lotus07

SYNOPSIS: The US Military goes looking for germ warfare in outer space and gets more than they bargained for.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER: Scientists can really screw up the world, and in the end, are often the only ones that can save it.

PROS AND CONS: I stumbled across this Widescreen LaserDisc copy on ebay and snatched it up as soon as I could. I had been looking for it a for a long time, having only seen the film once when I was in my teens. It had made a lasting impression on me back then and I wanted to see if it still held up 30 years later.

I wasn't disappointed. This is a really excellent film. I have always been a big, big fan of Robert Wise, and this film is an excellent example of why he is such a good director. This film was born out of the paranoia of the late 1960s and early 70s when the idea of scientifically induced genocide was becoming as much a fear as nuclear annihilation. I previously reviewed another film in this genre that came out about the same time called "The Satan Bug". This film is by far the better of the two, with much better scientific detective work and pacing.

The viewer has to pay close attention to the script and the acting to really understand what is going on in the film. The plot keeps you guessing on several levels until the end of the film, which is pretty climatic. As an added bonus, if you click the graphic of the title to the film, you can view the Trailer for the film that I have uploaded to YouTube. In the trailer, Robert Wise indicates that the real star of the film is the set of the Wildfire scientific laboratory where most of the films takes place. He isn't kidding either. Even though this film is over 35 years old, it does not look dated by scientific standards. I found it amusing that at the end of the trailer, it indicates that 'No one will be seated during the last 10 minutes of the film'.....as if that would give something away or be distracting. It wouldn't, but it is an interesting piece of hype that surrounded the film when it was first released.

I really can't think of too many cons in this film. The acting, cinematography, script, set design, sound, are all impressive. The only quirk in the film that I found a bit annoying was Jackson's seeming incomprehension of what the "Nuclear Key" that he was assigned to wear was to be used for. For some reason he keeps thinking that it is his responsibility to blow up the Wildfire station if something goes wrong. He is constantly reminded by his peers, that he is the only one that can shut off the self destruct.

I am surprised that Hollywood has not tried to make a remake of this film, but I doubt they could do it justice or really improve on this 1971 version. There was a made for television remake of the film in 2008, but I didn't see it, nor would I really care to. Some films are just meant to stand on their own and be classics. This is one of them.

SYNOPSIS A teenage delinquent and his girlfriend go on a killing spree / road trip in the American Midwest.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER Youthful angst, ego and love set against the bleak landscape and rigid fabric of conservative middle America during the 1950s.

PROS AND CONS Even though there is a disclaimer that the characters in the film are fictional, it is evident that this is a stylized depiction of the Charles_Starkweather killing spree that gripped America in 1958. While this film gives a human and somewhat likable persona to Starkweather's image it is still a disturbing film on several levels.

The cast is dominated by a young Charlie Sheen and an even younger Sissy Spacek as the doomed lovers on their cross country killing spree. Sheen's character, Kit, is an unmotivated loser with no real ambition or drive. Spacek's Holly comes off as a shy and introverted young girls who is mostly heard in voice over as she waxes poetic about her doomed relationship with Kit.

It dosen't seem that Holly is actually in love with Kit and she often times appears to just be along for the ride in an attempt to escape her repressive past. She finds Kit endearing at first, but grows tired of him throughout the course of the film, eventually abandoning him in the end. Sheen's character is a bit more interesting to watch. Taking a stand and questioning authority for the first time in his life, he comes to realize that he has power and prestige based on his random acts of violence. Much like a wolf coming of age in a land full of sheep.

Having grown up in the Midwest, I was struck by how this film captured the tone and feel of the vast American heartland in the 1950s. It is seen here in almost surrealistic terms, with townscapes and landscapes that are mostly devoid of people, as if the world were empty except for the main characters and odd people that they happen to come across.

Near the end of the film, Kit knows he is doomed as the society he has run amok in starts to constrict around him. Instead of making an earnest effort to escape, he becomes wrapped up in his own notoriety and is transformed into one of the first media stars. In his final scenes he is seen charming his captors and giving away trivial person possessions, knowing they will be worth something simply because 'he' owned them.

