8/10 - Spinning an impeccable yarn about the conspiracy theories revolving the assassination of John F. Kennedy, JFK is a captivating, riveting, and truly compelling film. Structured as a bit of a courtroom drama with New Orleans DA Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) investigating the case, interviewing people with knowledge of the situation, and presenting his case to the jury. While compelling, the film is definitely very long, especially the director's cut. The film does a good job weaving everybody into the final case, while also showing just how hard it was to prove his conspiracy case against businessman Clay Shaw (Tommy Lee Jones) being involved in the assassination of JFK. What Garrison does do, however, is convince the audience of every conspiracy theory possible. Laying out the evidence and painstakingly going though the minutia of details, everything sounds plausible and backed up with incredible evidence. What definitely becomes clear is the fact that there were multiple shooters. While Stone no doubt framed it in that fashion with the details he had, it should just be obvious to anybody knowing about the law of physics in relation to the magical bullet.

Powerfully told, smartly written, and excellently acted, the film is anchored by a terrific lead performance by Kevin Costner. The embattled New Orleans DA with a tough home life as a result of his obsession, his home life may be a bit cliched. But while he is interviewing people and pitching his case, Costner is fantastic. The closing monologue as Garrison makes his case to the people is impeccably acted and written with Costner nailing every line, every question, and every moment of that sequence. Stone's direction turns the sequence into the equivalent of a hypnotic episode and Costner slinks right down into it perfectly. He is a terrific lawyer and detective in this film and matches the film's epic quality.

However, what truly adds to the film's epic feeling is the supporting cast. Littered in this film are various tremendous actors giving terrific supporting performances. These include, but are not limited to, Jack Lemmon, Joe Pesci, John Candy, Donald Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, Tommy Lee Jones, Edward Asner, Gary Oldman, Laurie Metcalf, and Michael Rooker. The whole cast, from beginning to end, truly nail their roles and add brilliantly to the odd cast of characters linked to the assassination of Kennedy. With each interview sequence being incredibly tense, riveting, and well told, the film finds power in its dialogue that more than entertains. With each interview, it becomes tough to balance everything we have heard in our minds, but Stone is smart to include wrap-up scenes in the DA's office every once in a while where the group find out exactly where they are and what they have that they can use in a courtroom.

That said, it becomes clear during the film that people are just not ready. Garrison spins this incredible case that very clearly points to the conspiracy, but he is brick walled throughout by the media. Even though the jury agrees there was a conspiracy behind the murder, the connection to Clay Shaw is tenuous at best relying on sketchy witnesses. But, to uncover the conspiracy behind anything, weeding through what the witnesses say is a must, no matter who they are. People too willingly write off conspiracy nuts as crazy loons, even if some of what they say may be based in fact or covered up fact. Not every inch of conspiracy theories are true, but more than people are willing to admit. JFK shows this incredibly well with even employees in the DA's office expressing doubt about what they have and the horrible witnesses they talked to. That said, the key to understanding the assassination is given X (Donald Sutherland). In a terrific supporting role, Sutherland's mysterious military colonel tells Garrison that the who is just scenery to distract people from the why. Incredibly true, every conspiracy theory falls down when people get down into the who. Often times, there is very little evidence supporting the who or loose connections at best. If people focused on the why and worried about the who later, then maybe something would actually come out of most conspiracy theories.

Long, maybe too long, but compelling and a truly unique conspiracy thriller mixed with courtroom drama, JFK is one of director Oliver Stone's best work with an excellent performance from Costner and the whole cast. Easily convincing the audience that there was a conspiracy, it does not pretend to show us the who because it hardly matters who kills Kennedy. Rather, Stone's film painstakingly sets the scene for why and makes a compelling case on that front. Now, it is up to the jury of the audience to figure out whether they believe it or not.



9/10 - Don't Look Now is an impeccable supernatural suspense thriller akin to something out of Alfred Hitchcock's filmography. English director Nicolas Roeg drops his two protagonists - John (Donald Sutherland) and Laura (Julie Christie) - in Venice after the death of their daughter. Warned that John is in danger in Venice while he works on restoring a church, Laura freaks out initially but a trip back to England to check on their son briefly calms her nerves. Rife with visual motifs - the red jacket, water, and the drowning of Christine - Don't Look Now is a film that may not strike a viewer as brilliant until its finale where every image we saw comes together like a puzzle and we are able to see it for the brilliant cinematic work that it truly deserves to be seen as.

Complex and hardly a film that can be digested properly in one sitting, Don't Look Now sets the scene with little Christine drowning in a lake near her family home with a little red jacket on. Tipped off to her drowning by looking at a photo he took of a church and the presence of a person in a similar red jacket with the ink running across the image, John is haunted by images of a figure in a red jacket running around Venice. Even more peculiar, after their son John Jr. is taken ill, Laura flies back to England. But, John sees Laura just hours later with a fortune teller and the fortune teller's sister, the former being the one who warned her about John's predicament.

Hitchcockian and combining these all into a brutal exercise in grief and suspense, Don't Look Now finds great suspense in its location of Venice. With riverways dominating the traffic, there are constantly bodies found in the rover as a result of a serial killer that is on the loose. The constant motif of bodies being pulled out of the river hearkens back to when John pulled his dead daughter out of the lake in the beginning. Trapped in a sea of these river roadways, Venice is essentially living entity in the film. The fortune teller hints as much when she explains how her sister hates it for the same reason she herself loves the city. The breathing and hollow nature of the walls leaves everything connected and in harmony like a body. In that way, the rivers would be veins carrying people from part-to-part, but never leaving the body. They also operate as restrictions and a manifestation of their grief. They are trapped within the city, just as they are trapped within their own minds. Even though Laura leaves briefly after she overcomes her grief over Christine, she eventually returns and is immediately put in peril once more. The more time John spends in the city, the more he becomes overwhelmed with his grief over his daughter. He constantly encounters the rivers, get lost in the city, and sees the shadowy figure in a red jacket running around the city. As he gives chase to the figures and manifestations of his mind, the fortune teller keeps repeating her warning that he is not safe and it is most certainly not from worldly harm, even if it appears to be. It is instead a representation of the insanity grief causes and if you do not escape your thoughts (the city of Venice), you will wind up a victim of yourself and wind up dead or a shell of your past self as a result.

In an impeccable performance, the film is largely carried by Donald Sutherland. With impeccable direction from Roeg, he gives Sutherland room to feel out the scenery. Constantly balancing between death and destruction, Sutherland's John is a man that is clearly still reeling from the death of his daughter no matter how much he tries to put it out of his mind. Laura, meanwhile, is excellently portrayed by Julie Christie. Though a smaller role, she can see her husband spiral out of control and worries for his safety after her encounter with the fortune teller. But, she is not spiraling out of control herself. Knowing that Christine is still with them bring her great comfort and allows her to heal from her grief. She wants her husband to experience the same, but he is clearly still in denial and haunted by images of his daughter in the water or just around Venice. His mind his playing games with him and he seeks an opportunity to save her once more after being unable to get to her in time when it happened.

Powerful and excellent ghost story that is spun into a Hitchcockian suspense thriller that explores grief and loss, Nicolas Roeg's Don't Look Now is an excellent film. Told via Roeg's trademarked fragmented editing style, flash forward, flashbacks, mystic imagery (the boat and the jacket), and a constant visual motif of the jacket and water, Don't Look Now suffered from controversy over its sex scene upon release, but has rightly been re-evaluated as time has gone on and is now seen as the horror classic that it truly is, as well as one that rewards repeat viewings.



6/10 - A tight and compelling crime drama, State of Grace is a fine film from director Phil Joanou. As with every film in his career, Gary Oldman makes the film a pure joy to watch and continuously steals the show from the talented cast - Sean Penn, Ed Harris, Robin Wright, John Turturro, and John C. Reilly - around him. It is honestly unfair just how well this man can act, especially with roles as unhinged wannabe gangsters. State of Grace is merely yet another stomping ground for the veteran actor to make a name for himself. As a film, it is a pretty straight forward crime drama with an interesting angle that really hits its highest notes in the first half. The second half is quite cliche, trite, and ends with a comically slow-mo finale with over-the-top blood effects that feel tonally jumbled with the rest of this largely reserved and tight crime drama.

The first half of the film introduces us to Terry Noonan (Sean Penn). Returning to Hell's Kitchen after 10 years, he immediately rekindles old friendships with Jackie (Oldman), Steven (John C. Reilly), and Kathleen (Robin Wright). He is also integrated into the organization run by Jackie and Kathleen's older brother Frankie (Ed Harris) that operates as the Irish Mob in New York City with ties to the Italian Mafia. However, unbeknownst to them all, Terry is not exactly the same man he was ten years ago and may not be a great fit for the organization. With things getting out of hand quickly and a gang war threatening to start off due to Jackie, Terry is torn between friendship and duty, being forced to decide which path he needs to take. A spell binding film in the first half, the greatest strength throughout is the depth of the characters. While they may touch similar ground as past gangster movie characters, the writing gives them life and authenticity. Bolstered by the incredibly strong cast, the film really reaches a fever pitch whenever the characters are given room to just chew the scenery and speak from the heart about where they and what is coming up next.

That said, the second half falls off a good bit. Riddled with cliches, odd actions, and a bad conclusion, State of Grace tries to balance a thoughtful and mysterious crime film in the first half with a bombastic action film in the last ten minutes. Trite and quite dull in comparison to the first half, the hail of bullets in the last ten minutes are worsened with slow motion throughout, cross-cutting between the shootout and the St. Patrick's Day Parade, and comically splashy gunshot wounds. The battle itself is even predictable, while simply poorly put together and tonally off with the largely reserved and tight film proceeding. The staging is like something out of Die Hard as seen by Zack Snyder and with the blood effects of Quentin Tarantino. As can be imagined, it is quite jarring and an absolutely horrific conclusion.

Fortunately, the first two hours or so are terrific and a ripping crime drama with the aforementioned excellent characters and actors. Gangster films can often feel as though they slip into self-parody at times with the constant references to past crime films, but State of Grace always feels fresh and keeps the audience guessing. While the first half does weaken when the film forces us to watch Sean Penn and Robin Wright have sex, its strong characters, compelling plot, and friendship stand tall. Compared to the last ten minutes, the first half of the film is impeccably directed by Phil Joanou. Smart, tight, and incredibly well-paced, he makes the cliched feel fresh and smartly does not rely on a cliche twist that the film seems to be setting up initially. Instead, he plays it out for the first act of the film and then quickly discards it and let's the audience in on the moral dilemma facing Terry, rather than trying to make it appear unpredictable. This way, State of Grace is a film that is incredibly smart and never tries to be more than what it truly is: a man who has escaped a life of crime being forced back into it in the name of justice, but is it justice if it hurts your friends? Marked by an incredible monologue delivered by Penn about the hope for angels and a state of grace on earth, the film is often quite powerful as well in its depiction of this dilemma and really elegantly shows the issue faced by Noonan.

Unfortunately, its cliches that are never really subverted and are simply relied upon in the second half as well as a horrible third act really drag the film down. The end result is a solid film that features a terrific cast, some bloat, and a compelling moral dilemma that feels realistic and leaves even the audience confused about what the protagonist should do thanks to the excellent depiction of friendship and sympathetic antiheroes throughout. State of Grace may not be perfect, but it is an unfortunately forgotten crime film that is certainly worth a watch, if only for the brilliance of Gary Oldman.



8/10 - The Fourth Man is a largely less graphic film than I have come to expect from director Paul Verhoeven. His last film before coming to Hollywood, The Fourth Man is a Hitchcockian suspense thriller about a man, Gerard Reve (Jeroen Krabbe) who comes to believe the woman he is sleeping with, Christine (Renee Soutendijk), killed her past three husbands and is looking for her fourth victim. Though with some graphic sex and a couple graphic scenes of violence, The Fourth Man is far more reserved in favor of Christian symbolism and color schemes. A suspense thriller, Verhoeven's The Fourth Man wrings tension for the entire runtime and largely lacks a pay-off, leaving the audience in suspense with a potentially haunting final image or one that is simply innocent, depending on what you choose to believe.

From the very beginning, Verhoeven includes signs that say "Jesus is everywhere". In the church, Gerard kisses the feet of what he believes to Herman (Thom Hoffman), but it is just Jesus on a crucifix. During sex with Christine, he mentions Mary and Jesus. At the end, he believes the woman in his dreams was Mary and that she saved him from Christine. Yet, he is insane and a liar. We know he lies. He told us he lies. His own eyes lied to him in the church. Verhoeven, when asked about this film, equated religion to an occult and a symptom of schizophrenia, even if he hopes there is a God. This is on full display here with Gerard being treated as a crazy man by anybody he tells about his theories and eventually being institutionalized for his crazy ranting. He may not be explicitly religious, but claiming that the Virgin Mary saved you from a woman after coming to you in a dream will hardly makes somebody sound believable.

What further drives home the insanity of religion is the finale. A nut by the end, Gerard is institutionalized and led into a room of all white with a crucifix on the way. Discarding the blood red color that has permeated much of the film and replacing it with holy white, a woman who looks like the Mary figure from Gerard's dream is by his bed before we see Christine leave the hospital. Typically a holy color of innocence, the white in the room dominates the screen with the light pouring in through the windows. Read it as you will, but based on the rest of the film, it certainly hints that Gerard has been driven to madness. He is now enveloped by the cause of his madness: obsession over Mary and fear from Christine. He has been driven to the edge of sanity as Christine secures her forthcoming fifth victim. Maybe. That is, if you believe Christine to be a killer, you may have to accept that Mary helped Gerard and that God is really help there. If she is not the killer, then the religion and and his fears were merely lies he told himself enough to the point he believed they were true. Honestly, The Fourth Man is largely inconclusive and leads you guessing. This is due to the fact that Gerard is a highly unreliable narrator and never really sees the full picture. His reality is always distorted or slightly off, certainly hinting at his insanity. But, Christine is definitely a bit off as well and may not be nearly as innocent as the town perceives her to be with her video tapes all ending right before her husbands die. Very, very suspicious, but hardly damning.

