runs things from his father.

Before watching The Godfather I could not recall having seen Al Pacino in any other movie. He’s a brilliant actor in The Godfather though as he brings to life this character of Michael in such a real way. The movies are already 3 hours long, and even that time doesn’t seem long enough to grow with the character in the ways needed, but he makes it feel like we have watched years worth in one seating because the not only has Coppola capture the character development well, but Pacino portrays him so realistically.

Robert DeNiro also stars in the flashbacks as the younger Vito. It shows him in the years after he moved to America, and was starting a family of his own to provide for. The scenery is absolutely beautiful in the flashbacks. Coppola has a way with utilizing the setting and the color to cast a certain mood, and it just isn’t dark, but there are also the arrangement of pastel colors mixed in with the darker ones that provides a great mix for the movie. In the previous Godfather movie one character we didn’t feel that well connected to was Kay, and that was because she was really just getting started. She was the character that Michael would begin his family with, but in the second movie she takes such a dark interesting twist. You won’t see many other roles with women in a part like this. Diane Keaton proves she is a good actress, as I’ve only seen her in a few things so far, she has been so diverse.

Robert Duvall also returns as Tom who is the family lawyer. There isn’t much progression with his part, but his nonverbal language speaks volumes. It’s obvious he is saddened most the movie by what has happened to Vito’s business, but there are some interesting twist that even make Tom an unlikable guy, and maybe that is what some viewers won’t like about this movie. This has to be one of the darkness movies I’ve seen. It’s a look at what happens when one can’t forgive.

The Godfather Part 2 is on par with the first movie in acting, writing, story, and the filming. It’s beautifully done and shows the characters developing realistically. It may not be a movie you want to put on your list for light viewing as it is one of the darkest movies I’ve seen. I couldn’t stop thinking about it for days after viewing it. You will be thinking about how one man goes from never believing he will be in the business of the mafia, and then ends up being an even bigger crime boss than his dad was.

Rating 9 of 10.

http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/qJr92K_hKl0&source=uds

110 of 1001 Movies: Blazing Saddles(1974)

Mel Brooks goes there in his comedy Blazing Saddles, which is most likely the highlight of his comedic directing career. Blazing Saddles is often said to be the movie that you probably couldn’t make nowadays as it is blunt in what it means, and the characters use a lot of words that have gotten censored with their racist meanings. Mel Brooks though tackles the subject, particularly close to when these things were very heated still as well, and makes it comedic while empowering, by portraying the racist as not as smart as they hope to believe.

Hedley is a corrupt political boss who receives a request from a town for a sheriff after they have faced several attacks. In order to destroy the town though since they are on bad terms he sends them a sheriff they will hate, and will turn on. He sends Bart, a black man, to become sheriff of the town, and they town instantly reacts with outrage until he begins preventing the crime in the town with the help of a cocaine addict, Jim, who was a prisoner at the town when he arrives there. While the town still remains very rooted in their dumbness they do begin to turn over a new leaf of realizing who is on their side.

The way Cleavon Little instantly presents Bart the viewer can take a sigh of relief as he provides an instant much needed likable character, and he makes up for all the characters you’ll feel badly against. On top of that he is also very witty as Bart, and as this way of making Bart still comedic but not in the way the other characters are. Gene Wilder is Jim, and if you’ll like him more at least after this movie because he doesn’t have much comedy going on with his role as much as the others, but he is the one support the lead needs, without outshining him.

The other cast is quite different than how the two leads present themselves, but everyone knows that their characters are so racist the only way to even present them would be with a goofy present that tries to make lighter of the situation they are in. Otherwise the whole movie could lose the funny. Harvery Korman is Hedley, and makes him very dislikable and silly. The other characters follow a very slapstick way of being like Mel Brooks as the governor, and Slim Pickens as Taggart.

The movie does get sort of crazy, and this brand of humor goes for the extreme to get it’s laugh. We at one point even transition from the west to modern Hollywood to keep it really bizarre. Movies like Airplane! would follow this sort of formula this movie employs for laughs, and it does work because it gets really outrageous.

Blazing Saddles doesn’t hold back as far as the message and the laughs. It puts everything out there in what seems to be the belief that if it can be made funny then it’s okay to do it. Some scenes will be so random that it does get a laugh. The story also plays out to be entertaining too, and does allow for the characters to grow in the middle of the silliness.

Rating 7 of 10.

http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/iLNQv19YpG4&source=uds