The scenes of violence in this film are almost happenstance and their deaths seem random and without meaning. No reason is given for them and until the end, the killer goes unpunished. This film is a prelude to the pulp fiction dramas of the late 90s where violence is a central theme of the story (think Pulp Fiction or SinCity). The viewer can't help but be captivated by this film and its' dream-like journey through a time and place that seems asleep or in some sort of malaise. In essence, a film that documents the end of innocence in the societal sense and is a prelude to the turbulent times that were to follow.

SYNOPSIS The lives and loves of Russian Cossacks living on the eastern steps of Russia during the Russian Revolution.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER How events beyond our control and the judgment of others shape our lives in the long term. No matter how hard we try, sometimes fate controls our destiny.

PROS AND CONS This is a great film, not because of it's acting or screenplay, but because it shows the western world that there were important events in the past that we have little knowledge of. It opens a doorway to us that we never knew existed and lets us glimpse some of the reasons that others think differently than we do.

During the late 1950 the Soviet Union was keen to copy everything that the west did regarding popular culture to show that they could do it just as well as the Americans and the Europeans. They sort of had a chip on their shoulder and wanted to prove that they were good enough to run with the big boys. In response to films such as "Ben Hur" and "Gone With The Wind", they geared up their own state sponsored film industry to produce 'epics'. This is one of them. Five and a half hours of the Russian experience in grand scope and scale.

Some have said that this is the Russian version of "Gone With The Wind", but it is more closely tied to "Dr. Zhivago" in theme and tone. The film deals with a portion of history rarely seen in the west. The internal struggles of a nation in the midst of Civil War in what could best be described as the Wild West of Russia.

This film is long with slow pacing. Russian cinema does not move a story along at a fast pace. Characters are built slowly and relationships between them are complex and wide ranging. The scenery is beautiful but sparse, as befits the Russian hinterlands. This is mostly a rural 'people' film, without much else to distract the audience, such as machinery or large scenes in cities. It is intimacy played out on a very broad canvas.

One of the more peculiar things about this version of the film is the narration. The film is shown in it's original language with no subtitles. The characters are narrated, not voiced over. So when someone speaks, it is in their native tongue, and then an English voice speaks what they are saying, sort of like you are reading their mind in delayed time. It preserves more of the feel of the film, but takes a little getting used to.

The other thing that was noticeable about the film was the Foley work. Sounds such as breaking glass or gun shots were VERY loud and distracted from the film at times. In a fist fight early in the film, the sounds of fists hitting the actors faces sounded like a sack of rice dropped from two stories up and hitting a wooden floor.

Unless you watch this film very closely, without distraction, it is easy to get lost in the complexity of the story. I was often left wondering who were the Reds (Communists) were and who were the Whites (Loyalists) and who was fighting whom. This film assumes that the audience has a good understanding of this time in Russian history, much like most American audiences have a good understanding of who Benjamin Franklin and Paul Revere were.

What this film left me with was a better understanding of the mind set of the Russian people and how they perceive their world and their place in it. They are pragmatic for a reason and see the journey of life as a hard and difficult thing. There is no "pursuit of happiness" in their character. There is only finding happiness where it lays and enjoying it while you can.

SYNOPSIS: A well educated American tourists attempts to 'enlighten' a Greek prostitute in a small seaside village.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER Newer is not always better, and sometimes over analyzing a problem can only make it worse. Leave well enough alone. It is more important to be happy than to understand everything.

PROS AND CONS Every recent prostitute film from 'Irma la Duce' to 'Pretty Woman' owes a lot to this work. It was one of the first films that shed light on the idea that prostitution was a respectable and acceptable way to make a living.

If nothing else this film is a homage by Jules Dassin to his wife, Melina Mercouri. She is the focus of the film and she captivates any scene she is in with her zest for life and smoldering sexuality. The other thing you tend to fall in love with is the romantic ideal of living in Greece in 1960. It appears care free, relaxed and almost infectious with its love of the simple life.

The plot of the film is not overly complex and deals with an outsider, Homer (Dassin) arriving in town to study Greek culture. He is almost immediately captivated by Ilya (Mercouri) as one of the local prostitutes that 'freelances' and does not work for the town pimp. She negotiates a price with whomever she chooses, and sleeps with all the towns vendors in exchange for her daily goods (food, wine, drinks, etc), but she never 'works' on Sunday. Hence the title to the film.