Verhoeven's film leaves these little bread crumbs for the audience to find. He even has the men die in accidents that seem to not include Christine. Though Gerard imagines she cuts off his member, she does not have a direct hand in any of the deaths of her husbands. They were merely accidents and she was at them all. Highly inconclusive, suspenseful, and mysterious, The Fourth Man is a film that will leave your brain in knots until the very end and far after the end of the film. To believe she is a killer, you must believe the unreliable narrator. To not believe she is a killer, you must believe in the coincidences surrounding her husbands deaths and the mystery she shrouds herself within. It is a hard thing to work out and likely Verhoeven's intention, especially with the haunting imagery at the end. Either Christine has found the fifth man or Gerard is set to spend a long time in the institution.



4/10 - One day, people will eventually realize that E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is a bad movie (NOTE: I know it is not a bad movie, but a man can dream). I did not like it as a child and could not stand it as an adult. Truly a timeless disaster. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial certainly stands as a testament to how little I can stand children in films. The kids in this film are universally grating and deserve to be run over with a steamroller. In particular, Drew Barrymore plays the annoying little snitch of a little sister and she does nothing scream in a high-pitched little kid scream and it drove me mad. Alongside her, Henry Thomas plays an annoying ten-year-old who apparently was tasked with, along with the rest of his class, to kill frogs for dissection. Absolutely wild. When I dissected frogs in high school, they were dead already. We did not have to kill them ourselves. Are these the horror stories of growing up that will be told by people that were young in the 1980s? Instead of having to walk up and down hill in a driving blizzard, they had to kill frogs with chloroform and then cut them up. Predictable, lacking wonder and magic, and simply overly manipulative and sentimental, E.T. is yet another 1980s childhood classic that I hate, joining esteemed company with Gremlins (why does that woman want to kill the dog) and The Goonies (where did they find all these annoying little screamers in the 80s).

The film is simply unfunny, in spite of attempts to be funny. Scenes of E.T. getting drunk and having some weird connection with Elliott (Thomas) that makes him drunk and kiss a girl with a fat kid serving as a lift for the shorter Elliott are creepy. Now, it is in line with E.T. as a whole who is creepily designed and then lures Elliott in with candy. Slow your roll, pervert. Add in the alcohol that gives him the guts to kiss a girl and the film has worrying messages about drinking and candy from strangers. A series of reaction shots towards the end of the boys on bicycles making weird faces as they fly are also incredibly grating and seem like something out of Tommy Wiseau's The Room instead of an alleged childhood classic. The only part of the movie that is funny is when Michael (Robert MacNaughton) finds E.T. burning in the sun and a raccoon was clearly hanging around and possibly eating E.T. That still makes me laugh.

The film is also quite cliched in its plotting with the kids all doubting Elliott, the kids getting behind Elliott, the mom freaking out, and then the adults who do not understand E.T. or kids get in the way and "kill" him. Even worse, the astronauts just bust into the home like common cat burglars. They are coming in from every window in a honestly surreal sequence that feels like something out of Blue Velvet and not a Spielberg film. Even worse, the scene where E.T. dies (unfortunate, since Elliott is saved as a result and yells, gratingly, in agony) is obviously a fake out as we just wait Elliott to go over and save him with the power of love. Wrapped up with a similarly sentimental ending, E.T. is merely a manipulative film that uses emotions regarding death and the loss of a parent to adultery as a gateway to trying and getting people to cry. It has no sense of wonder or magic in its own story, just sappy emotions and sentimentality that feel unearned with a hollow emotional core in the film.

The only source of any magic and wonder is the score from John Williams, which admittedly sounds good, but it entirely used as a crutch. The characters have to literally scream over the score with Williams' music sounding more akin to the Oscars playing somebody off the stage during the acceptance speech than a film score. Constantly telling the audience how to fell and single-handedly trying to make the film feel wondrous as a celebration of childhood and imagination, the score just does not work in this film because of bad mixing. It just distracts too much and tries to manipulate the audience into buying the sentimental and sappy emotions of the plot and dialogue. It nearly works and has made many people cry, but for those not buying the plot and dialogue, the score just becomes massively annoying with the score constantly getting louder and louder.

With a creepy connection between a boy and the alien at the center of this film, a lack of originality, a predictable plot, annoying child actors, a score that is too loud, no comedy, no wonder, and no magic, E.T. is a disaster of a childhood film. It may appeal to the vast majority of people, but I desperately wanted this thing to end. The adults being the bad guys because they do not let kids run all over the earth acting like assholes is a truly annoying trope and this film relies upon it quite heavily. All in all, this film may have some fun special effects and is glorious in its 1980s cheese while being mildly entertaining, but it largely falls flat and is hardly an enjoyable experience due to the litany of issues it has.



7/10 - An impeccably cute and authentic look at mother-son relationships and the relationship between any parent and child, Mother is a film by director Albert Brooks. Also starring Brooks, Mother is a film in which a struggling science fiction writer with two divorces under his belt moves back in with is mother. Having always felt that his mother and he lacked connection, especially in comparison to his brother, he opts to live with her to try and get at the heart of the issue and figure out why his relationship with women is always strained and with women who do not support him. A funny, touching, and smart comedy, Mother is light entertainment, but good turns from the actors and a heartwarming topic carry it over the finish line with ease.

As with all of Albert Brooks' directorial work, the film relies on smart humor. He never takes the cheap way out with his comedy, instead relying on smart lines or simple visual gags. There is very little physical comedy or slapstick here. Instead, lines find comedy naturally and the end result is a film that feels very natural. It is not trying to be funny, it simply is funny, helping that naturalistic feel. The banter between Brooks and co-star Debbie Reynolds feels the exact same way and is impeccably authentic. Their problems, though the relationship is quite strained, are ones any mother and son have and it makes the film a great one to watch with your mom. The commonality and strain put on the relationship over the years is clear from the very beginning as the two are very distant. They want to love one another, but there is something boiling beneath the surface that keeps them apart. While hardly an original solution, the film's charm largely comes from the journey proceeding the explanation and, as a result, its lack of originality is excusable. As a comedy, it manages to cover up its blemishes with well-taken jokes and a strong balance between comedy and drama.

Yet, the film is certainly quite powerful at times. The bond between John (Brooks) and his mother Beatrice (Reynolds) is quite strained. She is disappointed in him for some reason and far harsher with him than with his brother, who is a total mama's boy. Moving in with her to find out why, the film is a touching and well-written look at this story of dashed hopes and the resultant relationship. While both are imperfect, it is clear both constantly try to love one another and are working on laying the framework of this relationship. It is moving to watch unfold and Brooks does a great job at making it feel real throughout, both in comedic and dramatic scenarios.

That said, the film's resolution is a bit abrupt. An hour and a half of trying to figure out why the strain and then boom, he has his answer. Just like that and he is gone. Compared to the rest of the film that goes by at a reasonable pace, things sort of fall in place quite rapidly as he finds a new girl and his mom sets out on her new life as well. It is a light and feel good comedy to be sure, but its ending lacks the pay-off and cathartic release the rest of the film seems to be building up towards. It just feels overly rushed once Brooks noticed the film was getting uncomfortably close to being two hours long. Thus, Mother lacks the ending it really needs to be more than just a simple feel good film and instead become a funny and touching look at parenthood and adulthood. That said, it is a fun film with some smart, well-written dialogue that is both funny and dramatic, but it is simply too neat the end to be anything more than light entertainment.



8/10 - The Man Who Fell to Earth is a film released just over 40 years ago now and yet, I do not believe I have seen a film of this kind. I may have seen a lot of films, but this one is just so unique it makes it a daunting challenge to watch and then to comprehend afterwards. With stunning imagery, a surreal approach to its story, pro-conservation and anti-corporate themes, and a delicate look at how the people of Earth would react to an alien landing on the planet. Long, contemplative, and not entirely perfect, The Man Who Fell to Earth is a film that is more compelling and thought provoking than it is entertaining.

One of the first things I noticed about this film is the similarity with Don't Look Now in how the sex scenes are filmed. Intercut with other scenes just as in director Nicolas Roeg's prior film, the scenes are stunningly put together. One such scene in intercut with Thomas Jerome Newton (David Bowie) at a show featuring Oriental performances. A later sex scene is not necessarily intercut with another scene, but it is heavily obscured due to flashes of the gun and unnatural flashes occurring alongside the gun. It almost seems like the flash of the gun was heightened to serve as another scene of sorts to augment the sex scene. The end result is captivating sex scenes that allow Roeg to indulge the more sexual elements of the plot and the exploration of sex in the film, while infusing it with a sense of artistry and style. While the sex scenes can be a bit excessive to a comical degree, the film uses them as a source of exploration for Thomas, who is unaware of human sexuality.

This intercutting adds to the formalistic feeling of the film, also bolstered by the constant images of Thomas' family back on his home planet. Shown as flashbacks or cuts to the present time, they are always in a barren desert clearly suffering from the heat and dryness of the planet. Thomas represents their only hope and they keep awaiting his return, but due to humanity's response to him - capturing him and studying him - a return home seems incredibly unlikely. This makes these images take on a truly tragic meaning with them being lost lines of connection to his old world that will never be rekindled in the future.

The film's most prominent themes are its pro-conservation and anti-corporate themes. The former is explored via the company founded by Thomas. Replacing major polluters with patents that give him control over their products, he sets out to recycle and reuse all products his company sells. The film celebrates the natural green of the world with Thomas building a home where nobody lives to be surrounded by water and grass. Of course, this is because of the state of his planet. Decimated by a lack of water, he has come to Earth to find a solution for his people. Representing what will happen if we do not step up our game and preserve the Earth, Thomas' journey to Earth is one out of desperation as he seeks a way to rescue his people and family from certain death. Unfortunately, the studying done to him renders him incapable of delivering any solutions to his people and leaves him as an involuntary prisoner of Earth and his human form. Raising awareness to the issues surrounding pollution, the film equally critiques companies. The companies he takes over are ones who may not have a great environmental record and then he is captured by business rivals and the government for study after having his trust betrayed. The film portrays the companies as the antagonists in this one and while that is hardly unique and a bit too on-the-nose, it does work and shows that the greatest danger to the environment is posed by corporations that cut corners left and right.

That said, The Man Who Fell to Earth did not work entirely for me. It is far too long, the acting is fine but nothing special, and it can be a bit too surreal and distant at times to truly evoke pathos. That said, it is a highly unique and innovative film that explores worthy themes with a captivating story to boot. Nicolas Roeg infuses the film with great style and finds a way to uniquely tell a simple "alien comes to Earth" story without devolving into cliches or action sequences. Impressive stuff, but it is simply not a film that entirely clicked for me on an initial watch.



5/10 - From a preachy first half to an explosive second half to a safe conclusion, I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore is like Lost River. The directorial debut of Ryan Gosling, Lost River was critiqued as being too much like a Nicolas Winding Refn film. In this case, the directorial debut of Macon Blair is too much like a Jeremy Saulnier film. The brutal violence and stylings of the film make one wonder if Blair is truly Saulnier's muse or if it is the reverse. Though the second half has hints of brilliance, it lacks the confidence to go full-on into the unknown. Instead, it sticks a soft landing that feels far too safe for how everything was turning out.

In this film, Blair sets out to set something straight: robberies are bad, racism is bad, sexism is bad, gender roles are bad, leaving dog poop in a person's yard is bad, spoiling books is bad, and being weird is good. Big risks all around. His societal commentary is spoon-fed to the audience with Blair spelling out all of the beliefs of the left for the first act of the film. It becomes incredibly preachy and obvious, right down to the title. I do not support gun violence or discrimination of any kind, but the film hardly feels revolutionary. It is just a checklist of liberal talking points that are getting checked off to ensure the film cements its footing as a left-wing film. Once it is done, the film forgets about this commentary in favor of abrupt and gory violence. Even worse, it then just makes a possibly gay kid and his drug abusing friends the big criminals, as well as drug using teens as villains, both of which seem against the message of the film. If the film is preaching acceptance and tolerance, then making these groups - those that need help - the villains strikes me as an unfortunate turn of events. Its commentary on lonely housewives and jerk husbands is also incredibly dated, obvious, and better covered by any film from Douglas Sirk in the 1950s. Thus, the themes in this film are hardly worthwhile and are not only in conflict with the villains and robbery victim Ruth (Melanie Lynskey) stealing and her back-up Tony (Elijah Wood) kicking an old man in the skull, but are hamfisted and obvious comments. The film is also uncomfortably anti-police, with the cops being seen as villains for not following random intuitions of Ruth's regarding who stole her things or not being willing to break into a home to find a laptop because of a search warrant.

That said, the climax is fantastic. Typical 2010s gory indie finale, yes, but explosive all the same. With unexpected violence and incredibly well choreographed action that is well directed, maximizing on the tension of the moment, it is clear Blair learned something from Saulnier. The violence and scenario may not be fully earned, but it plays out terrifically and concludes the mystery and confusion of the entire film very well. The exciting chase sequence also does this, even if it is dragged down by predictability with how Ruth and Tony manage to evade capture. Yet, the biggest let down comes in the third act when everything ends happy even if it clear at the end of the second act that things will end quite messy. Blair makes a u-turn and plays it incredibly safe, unwilling to leave people going home upset.

Acting-wise, the film is incredibly strong. In particular, Elijah Wood is excellent in a supporting role. He is incredibly funny and delivers his comedic and dramatic lines with excellent zip and a weird/odd charisma. Sporting a long rat tail, Wood is the perfect match for this ninja nutjob that has no problems defending Ruth and relishes in her company due to how lonely he is in his own life. Ruth, meanwhile, is nicely portrayed by Melanie Lynskey. Always a reliable actor, Lynskey delivers a good performance here as well and really does a good job shouldering the load of the film in a lead role.