Homer is smitten by Ilya and decides that he must 'save' her from what he perceives as a wretched life that is going no where and decides to educate her so that she can see the error of her ways. In the end, this does nothing but frustrate everyone in town. The education of Ilya does have a silver lining, which if anything, leaves the town more corrupted than when Homer found it.

The underlying theme of the film is that one should strive to be happy in what you do and more importantly, who you know. There is an interconnection between people in a small town, and disrupting those connections may lift some people up, but is not good for the whole of society. Regardless of his meddling, the towns people never turn on Homer, or blame him for anything. At their core, they know that life is to be enjoyed and blaming people for your troubles is just not part of the mix.

SYNOPSIS: A mute woman and her daughter become the mail order bride for a white settler in turn of the century New Zealand. The woman can only speak through her daughter or by playing her piano.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER Communication. How we express ourselves to others, the true nature of love, and perils that we must go through to find true happiness.

PROS AND CONS I would consider this a "women's" film. It deals with a woman's search for love and understanding in a harsh land. The central focus is on Holly Hunter who portrays Ada McGarth. She gives a very good performance considering that she does not speak a word in the entire film. She also plays all the musical pieces on the piano. Good enough in fact to win her the Academy Award for best actress.

The film is written and directed by Jane Campion who is somewhat of an icon in Australian and New Zealand film making. She specializes in these types of films, which have stunning scenery and intimate character studies. During this viewing of the film I was surprised at what a rather simple and straight forward story it is. The film is more visual than anything else, which is not surprising, since the main character never speaks. But Campion pushes this even furhter, giving turn of the century New Zealand a beautiful, almost surreal quality.

Anna Paquin portrays Flora McGrath in the film and won an Academy Award as Best Supporting Actress as Ada's daughter. This is somewhat puzzling, since she isn't really all that prominent on screen and her acting scenes are nothing more than what the average little girl of 12 would do anywhere else. There are also large gaps in the development of Sam Neil's character, Alisdair Stewart, ( who portrays the mail order husband). He appears frustrated and impotent in the film, but his mindset and issues are never really flushed. out. He is spurned by Ada only because he appears to not see the value in her piano. But he does try and never gives Ada a reason to dislike him.

This film is graphic at times and there are scenes that come very close to bordering on the explicit. There is also violence but this is more for effect as opposed to simply showing gore and blood.

More than anything else, this film makes me admire the acting abilities of Holly Hunter and also makes me want to visit New Zealand. It also makes me realize that any woman that has to have a piano hauled everywhere she goes is not the sort of woman that would make a good long term relationship.

SYNOPSIS: The story of 4 generations of a single family and their journey through the west from 1800 to 1900.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER: Our roots. Where we have come from and what makes us who we are. The concept of manifest destiny and our drive to conquer the unknown and find a better tomorrow.

PROS AND CONS: I have watched this film several times and I am always captivated by its scope and sense of grandeur. This is a BIG film, lasting almost 3 hours and encompassing every major star in Hollywood at the time. It was one of the last blockbuster films created by pulling out all the stops and allowing the motion picture industry to really flex its muscle before the advent of digital effects.

This is a special film due to its format. It is one of the few full length feature films that was shot in Cinerama. A technique that used three cameras to create a panoramic image that literally wrapped around the audience. It was so costly, both to shoot and to display, that it never caught on. The version that I watched is on Laserdisc which preserves the three screen effect, but even this version is slightly cropped. It may be impossible in this day and age to see this film in its true aspect ratio with a surround screen, which is a pity. For its visual merits alone, this film is worth seeing.

When shown on a flat screen, the picture appears somewhat compressed and looks almost as though the image is seen through a fish-eye lens. Because three large cameras were used to shot these films, there is minimal free camera movement and zooms, although there is a lot of tracking and dolly shots

More than anything else, this film deals with the soul of America and the concept that the world was ours to conquer. This is a theme that is somewhat politically incorrect these days. In this film, the world was vast, beautiful and rugged, with sweeping vistas, broad rivers and beautiful sunsets. Many of the scenes are down-right spectacular, and the ending shootout on the train still ranks as one of the greatest action sequences I have ever seen.

The story line and acting take a back seat to the overpowering concept of the land and the struggle to overcome its hardship. The film is a tour-de-force for Debbie Reynolds, who is the only star who is seen throughout the entire film. She is also featured in several musical numbers to showcase her singing talents. The score by Alfred Neauman is grandiose and almost religious in places, tinged with old west folk tunes. This is a three hour one sided history lesson for all the young folks that don't have time to sit and read about all the details of the great westward expansion.

SYNOPSIS: The escapades of an insatiable wife living in the backwoods of Canada.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER The sexual revolution and the concept of hedonism. Pushing the limits of what is acceptable to show.

PROS AND CONS I have always been a big fan of Russ Meyer. Along with Federico Fellini, I consider him a true innovator in film. Many write him off as a sexploatation film maker of the "B" movie genre. I beg to differ, he was a true pioneer and a maverick and his films have stood the test of time.

What always captivated me about Meyer's work was how he got so much out of a film by doing the basics and doing them well. His films are low budget and look it, but they captivate you regardless. The dialog is crisp and quick, the editing is sharp and the story moves along quickly. This film is only an hour long but you wouldn't know it when it is all over.

Meyer financed most of his own movies, used the same troop of actors, did his own cinematography and writing along with most of the editing. He ran the whole show and answered to no one. What you see on the screen is his vision and no one elses. You have to admire an artist that can create such a large body of work under those terms.

This was Meyer's first 'big' film that got wide release. It was also the first mass distributed film to be given an "X" rating, which is laughable by today's standards. There is no explicit sex scenes or graphic nudity in this film. But there is a lot of implied sexuality and topless women. What made the film controversial in its day was its portrayal of wanton sexuality and taboo subjects such as incest and lesbian relationships.

The plot is rather simple. Vixen likes to fool around and does so with wild abandon. Thrown into this mix are subjects of infidelity, racism, patriotism, honesty and morals. You don't really like Vixen in this film. She is beautiful to look at, but she is a bitch to almost everyone and only appears to seek self gratification and cares for no one but herself.

SYNOPSIS: A small band of circus performers drift through the hinterlands of 1970s Brazil looking for opportunity and freedom.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER: Escaping your everyday life and throwing caution to the wind to chase your dreams. Only to find out that your dreams aren't what you thought and that there is a big difference between lust and love.

PROS AND CONS: This is an interesting film on several levels. It shows a part of the world that is quickly disappearing. The idea that you can run off into undeveloped country and live off your wits and the kindness / stupidity of others is quickly fading in modern society. That wasn't the case in 1970s Brazil where the vast interior was full or opportunity and little else.

In this film a young man and his pregnant wife flee the poverty of rural Brazil to join the CARNIVAL ROLIDEI, a rag-tag group consisting of a charismatic con man, his dancer / prostitute girlfriend and a mute strong-man. They travel the dirt roads of Brazil, seeking peasants that are easily entertained by their simple tricks and lusty burlesque shows. Along the way, the young man and his wife come to question their fidelity and their expectations about life and one another.

The film is shot on location and the performances are very good. There is a surreal quality to the imagery that owes a tip of the hat to Federico Fellini. There is also something about the Porteguese language that is very lyrical, especially the title song that is heard throughout the film and over the end credits.

The underlying message is that freedom is not an easy thing to find. Escaping from the trappings of modern society, escaping from the trappings of your own lifestyle and the escape from the ones you love is almost impossible. None of these characters wants to be tied down, but they are tied to the desires that are at their core. They all learn from each other in the end.

This film reminds me why I have the desire to take off and see new lands where I have never been and be amazed at the unknown that I have never seen, and why in the end, I always return to my home, where I feel safe.

SYNOPSIS: The story of two brothers is told in narrative flashback. The film is set in Montana at the turn of the century. It explores the bonds that tie their family together and the differences that drive them apart against the backdrop of a beautiful landscape.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER Understanding what binds us to one another and understanding how seemingly simple things are the glue that cement our relationships to one another even as we chart different courses in our lives.

PROS AND CONS This is a film that I had seen before and I wanted to watch it again to see if it was still as good as I remembered it. It is a good film, although it is very subtle and introspective. This was one of Robert Redford's first attempts at movie making from behind the camera. He does not appear on screen but does lend his voice as the narrator.