As a whole though, the film is on shaky ground. While its second act is quite strong, its first act is too hamfisted with its liberalism and its third act is afraid of sad endings. Though I am a moderate, it seemed to be a film that merely argued in favor liberal talking points and then delivered negative portrayals of cops for simply doing their job. The film lacks in-depth social commentary and instead just Blair throwing a dart at a board filled with random social issues and including those in the film. Largely a rip-off of the work of Jeremy Saulnier, the film shows promise for Blair's future, but he needs to rein in the hamfisted political commentary and instead hone in on a few themes with a more nuanced approach.

7/10 - This adaptation of Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur's play The Front Page simply lacks the zip. The recent Broadway revival starring Nathan Lane and John Slattery as Walter Burns and Hildy Johnson, respectively, had incredible zip. The second adaptation of the play for a film, His Girl Friday, had incredible zip between Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell. Billy Wilder's take is funny, but simply feels like it is retreading the same territory as the play and the other films with little innovation and it may also be miscast in certain parts. That said, it is hard to mess up with a film this inherently funny and filled with terrific banter and led by Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon.

That said, Matthau may not be the perfect fit for Walter Burns. The manipulative and hard nosed editor for the Chicago Examiner, Matthau simply lacks that aforementioned zip. He is too serious, too stolid, and too brooding to pack the same comedic punch as Cary Grant or Nathan Lane. The lines Burns exchanges with Hildy Johnson are banter, yet they lack the comedic touch and finesse to really come off. Even the tremendous closing line lacks that bit of zip that makes it a hysterical ending. Instead, it feels forced like Matthau trying to put the left shoe on his right foot and run a marathon. He simply does not feel like a natural for the role, lacking the looseness demanded by the role. It is far too rigid of a turn for him, even if he is an incredibly talented actor who does his very best as Burns. Unfortunately, his best is not necessarily enough. As his opposite, Jack Lemmon tries, but it takes two to tango. He slides ride into the role of Hildy, a man trying to head to Philadelphia to get married, but he cannot pull off the banter alone. When he is with Peggy Grant (Susan Sarandon), his fiance, you can feel that comedic energy and it really works well with Lemmon's manic performance. Unfortunately, he largely shares the screen with Matthau who has the charisma of a brick wall for much of the film.

That said, the film is still fast-paced and funny. It may lack the banter and some of the hectic chaos of His Girl Friday or the play version, but it still makes the most of the plot and characters with an off-the-wall odd film and smart and witty humor. Yet, above all, its mirroring of the film allows it to explore many of the same themes. His Girl Friday, in focusing on the romance, lost focus on these themes. Wilder's take picks up on these themes and they are ones that are definitely still relevant today. The press that embellishes to the point nobody believes them and the politicians that stop at nothing, even killing a man, to see themselves elected. Both lie, manipulate, and plot throughout and are at war with one another. Sound familiar? These themes are ones that have maligned the press and government for a long time and it is unlikely to ever change, but has certainly reached a fever pitch. Trump is a horrendous President, yes. But, the press hardly does itself any favors by constantly beating audiences over the head with biased takes on how bad he is. Just report the news and let us figure it out. By being so biased and only covering what he does wrong (positive things get spun as, "well, I guess this one is not that bad, credit where credit is due"), the media makes it easy for Trump's followers to discredit the evil media. This is mirrored in the film even when Hildy and the Examiner makes themselves the story and demean the sheriff by calling him "Honest" Pete Hartman. It is this editorializing that has gotten America to where it is today and why nobody in Trump's target market trusts the press. Presenting the negatives in an unbiased fashion and not just passively aggressively complimenting him from time to time is the only way this war on the press will be won by the press. Rely on facts, not opinions. The editorializing in the film is used to comedic effect, but it is definitely alarming and raises awareness to the fact that the press is hardly as innocent as it makes itself seem.

Funny, fact paced, and a classic of comedy, this adaptation of The Front Page has some hitches in its giddy-up, but Jack Lemmon is perfect here even if Walter Matthau may not slide nearly as comfortably into the role of Walter Burns. That said, Wilder knows how to direct and infuses this play with great cinematic style and a good natured sense of humor that smartly explores the connection between the government and the media. That said, it can be a bit insensitive towards gays with some less colorful gags about gays and being a bit of cowards and more flowery (for lack of a better term) than their straight manly cohorts. But, for 1974, nothing is really too off-color in that department, nor is it a focus of the film.



6/10 - Probably Spielberg's most sickly sentimental and manipulative film, Always is still oddly charming due to Richard Dreyfuss and Holly Hunter. A touching romantic comedy drama about a man who is an aerial firefighter who dies and comes back to make amends and inspire a new guy to fight fires and, incidentally, date the man's past girlfriend, Always is a charmer and a compelling look at death. While definitely sentimental and the most quintessential display of it in a Spielberg film, the film finds great tension when in the air and great charm while on the ground. That said, it is quite predictable and clearly manipulative, even if it is a compelling look at death.

Dying and being tasked with inspiring Ted Baker (Brad Johnson) to become an aerial firefighter, Pete (Richard Dreyfuss) is not ready to go. Even when Hap (Audrey Hepburn), the woman who cuts his hair and tells him he is dead (yes, really), tells him he must go back and say goodbye, he is hesitant. He is not ready to give up his life with Dorinda (Holly Hunter). It may be time to go, but he wants to keep Dorinda as his own and not share her with Ted, who is quickly moving in on Pete's territory. Able to speak and direct people to do something, nobody can see Pete and write it off as a voice in their head or their own mind telling them to do something. Thus, he goes undetected by everybody but Hap. Eventually, he learns he must say goodbye to let Dorinda move on from his death and not want her own demise as a result. The only way she will be happy and live the rest of her life with Ted is if Pete says goodbye. Tearjerking and melodramatic, the film's portrayal of death - though odd - is well done and well thought out for the most part and the film is quite effective at moving the audience with this portrayal. It is a film that would likely be of great comfort to somebody who just lost a loved one for its portrayal of the need to say goodbye.

Yet, the best sequences have to be in the air. High flying daredevils, these aerial firefighters are insane people. Al (John Goodman), Pete, Dorinda, and Ted, are all shown flying and they all risk their lives in the process. These scenes are excellently staged and captured by Spielberg with each sequence being filled with tension and capture the fear and adrenaline of situation to perfection. Compared to the situation on the ground, the situation in the air is incredibly reminiscent to Top Gun and captures that same free flying spirit. On the ground, it is far more solemn than Top Gun, but in the air, the two are very similar in how they capitalize on the natural tension of flying and fighting fire with fire.

That said, Always is hardly memorable. While playing with similar emotions as many other Spielberg films - tension and tears - it just lacks the gravitas to make it all come together. It may be Spielberg at the helm, but even his lesser films feel more like Spielberg than just in the themes. This one could have been done by anybody and feels like a director-for-hire film. While he gets great performances out of Dreyfuss and Hunter, this is absolutely Spielberg on autopilot and just doing a film to get the studio behind him, even though they clearly are and should be behind him for the future. Thus, I have no idea why he would make it. Mind you, it is hardly an awful film, but it just not particularly special or memorable. It comes, it entertains, and then it goes without even waving or having the courtesy to say goodbye. It just ends and you find yourself sitting and looking at the screen and saying, "Well, that was pleasant." Five minutes later, you sit down to write a review about on Letterboxd and think, "Boy that John Goodman was funny. Good acting. But what happened again exactly?" While not complicated, it is not a film that will stick in your mind and that is its biggest fault and usually something Spielberg brings to the table.

Tame, tolerable, and largely quite enjoyable, Always has some good fantasy elements, solid tension, and a nice romance, but Audrey Hepburn deserved a better film for her final role.



5/10 - Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is probably not deserving of its largely negative reputation due to Kevin Costner. Though hardly a good film, it is also not a disaster. It is just a middling action adventure film about Robin Hood. While an English accent would be nice for an Englishman, Costner does fine in the role, even if somebody who could do the accent or just was British would be preferable. That said, it is hardly the film's biggest sin with far greater ones in its midst. However, it is hardly an awful way to spend a little over two hours with the film providing entertainment throughout with relative ease.

Directed by Kevin Reynolds, who recently manned the Biblical film Risen, it is not surprising to see a plethora of religious imagery in the film. Robin Hood (Kevin Costner) is championed as a Jesus-like figure waging a holy crusade against the evils of Sheriff Nottingham (Alan Rickman), a corrupt Bishop, and Nottingham's witch mother. A man whose father was killed while Robin was away at the crusades, he returns to England to find Nottingham's men controlling the land. Finding a band of thieves, he quickly becomes their leader and they begin swindling the rich of their burden to distribute amongst the poor. Though Jesus hardly stole, he was the savior of the poor and a burden to those in power. Sheriff Nottingham and the Bishop are a perfect representation of the brutal Romans and religious leaders who sought out Jesus to stifle his voice, for he gave pride and hope to the poor. Those who are hopeful are a hard bunch of people to defeat, as is shown once Robin Hood becomes leader of this band of thieves. Throughout the film, Robin Hood also wears a cross around his neck, while his enemies worship Satan and have an upside down cross at their alter. This is a battle between the purest good and purest evil that is at hand as Reynolds sets this up as a match-up between Jesus and the devil himself. To further drive this home, he uses one shot of Robin rising out of certain death after a large fall. Lifting himself up and arising amidst a cloud of smoke, he casts a shadow behind him that makes him appear larger than life and a truly heroically gigantic savior of the poor and the meek (a friar is even welcomed to the camp to preach and told, "here are the meek"). The climax of Robin Hood and Azeem (Morgan Freeman) trying to break down a door with a statue of Sheriff Nottingham further speaks to the holiness of this Jesus character. He uses a tribute to a man's vanity to try and break down a door and though it does not work, it is because the statue broke. Man's vanity is not stronger than the natural elements and God-given works of the world, as Azeems points out when he says, "Damn English oak". As God made oak, it stands to reason it is stronger than a man's vanity.

That said, while the religious angle may play out well and in a nice, relatively subtle, manner, the film has a litany of problems. One, the editing. Throughout the first half, Reynolds cuts viciously during brief battle sequences. Used to show the speed of the battle, it merely distracts and annoys. The first half of the film is littered with these editing issues, but mostly in the battles. The cuts are distracting and reminiscent of the fence jumping scene in Taken 3. There are simply too many cuts. While he mildly dials it back for the climax, he still used a point of view shot from a flaming arrow shot by Robin Hood at a would-be assailant. That says everything anybody needs to know about the editing and cinematography of this film.

Yet, the film's biggest issue is the script. I was told Men in Tights, the Mel Brooks film that largely parodies this one, was the comedy. Again, the first half is worse than the second half here, but the dialogue is abysmal. Unintentional comedy and clunky dialogue malign the script that hardly earns points for originality either. It reached a point where I would just start predicting lines of dialogue ("Do it for your King." / "No. I'll do it for you.") and I was right an alarming number of times. It truly drives at how cliche and predictable the romance angle of the film is, even if Marian (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) is reduced to a damsel in distress despite her clear ability with the sword shown early in the film. All side characters - Azeem and Will Scarlet (Christian Slater) - are largely ignored as well, except for when they can help Robin Hood. While it is a Robin Hood film, developing a compelling group of supporting characters would be nice to add stakes to scenes where Robin must save them from certain demise. Unfortunately, this is not the case and the scenes just sort of play out with little-to-no tension aside from defeating Sheriff Nottingham, who is unfortunately and comically overacted by Rickman.

With a terrible script maligned by bad dialogue and questionable editing, it is no wonder the performances leave a bit to be desired as well. Hard to blame the actors though. How can somebody be expected to seriously and whole-heartedly deliver a line promising to kill a man with a spoon? A tough task. That said, the film is loaded with adventure and a largely entertaining romp with some well-thought out Christian and Jesus symbolism. While the film is lacking it other areas, that symbolism worked well enough for me to call this a decent film. It is hardly brilliant, but it works and provides loads of unintentional comedy due to the dialogue.



8/10 - A gorgeous period piece from director Martin Scorsese, The Age of Innocence may be achingly slow, but it is equally gorgeous. Thoroughly Scorsese, the film is brilliantly captured from the cinematography to the staging with ambitious camera movements, transitions, and techniques utilized throughout. Matching the beautiful camera work, the film's plot is elegant and its dialogue is structured and stiff, perfect for the society portrayed. Set in the 1870s, the film is about a man named Newland Archer (Daniel Day-Lewis). Awaiting marriage to May Welland (Winona Ryder), he becomes infatuated with the Countess Ellen Olenska (Michelle Pfeiffer), who recently returned to New York society after time in Europe with her now-estranged husband, the Count. Now caught between what he should do and what he wants to do, Newland must make a decision that will have ramifications for centuries. Elegant, engaging, and gorgeous, The Age of Innocence may be too stiff for some, but for those willing to go along with it, it is a brilliant take down of New York society.

With an elegant, romantic, and truly rapturous score accenting the film, The Age of Innocence was always destined to be gorgeous. The score by Elmer Bernstein is tremendous and often takes center stage in this film with so many different highlights. Paired up with the tremendous score is the brilliant production design. Capturing the prim nature of the society, the buildings from the exterior and in the interior are dressed to the nines. Scenes of snow falling in the city only further highlight the beauty of the film's production design and the emotional coldness of its characters and the society in which they live. While the buildings are gorgeously crafted, they are hardly lively and instead represent the same structured and stiff nature of the society itself. The costume design, also beautiful, similarly communicates this rigidity. With corsets and detailed dresses that make statements on their own, this society is one that constantly demands its participants be "on". If a person is unable or unwilling to perform for society's eyes, they will not be accepted into the society. The terrific costume design highlights this with every woman dressed up for a ball throughout and the men all wearing suits that exceed their "Sunday best". Yet, the film is defined in small touches. For example, a windy day where all the men walk the streets and hold their bowler hats as they do so, for fear of it flying off due to the wind. The film is bolstered by small, detailed moments such as this and it it something that is found in the score, the production design, and the costume design.

In terms of the film's camera work, it is wholly unique. Naturally, there are eye candy shots in the cinematography of old New York, the homes of the people, and a gorgeous aerial shot that is quintessential Scorsese during the opening ball sequence. Shots set against the shoreline of Countess Olenska staring at the ocean with everything draped in an orange hue also stands as a true series of highlights, whether it be with the sun setting behind the lighthouse, a boat, or Countess Olenska. Yet, again, the film has some small touches that make its camera work truly stand out. Early in the film, it is marked by a sort of symmetry to the shots. The staging of people, candles, or paintings, highlight this symmetry that is not necessarily continued throughout, but is definitely worth mentioning and eye catching.

What makes this camera work unique is Scorsese's usage of lighting and the frame. For example, a sequence with Countess Olenska and Newland at the theatre, already in the throws of subtle courting, Scorsese uses a truly odd technique. For lack of a better term, it is a sort of racking iris. It is a spotlight placed on the two as they converse, highlighting how they are in a world of their own. The sound cuts out except for their conversation, in spite of being in a loud theater. They have eyes only for one another and the spotlight emphasizes this with the two staring longingly at one another. As the scene progresses, an angelic white light begins to appear behind Countess Olenska, further making her enticing and hinting at Newland's impending obsession with her and possessing her love and affection. This technique later returns towards the end of the film when Newland reads a letter to May from Countess Olenska in which she outlines her intentions to leave for Europe and return to her husband. With this iris spotlight exclusively on Newland's eyes as he reads the letter, you can feel the hurt, the pain, and the sense of loss as he must now re-focus his love on May or forever chase Countess Olenska's love, which would only bring shame and scandal upon his and her family. Prior to this scene though, Scorsese has the curtains close on Newland and May. With black edge of the frame closing in slowly on the couple and then appearing to be a stage curtain, the chapter and scene ends. They may remain together, but there is no longer that connection between them, as Newland has eyes only for the Countess.

One of the best sequences, however, comes at a party hosted by Newland and May that is to serve as the farewell party for Countess Olenska. There, Newland is told by a guest that one does not need to have grace to make it appear that they do, as long as they know the moves. Thus, it is easy to deceive people in their society. Walking into another room, the screen goes all red for a brief moment. The narrator then informs the viewer that Newland knows. Throughout dinner, everybody made it clear they knew Newland loves May and that Countless Olenska was accepted by them and eager to go back to Europe. They went through the motions and danced like they knew how to dance. They thought he and Countess Olenska were having an affair. It is certainly implied they are, but Scorsese refuses to show the gritty details. This is a film about appearances and it hardly matters whether they are or not. The fact remains the society believes they are and May believes they are. Her suspicions are even confirmed when she tells Countess Olenska that she is pregnant when she is not. Her pregnancy comes just two weeks later, but in the mean time, Ellen had already made plans to head off to Europe. This scene in which she tells Newland this is quite brilliantly written with May telling Newland she was sure that morning, but when confronted with the fact that she told Ellen two weeks prior, May pauses. With her head in his lap, she looks up and says, "And you see I was right." A brilliant double entendre relating to both the pregnancy and her presumed reaction to Ellen hearing Newland will be a father and settled in with May, the scene is brilliantly acted and written.

On that note, the acting throughout is tremendous. As always, Daniel Day-Lewis is brilliant. That goes without saying. However, he is matched by an elegant and graceful turn from Winona Ryder. Had she not ruined her reputation via that shoplifting arrest, it is clear that she had a great career awaiting her in The Age of Innocence. She matches Day-Lewis step-for-step throughout and steals scenes from the legend with ease. Alongside Michelle Pfeiffer, another brilliant actor who turns in a great performance here, Ryder steals even more scenes. No actor is safe in this film from Ryder's performance as a girl who knows more than she let's on, but is firmly a part of this society of appearances and avoiding scandals. She is a society girl and looking for a man to play that part with her, without regard for love or affection. Through Newland, she finds that man without having to explain her intentions to him. Of course, the acting is further bolstered by the writing that leaves much the imagination, in spite of the narrator. Though the narrator explains many of the characters' various thoughts throughout the film, the script still finds a way to never tell as much as it shows, which is a major accomplishment.

But, even though the film shows Newland conform with society, it is a terrific taken criticism of this society. Via the epilogue with Newland's son Ted (Robert Sean Leonard) set years after the events of the rest of the film, it is revealed that Ted will be married to the daughter of Julius Beaumont (Stuart Wilson) and Annie King. At the time of the events of the film, Julius was in financial straits and Annie was his mistress. Now married to her and with a daughter from the marriage, Ted is to be her husband and the two families are to be connected. Criticizing the fact that Beaumont was chastised and ostracized for following his heart, Ted asks his father to forget his past actions because they occurred so long ago. This, of course, is occurring as the pair head to a meeting with Ellen. Ted, in an attempt to let his father follow his heart, had set up the meeting. However, Newland must decide whether or not he is willing to see the life he gave up. He loves his children, but possibly rekindling those emotions and making him regret those children and the life he led is hardly in the question.

Terrific on every front, the only one where the film falters is the pacing and length. Together, the film is quite formidable. While elegant, romantic, and gorgeously crafted, it is just far too slow to be a true triumph. While it has some of the best writing, design, and camera work that Scorsese has to offer cinema, he takes his foot off the gas far too often. Mind you, this allows scenes to breathe and the time the film takes to develop everything is worthwhile, but it hardly makes it nearly as engaging as some of his very best works. That said, it is hard not to recommend The Age of Innocence due to its technical brilliance, its writing, and its acting. While it may not be a film to watch while tired, it is still a beautiful work of art that presents a gorgeously bittersweet image of New York society in the 1870s.



8/10 - Written on the Wind is another 1950s Douglas Sirk melodrama, as are many 1950s film. I mean, the man released 22 films in the 1950s alone before retiring. Has anyone been nearly this efficient and effective simultaneously? Written on the Wind pairs together Rock Hudson, Lauren Bacall, Robert Stack, and Dorothy Malone, in a this handsome melodrama that further explores American society. Except, Sirk explores a different danger of suburban life than the housewife being locked up in a prison of her marriage's making. Here, he explores the dangers of wealth, expectation, and jealousy. Caught in a love square of sorts, the four main characters all feel the weight of these elements on their daily lives.

Living in the shadow of his rich oil man of a father, Kyle Hadley (Robert Stack) somehow manages to win over the heart of Lucy Moore (Lauren Bacall) on the same day he meets her. After initially showering her with gifts, he quickly learns she does not respond to displays of wealth. But, that is all Kyle has. He is not necessarily a show-off, but he hates himself. He believes his father likes his friend Mitch Wayne (Rock Hudson), a hard working son of a man with very little, more. Kyle believes himself to be a disappointment so he tries to win over Lucy with money because he hates himself, doubting his own personality and positive traits. He also happens to be a heavy alcoholic who is a heavy partier and playboy, further contributing to his father's disdain for him. His sister Marylee (Dorothy Malone) is similarly unhinged and infatuated with Mitch, though he does not share her affection, which causes her to act out even more. Mitch, for his part, loves Lucy but does not act on it due to his respect for Kyle and their friendship, as well as his newly minted marriage. The elements are all here for a ripping melodrama and Sirk makes the most of them.

Marylee is jealous of Lucy for having Mitch's affection. Kyle is jealous of Mitch for having the affection of his father, being stronger, better at protecting Marylee from would-be suitors, and a better employee in the oil business. In essence, Mitch is better than Kyle at everything and fits perfectly into the large pair of shoes left behind by Kyle's father. Neither Marylee nor Kyle love themselves due to the rejection they face from the one who they wanted to love them the most. Thus, they act out via promiscuity or alcohol. Here, Sirk shows the weight of expectation on the American child. Parents expect their kids to live up to their level and the kids expect the same. For those that fail, they can feel the judgment of their parents and the society as a whole, leading to a deeply ingrained unhappiness. The American dream demands that each generation exceeds the reach of the previous, but eventually, this weight becomes crushing and leads to immense self-hatred when the person fails in this quest.

Thus, jealousy ensues. Here, Kyle is envious of Mitch. He is not envious because Mitch is a better man than he is, but rather because Mitch has bettered his own father. The bar was set far lower for Mitch and he cleared it by a country mile. Kyle may have been born into privilege, but it was a curse as it set expectations higher than any human being could reasonably clear. Yet, Mitch - had he been a Hadley - would have lived up to those expectations. He may be a better man than Kyle, but the source of jealousy comes from that expectation level. Similarly, Marylee seeks Mitch as a man that will help her impress her father. Though the burdens of expectation largely fall on the son, she is still a disappointment. Mitch is a man who has Marylee's father wrapped around his finger and would be able to alleviate the weight of disappointment that rests on her shoulders. When neither Kyle or Marylee are able to succeed in their hopes to top Mitch or have him, they act out and drown their sorrows.

Gorgeously captured, Written on the Wind features a tremendous burst of color as with any Sirk film. A terrific score, good acting, and a compelling plotline, merely add to the positive column of this film. While perhaps not as enthralling as All That Heaven Allows, Written on the Wind is still a terrific melodrama that subverts expectations set by the dramatic usage of the book ended opening and finale. The film that succeeds that beginning is far different than I personally imagined, which is always a great thing to see happen. Taking aim at expectations and the American dream in a jealousy-filled love square, Douglas Sirk creates a stirring melodrama that thrills, moves, and compels throughout.



7/10 - Compared to the other politically-based comedy drama of 1998, Bulworth, Primary Colors is not quite as good. While its first hour and fourty-five minutes hums by, nimbly treading the line between fact and fiction with a comedic and satirical kick, its final fourty minutes are far too somber and tonally off from the rest of the film. A unique take on the lying and manipulation politicians embark on with Democratic presidential candidate Jack Stanton (John Travolta) leading the charge as a Bill Clinton type man. Alongside him is his wife Susan (Emma Thompson) who must endure scandal after scandal that proves the levels to which Jack has cheated on her and betrayed her trust. Yet, she sticks behind him. Why? Because through all the lies and dishonesty, Jack Stanton is a man who can change America. She knows it and so does his wide-eyed campaign chairman Henry Burton (Adrian Lester), who is the audience surrogate to this world of dirty politics, plotting, and spinning. Funny, smart, and honest, Primary Colors may be bit too dark at the end to really pull it off, but the film mostly works.

In the beginning two-thirds of the film, director Mike Nichols and screenwriter Elaine May write a ripping yarn about a presidential candidate that may be a scumbag womanizer who impregnates underage girls, but he cares. To be President, one does not necessarily need to be a great man and Bill Clinton, er, Jack Stanton is a perfect representation of that fact. This does not preclude his wife Susan from taking it to heart, as is gracefully portrayed by Emma Thompson who shows the grace and harm the sexual freedom of Stanton's nature has on her. But, it also does not preclude him from becoming President as Henry Burton soon learns. Hired to be his campaign manager, Burton left another man's campaign to work for Stanton because of one thing: belief. His past employer talked a good game and knew how to convince people, but he was not going to fight for anybody. He was just a politician. Stanton is different, however. He is a worse man than the other guy, but he cares about these people. To the people who worked in manufacturing, he honestly told them he would not get their jobs back, but would work to find something new. He fights for adult literacy and education programs as a result, doing the ground work in that area. He has a conversation without cameras around with a man who has worked since the age of 14 and cannot afford good health care in a Krispy Kreme at 4am. He greets people in the pouring rain on polling day. He talks to the elderly about issues that mean the world to them. Now, he may not always tell the truth to these people. For example, he lies about his own uncle's literacy level. But, he does mean well. He lies to get them on his team, not to mislead them. The things he says and the things that touch his heart are not fake, they are things he truly wishes to change and he wants to fight for the common American. Contrary to many other politicians, he is not all bark with no bite. He barks just as loudly, but his bite is just as ferocious.

This authenticity is mirrored in his early approach to negative campaigning. He wants it to be about the issues and not just because of his skeletons. He believes the American people deserve to hear about the issues and he plans on doing just that. By the time he uncovers the dirt about Governor Fred Picker (Larry Hagman) though, he knows he must play dirty to save the party. While he fails the test of Libby Holden (Kathy Bates), who hoped he would stick to his guns and not play dirty, he knows it is a necessary evil. If he wants these people to get help as he sees necessary, the Democrats must win. If he does not hit Picker with these revelations, the Republicans will and the Democrats will lose the election. For the good of the party, he must make Picker drop out. This is tragic obviously and clearly shakes both him and Henry, but politics demand getting dirty to promote your ideals. It is why negative campaigning is often necessary. Candidates must give people a reason not to vote for the other person, not to promote themselves as clean. This mud slinging comes from the need of politicians to ensure their agenda and policies are promoted. If the other guy wins, things will not go to plan. In portraying this moral dilemma, Nichols' film really soars. Balancing the charisma of Travolta in the lead role, his scandals, and the absurd things that occur for the first two-thirds of the film, Primary Colors really strikes a chord. It is incredibly real and never stops being so, but it is also impeccably funny. It shows how absurd it can all be, while finding comedy in smart places and never stretching the jokes to cover up true social critique. At the end of the day, it paints Stanton as a bad man with a good heart. Susan and Henry stay with him because of this. Through all the bad press and lies, he wants to make a difference and is naive and idealistic about America in all the right ways.

But, then the final fourty-five minutes come. Focusing mostly on Libby Holden's efforts to uncover dirt of Picker and then her unwillingness to see it become public and see Jack play dirty, the film really slows to a crawl. Kathy Bates is absolutely excellent in this section of the film, truly chewing up the scenery with grace and ease, while boasting unparalleled optimism and naivety towards the world of politics. An incredibly heavy section, gone is the satire and comedy of the opening of the film and in its place is a truly raw and emotional film. Though it still tries to show Jack is a necessary evil in order to promote a man to the Presidential office that cares about his people, this final section sort of undermines that. Instead, it makes him look cold and calculating. He is not some idealist, he is just a brutal politician, but everybody sticks with him anyways. Thus, the film is in conflict. Is Libby just too idealistic or is Jack just that bad of a man and politician? This tonally confusing section of the film also contributes to the film being far too long than is necessary to communicate its points. Had the film been 140 minutes, but just comedy and drama without this emotional climax and third act, it would have been acceptable. As it stands though, it all feels like bloat. Scenes of Henry and Libby driving in the car seem cut out of a separate film and spliced into this one before wrapping back up in the politics of it all. Thus, while the opening portion of the film is brilliant and on-par with Nichols' best work, the finale just falls apart and takes the rest of the film down towards being nothing better than a regular old good film. Nichols poorly blends the light touch towards scandal of the beginning with the heavy and brutal touch towards scandal at the end with little justification for why the end must be so brutal in comparison.