Without giving too much away, this is a film about fly fishing. Not the art of fishing itself, but how a common, shared experience brings people together regardless of how much they grow apart. In this film, the two brothers grow into men of different temperaments and ideals. However, both of them share the same life long passion that was taught to them by their father.

This passion is the unseen thread that holds the family together. Many families have this type of thread but it can take different forms. The mother driving her daughter to figure-skating practice week after week which eventually stretches into years. The father and son that tinker on their 57 Chevy for decades in the garage. The things that seem meaningless at first, but when looked back upon, create a continuity that makes us who we are at our core.

This film is exceptional in many ways. As a period piece, it makes the viewer long to live in rural Montana before World War I. Tom Skerritt as the father and the young Brad Pitt as his younger son give exceptional performances. I found the older son played by Craig Sheffer to be a bit emotionless and repressed. His love affair with the home town girl appears a bit forced at times and does not appear to move the plot forward much.

In the end, the eldest son stands along in the river where so much was learned and you can sense his anguish at what he has lost during the course of his life. The final lines of the film pretty much sum it up. "In the end, all things run together into one, and a river runs through it. And if you listen to the waters you can hear their voices.......I am haunted by waters." All in all, a beautiful film that makes us pause at the end and think about what is really important.

SYNOPSIS: A San Francisco Police Investigator hunts down a psychotic serial killer in the 1970s.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER Sometimes you have to break the rules in order to do the right thing. Dealing with the endless red tape that comes from living and working in a bloated and spineless bureaucracy. Coming to terms with the frustrations that we all must face at some point in our lives.

PROS AND CONS This film is iconic. It set the standard for the 'new' cop/buddy films that were to follow it like a stampede. Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, L.A. Confidential and a slew of others owe their origins to this film. This film solidified Clint Eastwood as a major presence in Hollywood.

This is a film that we have all seen (probably numerous times). It has been a staple of television and cable for years. However, the version I watched on Laserdisc was the uncut original film that I don't believe is seen much these days. This film is easily censored and shortened in order to make more time for commercials and to fit into a 2 hour time slot. After watching this version, there were scenes that I don't recall having seen in the past. Scenes that don't add to the plot, but do flush out the character of Harry Callahan more and make him more complex than I remembered.

In this original version, Harry has a lot of inner demons and is not a nice guy. He is bigoted in a very politically incorrect way. There are racial slurs and references to ethnic stereotypes all through the film. There is also a lot of casual nudity in the background which is something that censors and advertises eagerly cut out to get this film on public television.

Along with "Bullitt" (Steve McQueen's police drama, also set in San Francisco), this film redefined the role of the police from angelic and efficient protector of the populace to the anti-hero where the rogue cop fights not only crime but his own department to get the job done.

Several things stand out in this film. First of all is the wonderful melding of Lalo Schifrin's musical score with John Surtee's camera work. They bring an intimate sense of voyeurism and hip-ness to 1970 San Francisco. Going back to when I first saw this film, I have always been impressed by Scorpio (the serial killer in the film) played by Andrew Robinson. Even at the age of 10 I was curious why he didn't get an Oscar nomination. He scared the bejesus out of me and still does.

As with anything successful (Rocky, Die Hard, Rambo), this film spawned 4 follow-up works all staring Clint Eastwood. The later films are somewhat curious after seeing the first film. At the end of "Dirty Harry", Harry Callahan, throws away his badge and as he has hinted all throughout the film, gives up his life as a police officer. Having disobeyed the police commissioner, the mayor and his supervisor, it seems unlikely that they would have kept him on the force. But then again, box office receipts are a powerful motivator.

SYNOPSIS Four direction-less drifters meet up in Reno, Nevada. They wander the desert in search of freedom and eventually redefine their expectations.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER Coming to terms with who we are and what we want out of life. Admitting to our inner demons and casting them out into the light of day.

PROS AND CONS What do you get when you take a great director, the greatest playwright of his generation and three of the hottest stars in Hollywood? You get this film. The last film of Clark Gable and Marilyn Monroe.

It is difficult to describe this film. It is definitely worth watching, but explaining what it is to someone that has not seen it is almost impossible. Like previous films I have reviewed that were intimate character studies Night of the Iguana and L'avventura, there really is no 'arch' in this film. There is no beginning, middle and conclusion.