Largely quite funny and smart, a poor finale brings down Primary Colors and sees Mike Nichols' film fizzle out and overstay its welcome. But, for those opening two-thirds, this one really rips, roars, and hums along. Smart satire that analyzes politics, necessary evils, lying, and personal scandals, the film shows how a politician does not need to be a good man to do good things. If his heart is in the right place and he truly cares about those he says about, he is a man worth fighting for to see him become a good politician.However, finding the gray area between the lies he tells and the truth he believes in can be a challenge and requires one to stand the incredible amount of heat in the kitchen. For those unwilling, it is best to wait outside and let everybody else handle the meal. It is this smart dilemma and excellent portrayal of it that takes center stage, but tremendous performances from Travolta, Thompson, Lester, Bates, and Billy Bob Thornton also contribute to a film that may be too long and a bit tonally jumbled towards the end, but is an undeniably funny and smart political film.



8/10 - A classic from Alfred Hitchcock, Notorious is undoubtedly one of his very best. Starring Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman in a Nazi spy thriller, Hitchcock's directorial work gained notoriety for its ambitious camera work and for the emphasis on the romance in the film. Compelling and suspenseful as only a Hitchcock film can be, Notorious' romantic portion further adds to the suspense of the situation at hand, while crafting a compelling spy film as well. All in all, Notorious took a lot of skill to make it fully come off due to the various hats it wears. If you wear more than one hat at once, balancing them all on your head can be a challenge, if not impossible. Yet, Hitchcock's film balances its various inclinations with ease.

With Alicia Huberman's (Bergman) father being sent to prison for treason in the United States, but her being caught on tape arguing in favor of patriotism and against his espionage acts, the American government sees an opportunity. Enter T.R. Devlin (Grant). Set to be her handler, he asks her to become an informant and infiltrate German operations in Brazil. Through some convincing, she eventually goes for it and is immediately tasked with infiltrating the organization of Alex Sebastian (Claude Rains), who once had a crush on her when he knew her years ago. Though Devlin and Alicia are in the throws of a romantic love affair of their own, she must go through with romancing Alex and, as the need presents itself, convince him of her love for him. Through her espionage, the American government learns that the Germans have a scientist staying with Alex who is studying some sort of chemical and has a laboratory in the home. Now, Alicia must risk it all and figure out what chemical it is, where he gets it from, and for what purpose.

In the film's suspense/spy elements, the film can be best be described as claustrophobic. Showing it all from Alicia's perspective, the audience can feel the eyes of the room on her and the constant tension as she and Devlin work their way to the wine cellar to find the nefarious chemicals. When she discovers that Alex and his mother know who she really is, an American agent, the look of shock and confusion on her face is tremendous and further contributes to this claustrophobic feeling. Yet, Hitchcock nails it when he shows her stumbling - beginning to feel the effects of the poison - towards the foyer and being forced to decide whether to go to the door or the stairs. As the crowd of people follow her, the out-of-focus shot is disorienting and perfectly captures her confusion, pain, and illness. Yet, nothing matches the thrills of the finale from various angles. One, the love between Devlin and Alicia. Two, the nature of Alex. Convinced by his mother to poison Alicia, he is the one who will pay the price for marrying an American agent. Thus, Hitchcock wrings tension out of the scenario as Devlin tries to rescue Alicia and Alex tries to rescue himself simultaneously. The final shot, therefore, is both hopeful and chilling, allowing Hitchcock to both deliver a happy ending for the film and also present the cold reality of the world, leaving us in suspense as to which is which or whether or not they will both end up the same way.

Romantically, Notorious may trip up by making it a bit too abrupt, but it really hums in the middle. When Alex wishes to marry Alicia and she checks with Devlin and the other embassy employees as to whether or not she should do it, you can see the pain in Devlin's eyes. At the party or whenever he sees Alicia, you can see just how much he wants to be with her and for the case to wrap up. But, he simultaneously pushes her away and tries to run off to Spain to escape his feelings for her. Part of him knows it is the job, but she sells her love for Alex so well, it leaves him feeling rejected and uncertain. Thus, he is forced to either stand up for his love or just let her get away from him. Incredibly written, the romance - again - is slightly rushed into, but is impeccably nuanced and mature once it gets into the swing of things. It also adds to the tension as we want to see the two of them together, even if it is a bit of a forbidden fruit while she is undercover.

Hitchcock's noteworthy camera work largely comes into play with a reveal of Alicia having a key. It is an incredibly filmed sequence, as is the reveal when the key is back on the ring. But, personally, I loved the scene of her trying to escape but too drugged to walk. Hypnotic and frightening, the disorientation she feels in this moment is incredibly captured and a great usage of camera focus to also disorient the viewer. Hitchcock similarly causes confusion early in the film when Alicia is laying on the bed and sees Devlin standing above her, but he is upsides down. Symbolically showing how both their lives will be thrown out of order, it also shows how both are out of alignment with one another. Alicia immediately likes Devlin, but he needs more convincing. He must come around to his feelings for her and grow into them over time. This camera shot, though relatively straight forward, is subtly terrific at hinting towards the character's inner turmoil and foreshadowing towards future events, especially since he scoops her up off a bed to save her.

A smart and nuanced romantic thriller, Notorious is a terrific film. Hitchcock not only exercises full control over the camera, but of the set with little clues - wine bottles and keys - playing key roles throughout in the suspense. Even better, however, he is willing to let his film end without answering every question. We know some things, but the whole picture continues to elude our grasp, turning Notorious into a film that demands dissection and conversation about what really happened and how everything will turn out. Terrifically written and directed, the film also features excellent performances from Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman, and Claude Rains, who all nail their respective roles. As the well dressed and assured federal agent, Cary Grant is naturally in control and easy to buy as a man that would make Alicia weak in the knees. As Alicia, Bergman is strong and unwilling to be taken advantage of. For the time, she is quite the strong character, even going as far as demanding to drive. She is fully in control in this film, even when incapacitated and in need of rescue. Alicia is hardly your typical damsel in distress, instead being a smart woman capable of operating on her own, but as with anyone else, getting some assistance from a friend is always a possibility. As Alex, Rains is incredibly sympathetic. He is a bit of a fool and it is not hard to see that women do not typically love him. Controlled by his mother and indebted to her, the film apparently started Hitchcock's constant theme of including overbearing and controlling mothers and this one is brutal. She truly runs the show, even if Alex seems to be the leader from the outside. Instead, he is just a sheep hiding amongst wolves hoping nobody finds out. Across the board, Notorious is an undeniably excellent film and ranks among Hitchcock's best works.

As a sidenote, as there are no coincidences in Hitchcock's tight thrillers, the first morning spent together by Alicia and Devlin is quite interesting. In Suspicion - the first Grant-Hitchcock collaboration - Cary Grant's character gives Joan Fontaine's character a glass of milk at the very end of the film. Having suspected him of being a murderer for the entirety of the film, Fontaine must decide whether to drink the milk, which she believes to be poisoned, or to not drink the milk. Similarly to the question raising ending in Notorious, Hitchcock never lets the audience know whether Grant's character in Suspicion is a murderer or not and whether or not the milk was indeed poisoned is also a mystery. With Notorious being their second film together, it does not seem to be a mistake that the first thing Devlin offers Alicia to calm her hangover is a glass of milk. Placing it at her bedside, as was the case with Joan Fontaine's character in Suspicion, Devlin is quite insistent that Alicia drink the milk immediately. Taking a sip, we see the milk is not poisoned and, by the end, Devlin is rescuing Alicia from being further poisoned by Alex and his mother. An interesting connection, all things considered.

5/10 - Many consider the 2016 film Midnight Special to be a rehash of Starman. While the comparison is fair, it definitely feels like a different film in terms of tone. That film is far more serious than director John Carpenter's Starman, which almost feels oddly tongue-in-cheek. It also feels oddly like an adult-version of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial throughout as it is a film about an alien that does not speak English who learns about the power of love from a human as he evades the government and tries to get back to his people in time, only to then board the ship at the end following a sentimental goodbye with the one he loves. Now, as I recently expressed, I am not a huge fan of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. Seeing it rehashed with some truly odd moments tossed in is hardly my idea of a good time, but Carpenter does always make things feel oddly comical and thus, Starman winds up being enjoyable even if it not my kind of film.

That said, this review will undoubtedly largely focus on the negatives. One such negative is the sentimentality. An opportunity to explore grief through the eyes of Jenny Hayden (Karen Allen), a woman who just lost her husband and is now thrust into being the guardian of an alien who has taken the form of her late husband Scott (Jeff Bridges), the film instead goes for sentimentality via cliche. The alien retains Scott's looks and feelings, even if it lacks the vocabulary of Scott. Trying to be romantic, the film often defies logic with Jenny just staring at his demonic hellspawn as it turns into her husband and then quickly accepting that it is an alien. Though initially trying to escape, she soon grows love this fish-out-of-water and seeks to protect him from those who cause him harm, while also having sex with him and becoming pregnant with his baby. Oddly, that weird sequence is predictable, as are moments of them escaping, resurrecting, and more that are foreshadowed throughout and contribute to a largely tight, if incredibly trite film. This is a film built upon cliches that tries to distract via its sentimentality and heartbreaking portrayal of a woman given a second chance with her husband. But, Starman simply lacks the nuance and ability to make that romance really click. It always just feels oddly creepy like Jenny just succumbed to her Stockholm syndrome and gave into the alien because it looked like Scott.

The sentimentality in Starman largely comes from the dialogue. Waxing nostalgic about how great humanity is, the film may call us savages from time-to-time and a primitive species to boot, but the alien in Scott Hayden's body quickly learns what is so great about Earth: love and beauty. Together both make this a life worth living and one that is easy to feel nostalgic about, even if you just arrived here and did not bother to learn English before embarking on a groundbreaking trek to Earth. If they are truly an advanced species, one would have to assume they would know how to get a hold of ways to learn the language needed to have discourse wit humans. That aside though, the film's cloying sentimentality begs the audience to be swept up in the simple beauties of life, but is simply too on-the-nose and forced to actually come off. Instead of telling the audience about it all, show it to us.

The film's cliches also rear its ugly head towards the end. Having to get to Arizona in three days or else his species will leave him behind, he is constantly stopped by the government. Weirdly hostile despite inviting the aliens to Earth, the military literally opens fire on the alien and Jenny, trying to kill both. Theoretically, it is to study the alien's body, but still, lighting him up with bullets will hardly make than an easy proposition. The comically over-the-top military action is both a commentary on how we would likely reject an alien arriving (no matter how much we want them) and a tired cliche. Having the military and government invite and then reject the alien had been done to death by 1984 (forget it by 2017) and it is just grating to watch the film go through the motions. A largely inventive premise just devolves into a hail of bullets from military guns like any number of films before it, which is a shame.

That said, Jeff Bridges is terrific. He is funny, energetic, and does a great job as the alien. He is unassuming and a true everyman in this film, turning in a truly magnetic performance. Alongside him, Karen Allen is a good as ever, though not hard to do considering her limited leading lady filmography. That said, she is good here. As with every Carpenter film, Starman has a lot of fun with these that is incredibly infectious, even if entirely odd, which certainly helps make the film an entertaining experience. Technically, the film is also quite strong with a terrific score from Jack Nitzsche, though films scored by Carpenter himself always seem to turn out better in my eyes.

Employing the same sentimentality towards death and aliens as any overly sentimental film from Steven Spielberg, Starman cannot quite pull it off. While it gets points for good acting and being quite entertaining, it is simply derivative of every other science fiction film released (especially E.T., though definitely altered to fit in with other sci-fi cliches and classics). While its premise hints at some sort of originality, the film just devolves into an onslaught of cliches that simply drag the film down and leave it being nothing but an average work from a good director. The film refuses to offer up any take on death or grieving, instead opting for sentimentality towards humanity and the people of Earth, while simultaneously damning us for being too quick to pull the trigger. In essence, the film cannot decide whether or not humans are good or bad and whether or not it should be nostalgic about how great humanity can be at times via culture, love, and beauty. This fault can mostly lie with the screenplay, as Carpenter's frenetic energy nearly sees this one over the finish line, but it far too often rests on trying to poorly create pathos over creating a believable (read: non-creepy) romance or compelling characters that are not just cardboard cut-outs of past science fiction movies (especially the general). Ultimately, Starman disappointed me greatly. It can be a fun experience and giving it a largely meh review brings me no joy, but it is simply not a film that is up my alley.



8/10 - The third entry into director Roman Polanski's Apartment Trilogy, The Tenant further explores paranoia alongside Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby. Dripping with paranoia from the very beginning, the film stars Polanski as Monsieur Trelkovsky, a man who moves into the apartment of a woman who just killed herself. After becoming obsessed with her, he visits her in the hospital (before she finally died) and slowly begins to take over her life. Ordering the same drink at a restaurant, smoking the same cigarettes, hanging out with her old friends, wearing make-up, and dressing like a woman, he slowly becomes Simone. Even worse, he has visions of the fellow tenants trying to kill him and nightmares regarding weird occurrences around the complex. Tense, frightening, and a film that truly messes with your mind, The Tenant is a slow burn psychological thriller that is tensely directed and tightly wound.

Initially criticized and called "embarrassing" by critics such as Roger Ebert, public opinion of The Tenant has certainly changed over time. Smartly plotted, the film is incredibly tight and never wastes a scene. Roman Polanski's tense direction really keeps everything focused on Trelkovsky losing his mind and the various elements that go into his paranoia. This is certainly bolstered by Polanski's direction that adds to this atmospheric and hypnotic nature of the film, which really hangs over the proceedings akin to Rosemary's Baby. It largely lacks visceral scares instead of this atmosphere that Polanski cultivates through hard earned tension and fear, never taking the easy way out in crafting this psychological thriller. This is really what makes it so effective. Throughout, you are convinced everyone wants to kill this man. The tenants are neurotic over noise and certainly quite unconventional. The fact that they could be trying to drive him to suicide is not unbelievable, no matter how odd it seems. But, slowly but surely, we realize that Trelkovsky is an incredibly unreliable narrator who is either insane before he gets the apartment or afterwards. Regardless, his paranoia feels legitimate initially before the film devolves into an exploration of this man's deeply messed up mind.

This paranoia is the overwhelming theme of the film, as well as claustrophobia as in Repulsion. Though Trelkovsky does manage to leave the room, he does still feel trapped in the room and unable to breathe in this small two room apartment. Any noise he makes gets criticized by his neighbors, no matter how loud. He is unable to maneuver and is essentially trapped in a prison of his own making, both the room and his mind.

The film further explores themes of the self with Trelkovsky openly wondering when a person stops being themselves. Is it if they lose their arms? Their legs? Their head? Why does the brain define itself as being "me", when the other items are just as much a part of you as anything else. The film explores this particularly towards the end when he loses his mind. Is he still Trelkovsky or is he Simone? He acts like Simone and dresses like her, so is he her? He is afraid he is becoming Simone and is being slowly driven to suicide like he imagines her to have been. Thus, there is a great crisis of the self on display in the film where he constantly tries to identify who he is and what he is doing, as what is happening to him. But, his brain is incredibly ill and he is unable to pin down who he is and what is occurring. This confusion and paranoia is perfectly portrayed by Polanski as an actor. This man's trauma and turmoil is incredibly believable and hard to watch, as you see him be driven to insanity and to the brink of life and death.

Impeccably nimble at messing with the audience's mind, The Tenant is a terrific psychological thriller from director Roman Polanski that features a good performance from himself in the lead role and also demonstrates his skill as a director. Easily creating paranoia and claustrophobia, the film rapidly draws you in and is an excellent usage of an unreliable narrator to effectively creep out the audience and confuse them throughout. This is a film that is always three or four steps ahead and forces the audience to keep up as Polanski introduces more and more surreal elements that truly mess with your mind.



10/10 - Compared to when I first started watching films, fewer and fewer films really knock my socks off. Admittedly, I am quite stingy with my perfect scores. Instead of handing them out, I prefer to limit it to films that are, practically, perfect. While no film is perfect, these are the ones where the stars aligned briefly and somehow convinced me the film was as close to perfection as I could encounter. This was the case with Carol Reed's The Third Man. The classic film noir starring Joseph Cotten, Arida Valli, and Orson Welles, the search for the third man involved in the apparent death of Harry Lime (Welles) is merely the plot of this film. While smartly plotted with a compelling story, the story is hardly the draw in this film. Rather, it is the cinematography and the score. Truly a visual masterpiece, The Third Man is a film noir on steroids and stands firmly as one of the best films I have ever seen.

The cinematography is mostly the reason why this is the case. As with all film noir, The Third Man heavily uses shadows and lines. Bars making people appear trapped and what not are common to the genre and The Third Man is hardly the first film to use them. But, director Carol Reed innovates constantly in this film. The usage of shadows, particularly in chase sequences. Used to augment reality (how big the parties are and where they are), create tension, and simply aesthetic brilliance, the usage of shadows in the film is a highlight on two occasions in particular. One, the scene where Holly Martins (Cotten) sees Harry Lime with his cat. With a light slowly revealing Lime standing on the porch following Holly, - as a sidenote, the usage of shadows would hardly be impeccable if not for their brilliant contrast to light, as in this scene where the light reveals Harry is there in the darkness - a chase sequence ensues. Holly chases Harry and we can mostly just sees near-silhouettes of Holly running after Harry with Harry nothing more than a shadow against the buildings. Appearing to be huge or far away, the shadows are not just visually appealing in this scene, but also do a great job at creating tension. Making it appear that Holly is closing in on his old friend or that his old friend is escaping, while also being a huge foe who will not be taken down easily, Reed expertly uses shadows beyond what is typically seen in film noir. Though lighting is often a highlight of the genre, The Third Man's usage of it feels wholly unique and used to derive cinematic tension, not just psychological tension for those who notice the man-made prisons of film noir protagonists. Instead, the distortion of reality via the shadows creates authentic and permeating tension that shows the possibilities available in cinematography.

The other sequence that is particularly brilliant is obviously the tunnel sequence. With the cops and Holly giving chase to Harry in the sewer system, the sequence not just uses excellent shadows and silhouettes, contrasted with the bright light of the outside, but also production design. Running through tunnels and side exits, director Carol Reed has a lot of fun in the sewer system of Vienna using, again, the shadows in conjunction with the production design to keep the viewer guessing. We never know exactly where the players in the film are and from which place they may pop up next. This creates a lot of visual tension as a result of the excellent production design, but also through a few other features. One, constant violations of the 180-degree-rule. With characters running all the place due to the intricate production design, people can pop up from the left or the right, above or below. Nobody is running in the same direction as one another as Reed creates visual tension from violating this rule. Second, collision. Sergei Eisenstein and his work is known for collision with characters or objects constantly in movement and going against the path of one another. In The Third Man, especially in this sequence, things are in constant motion. Things bang into one another, people bump into one another, and the visuals of them running (via breaking the 180-degree-rule) constantly are in contrast and collide throughout the scene. Third, the sound. In particular, at one point, Harry Lime stops and looks around at various tunnels. The echos of voices seemingly come from every tunnel, creating a claustrophobic sequence where we physically feel how trapped he is at the moment. No need for bars from window shades. Using this slowly increasing and encroaching sound, the film shows how Harry is trapped and how the cops are closing in on him.

Yet, these are hardly the only sequences that stand out in the film. Heavily relying upon dutch angles, Reed finds an unconventional way to wring tension out of any scene. Distorting reality, just as with the shadows, it is incredibly uncomfortable to watch. Dutch angles certainly have this impact and, while they should not be overly relied upon, Reed picks his moments terrifically and, just as with his violations of the 180-degree-rule, uses them to create visual discomfort. As much as this film is incredibly well-written and a tight thriller, the film does not just find thrills from the plot or the atmosphere. Rather, it finds it in excess in the camera with Reed subtly making the film an uncomfortable and unusual experience that makes the audience feel the thrill in a far more visual fashion. The end result are some brilliantly shot scenes utilizing dutch angles that highlight how something is off in the moment more than words could ever communicate. That said, the film is littered with excellent cinematography. In particular, the final shot. A long take with Anna (Arida Valli) slowly walking towards the camera in the middle of the frame with Holly on the left-side of the frame in the foreground, the long take conclusion is gorgeous. She makes her way past Holly and past the camera, as Holly just stands next to his car and lights a cigarette. Simple, yes, but absolutely beautiful with the trees adorning the frame to the left and right.

The score for the film, provided by Anton Karas, is also oddly brilliant. The Third Man is a film that rises on its technical aspects and the score is certainly one of those. Just as with the shadows, the 180-degree-rule, and the dutch angles, the score is unsettling. It sounds more akin to the Spongebob intro song than a film noir score. This further unsettles the audience and hints at the fact that something is off and nobody is truly getting the full picture. The score is odd, yet brilliant and a perfect match for this unconventional and disorienting film. Instrumentally, it is very good, but more importantly, it serves the film well with how it manages to throw off the audience even further and alongside the camera work, it further demonstrates the film's ability to use technical aspects to create a thrilling atmosphere via visual and sonic tension.

An absolute classic of film noir, The Third Man has immediately become one of my favorite films. Brilliantly shot with an excellent score, the film also features terrific acting with Joseph Cotten standing as a true highlight. Though all film noir emphasize shadows, The Third Man seems to perfect the practice through inventive usage of shadows for visual tension, lighting as a contrast to the dark silhouettes and shadows of this world, and intricate production design that increases the tension and allows for further exploration of the shadowy underworld of crime. This usage of shadows is certainly heavily indebted to Fritz Lang's crime films and the whole of the German expressionist movement with how these shadows play such a key role in the film and how they are portrayed/shot. Picture perfect, there are not many films better than The Third Man.



8/10 - Ace in the Hole has to be one of the most cynical films of all-time. This film noir from director Billy Wilder tells the tale of a former big shot reporter, Chuck Tatum (Kirk Douglas), heading to Albuquerque for one last chance in the journalism game. While there, he stumbles on a man trapped in a cave that the local natives believe to contain "bad spirits". Jackpot. Milking the story for all it is worth, people come from miles to see the mountain, the sheriff runs a re-election campaign, and the victim's wife starts racking up cash through their family store (the only place in town). Chuck, meanwhile, milks the human interest of the story with a view towards a gig in a big city. One problem though: they can get him out of the mountain within hours.

Having been fired from every big city job he had, Chuck Tatum knows this is his chance and dammit if he is going to let it slip through his fingers. Doing whatever he can to keep Leo Minosa (Richard Benedict) trapped under the rubble, he and every character acts out of pure self-interest. Wilder is known for his cynicism, but this one is other worldly. The scene of the incident is turned into a circus with people from miles away driving over and pitching tents. Leo's wife Lorraine (Jan Sterling) starts making people pay to get in, on top of serving them food and drinks in their restaurant. The sheriff (Ray Teal) paints "Re-elect Sheriff Kretzer" on the mountain. There are songs written about rescuing Leo and the news media across the country is willing to pay big bucks to Chuck, who is the man with exclusive access to Leo and the family, having wooed them to his cause before anybody else showed up. Manipulating the situation to prolong Leo's stay in order to soak in the attention and drive up demand for the human interest story, things take a turn for the worse when Leo has pneumonia and is near death. Considering how it would ruin his story and deprive the nation of a happy ending, something must be done or else Chuck will be faced with his guilt and regret.

Initially a critical and commercial failure, Ace in the Hole was clearly ahead of its time. In exploring the involvement of the media in the news and the self-interest of everybody in telling a story, even the reading public, the film is a damning look at America. Everybody is selfish and forgets that a man is stuck in the mountain, but an old Indian curse keeping him there is far more compelling than the fact that a good man will die just because of their indifference. Had anybody cared to, he could have been rescued quite quickly, but they milk his suffering for their own satisfaction. In a day and age where the 24/7 news media uses human interest as a hook to reel in viewers, Ace in the Hole would be a great companion piece to news coverage of reporters running up to the families of children murdered in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting or the filmography of Peter Berg, namely Patriots Day. Today, there is money to be had and ratings to be gained from suffering. Just as with Chuck denying he wants Leo's suffering to continue only to then take steps to see it continue, the media wants shootings to stop nowadays, but man are those ratings ever nice. The public plays right into their cards too as we all gather around and watch with bated breathe to hear how everything turns out. While this undeniably happened in 1951 as well, not even Billy Wilder could have anticipated the way it would be nowadays. In essence, the film is an unseen warning for the future about what tragedy could be turned into and the disconnection people feel from others in tragic situations (i.e. the whole conversation regarding one person being more tragic than 84 or 284).

Compelling, cynical, and terrifically acted, Ace in the Hole's dramatic ending being a slight rehash of its opening sequence is a stroke of genius. Kirk Douglas nails the role from beginning to end, somehow convincing people he is not nearly as bad of a person as he really is beneath the surface. A film that was far ahead of its time, Ace in the Hole is Wilder at his most cynical, showing how tragedy is profitable for those willing to trudge through the mud to profit of it. But, once the tragedy ends, everybody rushes home and forgets, symbolized by Leo's wife still leaving him. Things must go and life trudges ahead, leaving the tragedy that swept the nation in the dust as people move on to the next tragedy.



8/10 - What does a young man do when his gay parents must meet the ultra conservative parents of his fiance? Well, he tries to get them to play it straight for just a single night. Unfortunately, there is no holding down dynamic duo Armond (Robin Williams) and Albert (Nathan Lane), not even a co-founder of the coalition for moral order who is the father of the soon-to-be bride. Senator Kevin Keeley (Gene Hackman) has his own scandal brewing, however, with his co-founder of the coalition being found dead in a bed with an underage black prostitute who he derogatorily referred to as "chocolate". Bad news for a guy who spent his life ensuring the "natural" family stayed strong. Trying to escape the media frenzy by going with his daughter Barbara (Calista Flockhart) to meet her fiance Val (Dan Futterman) and his parents in South Beach, little does he know that the press coverage is just starting.

Riding high on the comic energy of Robin Williams and Nathan Lane, The Birdcage serves as the perfect vehicle for the duo's physical comedy, especially Lane. Though Williams is a comic legend who nails his role as drag club owner Armond, a far more masculine man, the flamboyantly gay drag queen headliner for the club played by Lane is hysterical. In particular, the film is quite funny when Armond plans to let Albert stay for dinner, but as gay uncle Al who walks and talks like John Wayne. Unfortunately, Albert has his own plan and shows up as Val's mother, even with Val's female mother on her way to the dinner. While The Birdcage is undeniably cliche, the absurdity of it all and the comedic tour de force of both simply funny lines and physical comedy put on by Williams and Lane is more than enough to lift the film over the hurdles placed in front of it by those cliches.

That said, The Birdcage is not all comedy. Instead, underneath its surface, is a message of tolerance and acceptance. In a poignant speech to his son Val, who is hardly an asshole himself and just trying to make an ill-fated attempt at a good impression, Armond says that yes he is gay. But, it has taken him a lot of time to get where is and he does not care who sees or whether they accept him or not. Albert, similarly, just wants to be himself. He is the "mother" to Val and incredibly flamboyant, but Lane does a great job showing how awkward acting "masculine" is to him. It is not who he is, nor is it what he wants to be. Even their house maid Agador Spartacus (Hank Azaria) is who he wants to be and that is a man who speaks with the stereotypical "gay accent" (for lack of a better term) blended with a Guatemalan accent. It is for these portrayals that the film has been called offensive as they come at a time when the world had still not fully accepted homosexuals as equals and, here, it turned them into jokes. But, crucial to understand is that the film preaches a message of choosing one's own path. All of the characters may be various stereotypes, but they own it. Agador even says he talks exactly how he wants to talk. Lane is not mocked for acting feminine, but rather his comedic height in this film is when he tries to act masculine. It is not even just funny because of him acting masculine, but rather because he is not being himself. The film's message of accepting who you are without care for how others perceive you is what saves it from being offensive. The men on display know they are being stereotypical, but it is who they want to be and who they are. Ultimately, who they are does manage to save Kevin Keeley from scandal, which certainly must also count for something.