These are troubled individuals before the advent of counseling and therapy. Lord knows, each of them would be on a psychiatrists couch for decades. But in the early 1960s, the wide open spaces of Nevada is the couch and the characters must counsel each other.

It is no secret that Arthur Miller penned this screenplay for this wife, Marylin Monroe. The acting in the film is excellent. I mean really good. Marilyn Monroe was no bimbo. She knew how to act and her character borders between virginal, ditzy and very intense. Clift and Gable are exceptional as the aging cowboys trying to make a living without resorting to 'wages'. The young Eli Wallach is intense and cocky as the recently widowed ex-army pilot on the rebound.

All the men are vying for the affections of Monroe's character. She stumbles into their midst and breaths a breath of fresh air into their meandering lives, like smelling salts to a drowsy patient. But she has her demons as well and together they must all sort things out, but it isn't an easy road. In the end, some of the cast 'get it' and move on, but their fate is left up to the viewer.

Time changes our views of some films. I saw this film a long time ago when I was younger. Back then, I went into a film expecting to see certain things, and my opinion of the film was based on what I hoped to see. Now, I go into a viewing trying to figure out what the director was trying to tell me and looking for the subtle things that youth don't tend to look for. In that regard, this film is a treasure trove of content with metaphor and symbolism in almost every scene. The last of which is Monroe's final line on screen, "How do you find your way home in the dark?" You will have to see this film to figure that one out.

SYNOPSIS A joint Russian / U.S. mission returns to Jupiter to try and determine what happened to the first mission sent there 9 years earlier. The fate of the first mission is unknown and the mysteries it was sent to solve remain unanswered.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER Wrapping up the loose ends and learning to overcome our differences in order to work together. There are things in the universe much larger than the petty differences that divide us. A wake up call for humanity to stop fighting and play nice.

PROS AND CONS First of all, you can't talk about this film without discussing the film that came before it. Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" is a landmark in cinema. It redefined the concept of science fiction and pushed the envelope of film making way past its limits. In that regard, this film does not measure up. It cant, but it is a worthy effort.

I always heard that you had to read the book to really understand "2001: A Space Odyssey". After seeing it 4 or 5 times, I finally read the book and they were right. What I thought I knew about the first film finally came into sharp focus after reading Arthur C. Clarke's book. Clarke went on to write several follow up books to "2001: A Space Odyssey". This film is based on one of those books.

This film is a bit dated because, like the original, the future didn't turn out the way we thought it would. As the film opens, the Soviet Union and the United States are on the brink of war. Something that never happened with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the late 90s. I recall being disappointed when Pan-American Airlines went out of business, because one of my dreams of seeing a real space liner with the Pan-Am logo from the first film was never going to be realized. Such was the power of the vision that Kubrick gave us with "2001: A Space Odyssey".

The premise of this film is logical. We go back to figure out what happened to Astronaut Bowman and the HAL-9000, not to mention figuring out what the huge monolith was. The story telling and the visuals are all up to par in this film, although the film is a bit more formulaic as opposed to the stark and calculating story telling of "2001: A Space Odyssey".

In the end, the astronauts get to witness the act of cosmic reproduction on a planetary scale and in so doing, learn that we are very small in relation to the big picture. So small in fact, that they understand we are just parasites in a vast living universe. This film tends to serve as a reminder, that on an evolutionary scale, we are only at the beginning and have long, long way to go.

SYNOPSIS: A poor orphan is given the chance to become an English Gentlemen by an anonymous patron in Victorian England. Along the way he discovers how the deeds of his past have shaped his future.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER: No good deed goes un-noticed, and good character and devotion have their merits in the end. Sometime we chart our own course in life and other times it is charted for us.

PROS AND CONS I am a big fan of David Lean's work. Along with Stanley Kubrick, Robert Wise, Federico Fellini and Steven Spielberg, they have taken the art of film making to new levels. This is the reason that I wanted to see this film. An early work of Lean's with Charles Dickens as the inspiration. I was not disappointed.

As I started watching this film, all of the Lean trademarks started to shine through even at this early stage of his career. The beautiful cinematography, the framing of the character, the pacing were all there. After the first 10 minutes I was hooked on this film and couldn't stop watching it.