Funny, sweet, and charming, The Birdcage is a film about accepting yourself above all else. It is only when they realize this that things begin to go better and the marriage can go ahead without a hitch. The more they pretended to be somebody else, the more troubles they encountered on the dinner. At the end of the day, everybody seems to realize this and it is what allows everything to go on without a hitch at that point on. That said, the film's portrayal of gay characters and some of the dialogue can certainly be offensive to some, but the film does enough to try and normalize homosexuality and show the benefits of being yourself (especially for 1996) to mostly overcome its own stereotypes. While cliche and a remake, The Birdcage is a comedy film that benefits tremendously from excellently funny turns from Robin Williams and Nathan Lane.



8/10 - Down by Law directed by Jim Jarmsuch is a black-and-white drama film that hearkens back to the age of character-driven films. Relying solely upon the three main characters, the film simply lets them talk with no artificial drama. Instead, everything is incredibly natural and Down by Law, as a result, is a film grounded in realism. A film about three men that wind up in prison and then escape, Down by Law is not overly concerned with the escape as it is with the odd sense of brotherhood forged between these three cellmates, all of whom are largely redeemable prisoners who were actually set up or justified in their actions. Impeccably written, Down by Law is a Jim Jarmusch film, which should be enough to describe it, considering he makes nothing more than character-driven, slow paced, and contemplative dramas.

The three main characters - Jack (John Lurie), Zack (Tom Waits), and Roberto (Roberto Benigni) - are all arrested and then thrown into jail. The three may be criminals and are pimps, morons, or murderers, respectively, but they are relatively good people. Down by Law truly captures the boredom experienced by prisoners as these men are left with little else to do, but stare at one another and reminisce about their lives on the outside. Once they break out, which gets very little attention, they are once more left in a position to just talk to one another about where they will go and what they will do. In the process, we get to learn a lot about these characters with their development taking centerstage as these men, oddly enough, seem to reform themselves to a degree. Jack, once a pimp who gets framed as a pedophile by a rival, is just an average guy by the end. He radiates this cool persona as he heads east or west to his future. There is no big revelation where he regrets his past, but it is clear that even he knows change is needed for his future life to work out better than this one. Zack, meanwhile, got caught in a stolen car with a body in the trunk because he was hired to drive the car across the city. In other words, he is a moron. By the end, he is less dumb, but revitalized in his dream to become a DJ for a radio station. Roberto was locked up for murder though it was self-defense. Hardly speaking English, he is the comic relief of the film, but is a man with a good heart who seeks a fresh beginning in his (clearly) new country.

Uninterested with their trial or escape, the film briefly shows their lives before their respective arrests and then dumps them all in the same cell. What ensues is a film largely focused on the bond between these men. Through everything, they stick together even it seems as though they may break apart. For them, these are the last people they have on Earth and, whether they know it or not, they do not want to give up this possible last bit of human connection they have. These men help each other escape from prison and, while in prison, pass the time. There is a great bond between them, but Jarmusch never makes a big deal out of it all. He just lets it arise organically and, just as organically, let's them go their separate ways. Nothing is contrived or unnatural. These men cannot be together forever and must go their own ways, so they do. This is really the major strength of Down by Law as everything ends as it should. This an anti-Hollywood film and could be easily mistaken for a documentary on these men, as the film is largely devoid of a genre. It is technically drama with some light comedic bits, but it is hardly cinematic in terms of its story. It is simply a film about these men and their lives, which is what makes Jarmusch's slice of life films so enjoyable and timeless.

Not a film for everyone, Down by Law is an impeccably written film with terrific acting throughout that really capitalizes on its black-and-white status with stellar cinematography. It is simply a largely straight forward film about these men, not about what happens to them or any other contrived drama found in film. Rather, it is just them and their lives now that they have been arrested and are in jail planning an escape. Charming, funny, and real, Down by Law is a terrific film.



SPOILERS THROUGHOUT

<a href='index.php?showuser=26' rel='nofollow' alt='profile link' class='user-tagged mgroup-13'>BasedMinkus</a> <a href='index.php?showuser=283' rel='nofollow' alt='profile link' class='user-tagged mgroup-13'>ThatDamnMcJesus</a>

6/10 - Think about color. I do not mean race, just color. White, throughout cinema and life as a whole, has taken on a holy connotation. People are safe when they are in the light. Horror movies find their greatest tension at night, not the day. Things do not go bump in the broad daylight. The light shows the truth, whereas darkness hides it and obscures it turning it into the unknown. White is safety. White lights envelope characters in a hidden suit of armor. On the other side of things, black has come to be seen as death and has a far more sinister connotation. The grim reaper wears black, witches wear black, the term black magic, and the darkness itself is black. Black is, more often than not, evil. But, it is through horror movies that these preconceived notions have always been challenged. In the tremendous horror film Psycho by Alfred Hitchcock, Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) is at her greatest danger in the light. Hitchcock, knowing that people equate white with safety, dumps his protagonist in a bright, white-lit bathroom where she quickly succumbs to the violence of Norman Bates. While horror films today still rely upon people's thoughts regarding white and black, Psycho and many other films saw an opportunity to subvert expectations and show audiences that the daylight is hardly the armor they once perceived it to be. George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead took it even a step further and it is that film that serves as the greatest influence of Jordan Peele's Get Out.

In that film, Ben (Duane Jones) is the only black character and he is also the protagonist. Alongside him are exclusively white zombies and the catatonic white girl Barbra. These portrayals served as the basis for Richard Dyer's brilliant series of essays entitled, White. In these pieces, Dyer argued that white and black came to mean something entirely different in Romero's film. While beforehand, white had always meant pure and holy, whereas black was the exact opposite, Night of the Living Dead changed the talking points. In the film, white came to mean death. It represented order and rigidity. White was lifelessness and, as a result, white people had become zombies. Meanwhile, black was the presence of life. No longer was black the absence of color (life), it was instead the very embodiment of it with it standing it contrast to the zombie-like portrayal of whites. That said, Dyer also asserts that we can only see this dichotomy when whites and blacks are portrayed together. In films with exclusively white casts, such as Sam Mendes' American Beauty, audiences are blind to the whiteness of the characters. The whiteness is simply who they are and audiences miss just how much the characters in films such as that resemble the same lifelessness and rigidity of the zombies in Night of the Living Dead. However, by presenting whites and blacks in contrast to one another, Get Out is able to explore the relationship between the two colors in an entirely racial context.

As is readily apparent in the film, the whites are zombies. They are hypnotized and robotic, they are the pure embodiment of order and rigidity. When Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) is in their presence, they all uniformly look at him and stare him down. Their manner of speech is very structured, their commentary predictable (I knew INSERT BLACK ATHLETE or the Obama comments), and their seemingly positive reception towards Chris feels pre-coded. Everything is artificial in this environment and while the film shows it in a humorous light, the lifelessness of this gathering of people is astounding. When the Armitage family throws their yearly party, which is on the same day every year, the entirety of the guests pull up at the same exact time. When they play bingo, everybody wins. While these people may not be zombies, they certainly act like mindless zombies who simply go through the motions of living and are merely watching themselves life.

This, of course, is why the Armitages and other white families utilize blacks. Kidnapping them or roping them in via Rose (Alison Williams), the people of this suburb use black people as vessels for life. Whether it is to live again, to see, or any number of reasons, the whites in the film recognize that the blacks have something they do not: life. Chris is the very embodiment of life. He is energetic and, though cautious about meeting her parents, in love with Rose. He is living life to the fullest at this point in his life and looking positively towards the future. Even better, he is black. Per Dyer, black represents life and this is very much the case in Get Out. His friend Rod (Lil Rey Howery) is boisterous and loud, spitting out comical lines at the speed of light. Compared to every white character in the film, this duo of black characters are full of energy. Every white character, aside from when they put up a facade to trick blacks, just float by. They know they float by and it is why they want to become black, because it will restore life to them. With an emphasis on their mind, their eyes, and their physical body, the whites gush about the blacks. People reference Tiger Woods and Jesse Owens, while a woman feels Chris' biceps. Much like slave owners in the south, they are seeking physical specimens that would be the perfect escape from their slender and dull whiteness. Their whiteness prevent them from experiencing life and imposes order and rigidity, locking them into a man-made prison that is seemingly impossible to escape from. That is, until they are apparently given a chance; kidnap blacks and transfer part of their brain to your body and vice versa. The part of your brain that goes into their body will transfer your consciousness to their body, stealing their life and physical form. Or, so it appears.

Men such as Andre Hayworth (Lakeith Stanfield) have had this happen to them and his transformation from an energetic Brooklyn native to Logan, a "home body" married to an older woman highlights how the whites consume the energy of the blacks. However, the experiments fail if they are to instill life. Not only is Andre a "home body", but the maid and gardener working for the Armitages are similarly rendered lifeless as Grandpa and Grandma Armitage have taken over their bodies. Instead of becoming full of life, they turn the blacks into zombies akin to the whites in the film. Therefore, the experiment simply cannot be to find life. Rather, it is to impose order. Symbolized by the cop in the beginning and then the flashing police lights at the end, the goal is to impose order. As their white bodies fail, the residents of this suburb seek to control blacks and strip them of their life and, in its place, impose the same rigidity symbolized by whiteness (as pointed out by Dyer). While the whites in Get Out are certainly quite lifeless, they are equally rigid and that is what the experiments are largely supposed to impose. Though one man wants to use Chris' body to see again and take photos, he will still be cursed with the rigidity of being white and, instead of taking on the characteristics of the blacks in the film, will merely be a white man inside a black man's body that can see again. He will not act black, rather he will continue to be lifeless.

Putting this in a social context, Get Out argues that whites - still to this day - seek to control blacks. Unhappy with their own lives and mental prisons imposed upon them via expectation and living a rigid lifestyle, whites seek to reign in the actions of blacks. If white, as thought by Dyer, has come to mean order and rigidity. It stands to reason that black symbolizes the exact opposite. Thus, whites seek to control and chain down blacks. For those willing to play along and go with it, they are stripped of their normal lives and characteristics and whites reap the benefits of their physical attributes (whites own sports teams, not blacks, hence the repeated references to sports in the film namely white sports such as football, baseball, and golf). For those unwilling, they are referred to as "savages", shot, thrown in prison, and succumb to the weight of societal oppression. Thus, the world of this suburb comes to be a microcosm of society. Chris is the outsider in this film and the target of these white suburbanites. Either he allows himself to be consumed and turned white or he rebels and retains his life. Ultimately, he opts for the latter and fights back against this system. But, this is not just a battle for himself. It is a battle with gravity, as he fights for all blacks. He seeks to rebel against the systematic and robotic oppression of blacks at the hands of the whites by violently overthrowing them when they get in his way and seek to exact their control upon him and others. This change in power is symbolized by Rod showing up in car that appears to be a cop car. It may be a TSA car, but its similarity to a cop car is obvious and shows how Chris' journey has had an impact on the outside world. As opposed to the white cop initially in the beginning of the film, Rod is a black man driving a cop car look-a-like who is "woke" and aware of the perils faced by blacks in the modern world. He stands as a juxtaposition to the black cops he meets with regarding Chris' disappearance, who merely laugh at him. As they are blacks in a position of power, they have become controlled by whites in subtle ways and are no longer truly black. Instead, they are rigid and compelled to act according to law and order. Rod, meanwhile, acts based on his heart and encourages disorder. By having him drive the cop car, Get Out highlights the change that is afoot once blacks are able to escape their place under the thumb of whites. While not calling for a violent overthrowing of whites, Peele's film certainly advocates for blacks to become aware of their subtle and systematic oppression, while refusing to become yet another victim of it.

That said, while its social commentary is incredibly smart and well-developed, Get Out lacks in many areas. Jordan Peele employs a satiric approach to the subject matter, but employs more upfront comedy through Rod. The classic comedic sidekick, Rod is not just a cinematic cliche as the comedic best friend of the hero, but he is also an exact copy of Michael Pena's character in Ant-Man. Energetic with an oddly swift and halted way of delivering his lines, his stories similarly get sidetracked easily, are played to comedic effect, and he similarly jumps to absurd conclusions with barely any evidence. Rod is hardly the only cliche here, however, with the entire third act being riddled with cliches. This past decade, low-budget horror seems to ride on atmosphere for the first two acts, as is the case with Get Out. Using a creepy score, odd characters, and a few jump scares, Jordan Peele sets the scene. There is something off about this place and the atmosphere alone communicates this, as it effectively unsettles the audience and leaves us wincing awaiting the next moment. Yet, like every other low-budget horror film this decade, it ditches this atmospheric tension in the third act for a more visceral bloodbath. With Chris killing everybody in violent and inventive ways via deer antlers or crushing a person's head with his foot, the third act is a bloodbath. It seems every film - You're Next and The Invitation as recent examples - ditches the slow build of its opening for a far more in-your-face finale nowadays and, once it becomes apparent that this is the route Get Out is going down, the film becomes tired and predictable. It has its moments throughout that are quite good and original, but it seems as though Peele lacked any ideas as to how to end the film, resorting to just having the film turn into a, largely quite tame, explosion of violence. It is this third act that really drags the film down, in addition to the cliche usage of Rod's character as a comedic sidekick who shows up right after all the violence has taken place to rescue our protagonist.

That said, the film's comedy is top-notch. I was skeptical, consider I am not a fan of Key and Peele. They have a few funny videos, but for the most part, it does very little for me. But, Get Out is an incredibly funny film. It does ruin the tension at times, to the film's fault as a horror film, but it works comedically. Reaction shots of Kaluuya in particular play to great comedic impact whenever he encounters a white person or white-person-in-a-black-persons-body and they do something weird. The film milks this impact a bit, but seeing his face reacting to some odd statement never ceases to be enjoyable. Similarly, the writing is quite strong when it comes to more in-your-face jokes. Largely lacking punchlines and relying upon the line itself being funny and the comedic delivery of the actors, Get Out is often an incredibly funny film. Coupled with the film's horror roots, the comedy helps to make the film a truly enjoyable and entertainment piece of social criticism.

A smartly taken social critique, Get Out's portrayal of blacks and whites feels like a modern day Night of the Living Dead at times, much to the film's betterment. Largely unobtrusive comedy bolsters the atmospheric tension created by Peele via the score and dialogue, both of which hint to something being seriously off in this suburb. However, a cliche-riddled final act derails the proceedings into yet another explosion of violence, which is seemingly becoming the go-to move for horror directors in the 2010s. Some cliched characterization accompanies this cliche finale, combining to turn the film into a nearly terrific directorial debut from Jordan Peele. As it stands, it is a well-made and impeccably written piece of social criticism, but it simply lacks the overall scariness necessary to operate as a fully-fledged horror film.

if you ever @ me again <a href='index.php?showuser=3' rel='nofollow' alt='profile link' class='user-tagged mgroup-50'>Spangle</a> it better be cuz you recommending a good movie!


Good review tho

can u do a review of home alone 3

CARTER CRUTCHFIELD || RD || ARMADA || 242 TPE
NAME: Carter Crutchfield
BIRTHPLACE: Los Angeles, California
HEIGHT: 6'1"
WEIGHT: 195 lbs
NUMBER: 2
------------------------------------------------------------
SMJHL CAREER STATS
S65 ANC : GP: , G: , A: , P: , +/-:  
------------------------------------------------------------
SMJHL PLAYOFF STATS
S65 STL: GP: , G: , A: , P: , +/-:  
------------------------------------------------------------
SHL CAREER STATS
S6X ???: GP: , G: , A: , P: , +/-:
------------------------------------------------------------
SHL PLAYOFF STATS
S6X ???: GP: , G: , A: , P: , +/-:
------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSACTIONS
S65 - SMJHL - Drafted Pick 34, Round 3 by the Anchorage Armada
------------------------------------------------------------
CONTRACTS
S65 - ANC: $3,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------
AWARDS / TROPHY CASE

------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by CRUTCHFIELD@Mar 7 2017, 09:59 PM
can u do a review of home alone 3

Kevin's mom was a total self centered bitch that's your review.

09 || Jason Visser || C || Winnipeg || St. Louis || 3420 TPE
THE VISSHOUND
Age: 36
Height: 5'9"
Weight: 178
Number: 09
Birthplace: Gilbert, Arizona


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season Stats
S30 || STL || GP: 50 || G:  8 || A:  6 || PTS: 14 || +/-  -2 || PIMS: 15
S31 || STL || GP: 50 || G: 15 || A: 13 || PTS: 28 || +/- +2  || PIMS: 35
S32 || WIN || GP: 50 || G: 04  || A: 04  || PTS: 08 || +/- -4  || PIMS: 22
S33 || WIN || GP: 50 || G: 11  || A: 13  || PTS: 24 || +/- +5  || PIMS: 17
S34 || WIN || GP: 50 || G: 12  || A: 19  || PTS: 31 || +/- +7  || PIMS: 12
S35 || WIN || GP: 50 || G: 17  || A: 34  || PTS: 51 || +/- -4  || PIMS: 12
S36 || WIN || GP: 50 || G: 27 || A: 43  || PTS: 70 || +/- +24  || PIMS: 18
S37 || WIN || GP: 50 || G: 24 || A: 36  || PTS: 60 || +/- +28  || PIMS: 25
S38 || WIN || GP: 50 || G: 20 || A: 34  || PTS: 54 || +/- +30  || PIMS: 4
S39 || WIN || GP: 50 || G: 23 || A: 22  || PTS: 45 || +/- +20  || PIMS: 4
S40 || WIN || GP: 50 || G: 24 || A: 35  || PTS: 59 || +/- +25  || PIMS: 11
S41 || WIN || GP: 50 || G: 34 || A: 44  || PTS: 78 || +/- +36  || PIMS: 38
S42 || WIN || GP: 50 || G: 13 || A:  26 || PTS: 39 || +/- -2  || PIMS: 20
S43 || WIN || GP: 50 || G: 29 || A: 45  || PTS: 74 || +/- +32  || PIMS: 31[pbl]SMJHL TOT || STL || GP: 100 || G:  2[/font][/color]3 || A:  19 || PTS: 42 || +/-  0 || PIMS: 50 
[/size][/size][/size][/size][/font][/size][/color]SHL TOT || WIN || GP: 600 || G: 238 || A: 355 || PTS: 593 | +/-  +197 || PIMS: 214

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Playoff Stats
S30 || STL || GP: 7 || G: 0 || A: 3 || PTS: 3 || +/-  -2 || PIMS: 4
S31 || STL || GP: 4 || G: 0 || A: 0 || PTS: 0 || +/-  -1 || PIMS: 2
S34 || WIN || GP: 5 || G: 0 || A: 2 || PTS: 2 || +/-  0 || PIMS: 4
S36 || WIN || GP: 6 || G: 3 || A: 1 || PTS: 4 || +/-  -2 || PIMS: 6
S37 || WIN || GP: 18 || G: 6 || A: 17 || PTS: 23 || +/-  0 || PIMS: 13
S38 || WIN || GP: 13 || G: 8 || A: 3 || PTS: 11 || +/-  -2 || PIMS: 0
S39 || WIN || GP: 13 || G: 3 || A: 4 || PTS: 7 || +/-  -3 || PIMS: 0
S40 || WIN || GP: 14 || G: 5 || A: 7 || PTS: 12 || +/-  -4 || PIMS: 4
S41 || WIN || GP: 13 || G: 5 || A: 5 || PTS: 10 || +/-  -2 || PIMS: 2
S43 || WIN || GP: 17 || G: 4 || A: 12 || PTS: 16 || +/-  +3 || PIMS: 9
SMJHL TOT || STL || GP: 11 || G: 0 || A: 3 || PTS: 3 || +/-  -3 || PIMS: 6
SHL TOT || WIN || GP: 99 || G: 34 || A: 51 || PTS: 85 || +/-  -10 || PIMS: 38

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transactions
S30 SMJHL Draft - 21st Pick STL
S30 STL - 1 Season $3M
S31 SHL Draft - 8th Pick WIN
S31 WIN -  3 Seasons $9M
S34 WIN - 3 Seasons $9.5M
S37 WIN - 2 Seasons $10M
S38 WIN - Opted out
S38 WIN - 3 Seasons $9M
S41 WIN -  2 Seasons $6M
S43 WIN -  1 Season $5M
S44 WIN -  1 Season $5M
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other
S31 STL - Received (A) for 2nd half of S31
S31 USA - IIHF Gold
S31 STL - Michael Haan Award for Most Dedicated
S31 STL - Luke Riggs Award for Most Activity in the LR
S34 USA - IIHF Gold
S36 WIN - Lowest TPE player to hit 70pts - Realism Era.. idrk - 1420
S36 WIN - 2nd Team All-Star
S37 WIN - Won Challenge Cup
S37 WIN - Most Face-Offs Taken In league History
S37 WIN - 2nd Most Face-Offs Won In league History
S37 WIN - Sarmad Khan Trophy (MVP as voted by the fans)
S37 WIN - 2nd Team All-Star
S38 WIN - Received (A) in sim
S38 WIN - 3rd Team All-Star
S39 WIN - Became highest TPE player in the league - 1876
S40 USA - IIHF Gold
S40 WIN - Most TPE all time - 2285
S41 WIN - Sergei Karpotsov Award (Most Points)
S41 WIN - Jay McDonald Award (Most Goals)
S41 WIN - Ron Mexico Award (League MVP)
S41 WIN - Sarmad Khan Trophy (MVP as voted by the fans)
S41 WIN - 1st Team All-Star
S43 WIN - Sergei Karpotsov Award (Most Points)
S43 WIN - Jay McDonald Award (Most Goals)
S43 WIN - Ron Mexico Award (League MVP)
S43 WIN - Sarmad Khan Trophy (MVP as voted by the fans)
S43 WIN - 1st Team All-Star
S44 WIN - No longer highest TPE player in the league
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
] ||
Sojan Sviser
Age: 38
Height: 5'11"
Weight: 268
Number: 44
Birthplace: St. Louis, Missouri
[font=Arial]-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMJHL Regular Season History
S35 COL || W: 8 || L: 15 || OTL: 3 || WIN PCT: .365 || 6th Place
S36 COL || W: 27 || L: 20 || OTL: 3 || WIN PCT: .570 || 4th Place
S37 COL || W: 29 || L: 18 || OTL: 3 || WIN PCT: .610 || 3rd Place
S38 COL || W: 22 || L: 24 || OTL: 4 || WIN PCT: .480 || 7th Place
S39 COL || W: 31 || L: 16 || OTL: 3 || WIN PCT: .650 || 2nd Place


TOT || COL || W: 117 || L: 93 || OTL: 16 || WIN PCT: .553 ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMJHL Post Season History
S35 COL || W: 8 || L: 5 || OTL: 4 || Result: Swept By VAN In Finals
S36 COL || W: 0 || L: 3 || OTL: 1  || Result: Swept By PGF In Round 1
S37 COL || W: 3 || L: 2 || OTL: 2 || Result: Lost To MTL In Round 1
S39 COL || W: 1 || L: 3 || OTL: 2 || Result: Lost To VAN In Round 2
TOT || COL || W: 12 || L: 13 || OTL: 9 || Result: Bad
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transactions:
S35 COL Hired As Co-GM
S39 COL Relived As Co-GM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Awards:
S35 COL - Oriens Trophy Winner

<a href='index.php?showuser=3' rel='nofollow' alt='profile link' class='user-tagged mgroup-50'>Spangle</a> You are first person I know who also dislikes ET.

Those reviews. You are amazing, Spangle!

LW | ZELMA ZUNTNERE | LATVIA | FORGE
Age: 23
Height: 6ft 1in
Weight: 190 lbs
Number: 14
------------------------------------------------------------
SMJHL Regular Season stats
[S54]CAR - GP:50 G:4 A:5 P:9 Hits:14 +/-:-8 SB:14
[S55]NBB - GP:50 G:18 A:7 P:25 Hits:37 +/-:-17 SB:59
[S55]NBB - GP:50 G:23 A:19 P:42 Hits:7 +/-:+8 SB:36
------------------------------------------------------------
SHL Regular Season stats
[S56]WPG - GP:66 G:16 A:10 P:26 Hits:10 +/-:-7 SB:11
------------------------------------------------------------
SMJHL Playoff stats
[S54]CAR - GP:20 G:1 A:0 P:1 Hits:2 +/-:0 SB:3
[S55]NBB - GP:4 G:0 A:0 P:0 Hits:2 +/-:-5 SB:4
[S55]NBB - GP:5 G:1 A:3 P:4 Hits:1 +/-:-3 SB:4
------------------------------------------------------------
SHL Playoff stats
[S56]WPG - GP: G: A: P: Hits: +/-: SB:
------------------------------------------------------------
Transactions
Drafted 33OA In The S54 SMJHL Draft - Kraken
Drafted 37OA In The S55 SHL Draft - Jets
Signed a one-year deal with the Aurora (Through S58)
Signed a two-year deal with the Aurora (Through S60)
Drafted in the expansion draft by Philadelphia Forge
------------------------------------------------------------
Honours and awards
S54 Four Star Cup Champion with Carolina Kraken
S55 WJC Champion
Oliver Pettyfer / Isaac Cormier Hale / Eva Lykke Aparjode

Originally posted by BasedMinkus@Mar 8 2017, 12:38 AM
if you ever @ me again <a href='index.php?showuser=3' rel='nofollow' alt='profile link' class='user-tagged mgroup-50'>Spangle</a> it better be cuz you recommending a good movie!


Good review tho

Lul, good to see you're still hanging around here for a bit. Thanks

Originally posted by Jogurtaa@Mar 8 2017, 09:53 AM
Those reviews. You are amazing, Spangle!

<3

Originally posted by The_Mazais@Mar 8 2017, 07:29 AM
<a href='index.php?showuser=3' rel='nofollow' alt='profile link' class='user-tagged mgroup-50'>Spangle</a> You are first person I&nbsp; know who also dislikes ET.

I'm often told I hate fun.

But yeah. The kids just drive me up the wall.

Originally posted by Spangle@Mar 8 2017, 09:17 PM


I'm often told I hate fun.

But yeah. The kids just drive me up the wall.

I just think it is stupid movie or I am stupid. When I watched it as a kid I didn't understand it, and now when I am 22 I feel the same. I mean it is not bad, it is good, really good, but not for me.

Originally posted by The_Mazais@Mar 8 2017, 01:34 PM

I just think it is&nbsp; stupid movie or I am stupid. When I watched it as a kid I didn't understand it, and now when I am 22 I feel the same. I mean it is not bad, it is good, really good, but not for me.

OMG I had assumed you liked it like every one else!

My brethren! I completely agree. Excited to find another anti-ET person.

Originally posted by Spangle@Mar 8 2017, 02:03 PM


OMG I had assumed you liked it like every one else!

My brethren! I completely agree. Excited to find another anti-ET person.

I never loved but never hated it. I do think its a little overrated

Originally posted by Spangle@Mar 8 2017, 11:03 AM


OMG I had assumed you liked it like every one else!

My brethren! I completely agree. Excited to find another anti-ET person.

i dont like et i mean i would never watch it by myself but if some friends for whatever the fuck reason or the gf wants to check it out id watch it but i do not like nor hate it. its just whatever