The characters are classical Dickens, eccentric and quirky. The look of the film is a dream-like 18th Century England where some of the scenes of London look as though they were from a Disney film. Each of the actors gives a strong performances. The best performance is turned in by Francis L. Sullivan as Mr. Jaggers, the puppet master attorney that is entrusted with overseeing Pips transformation from country bumpkin to high society gentlemen.

I didn't realize it until I was reading the credits that the character of Mr. Pocket is played by a very young Alec Guinness. The actor that portrayed Colonel Nickelson on "Bridge on the River Kawi", King Fisal in "Laurence of Arabia" and Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Star Wars", is a young man of 20 and is just recognizable in this film.

There is little to detract from this film, with the exception of a few scenes that are thrown in to appease the Dicken's purist. These scenes serve to highlight quirky and odd ball characters in the Dicken's universe, but do little to move the plot forward. Over all a very good film that was much better than I expected, with engaging characters and a plot that will keep you guessing until the very end.

SYNOPSIS A poor girl in late 1800s England is used and abused in her search for love, affection and devotion.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER True love is an allusive thing and the rules and morals of an upper class society makes some men into real jerks. Sometimes following your heart can be a difficult road with a lot of dead ends and pitfalls.

PROS AND CONS I watched this film back in college when it first came out. I was a fan of Roman Polanski's work and this was his first film after 'Chinatown', which is one of my all time favorites. I recall that this was a long (almost 3 hours) film that was very slow and beautifully shot. Since I was more interested in car chases and explosion in my youth, I didn't recall this as being a very good film.

Since age tempers a lot of our youthful interests, the second viewing of this film was a much different experience. This is a slow film but it has to be. Life was much methodical and personal in the rural countryside of Victorian England. The script and acting are very intimate and you really get to know the characters as the story unfolds on the screen. The subtle tone of this film is amazing and the level of detail actually makes you believe you are in 1890s England.

The two lead characters played by Nastassja Kinski (Tess) and Peter Firth (Angel) do an exceptional job. Kinski's character is extremely shy and withdrawn. Firth is also engaging in his subtle portrayal of a preachers son trying to find the meaning of life. It is obvious from watching the film that Polanski was infatuated with Nastassja Kinski. He lingers on her in many shots and for good reason. She portrays the perfect heroine, virginal, pure and very beautiful.

The cinematography in this film is even more beautiful the second time around. The surreal scene of a fox hunt emerging from the mist in front of Tess as she walks down a deserted country road is mesmerizing on several levels. The end scene at Stonehenge with the rising sun casting long shadows as the final credits roll is truly breathtaking. There are countless other scenes like this that give the film and almost dreamlike quality.

In the end the viewer feel sorry for Tess as she is led away. She is more a victim of circumstance and the callousness of others than of her own doing. But the world of rural Victorian England was not a nice place, especially if you were poor, naive and very beautiful.

SYNOPSIS: A shipwrecked U-boat crew hikes across Canada during 1941 in an attempt to make it back to the Fatherland.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER Differences in ideology and lifestyle are contrasted by a band of Nazis and the down-home plains-folk they encounter as the Germans try and escape across North America. A propaganda film that is meant to show the differences between democracy and dictatorship.

PROS AND CONS At first, I didn't know what to make of this film. It started a bit slow and didn't really seem to have a focus. Add to this, the early appearance of Laurence Oliver as a French-Canadian trapper who was a bit on the irritating side. This may have been accurate, since I haven't met many French-Canadian trappers. For all I know, they may indeed by pompous, arrogant jerks.

After the first half hour of the film, it settles down into a 'journey' film about the Nazis and all the people they meet along the way. Each encounter is meant to show the differences in the ideology between the two nationalities. With each successive encounter, the Nazis are whittled down by desertion, capture or death.

The more the film went on, the more comical the Nazis became. At almost every encounter the Germans took the opportunity to glorify the master plans of Der Fuhrer. After every fiery speech glorifying the Nazi ideal they are met with blank stares from the locals who see them as mindless robots that have no clue about the the world they find themselves in.

The film is an early tour-de-force for some great talent. Laurence Oliver is young and a bit too edgy in his role as the trapper. Leslie Howard (after his stint as Ashley Wilkes in Gone With The Wind) is engaging as the odd ball writer living in the woods and studying Indians. I didn't realize it until I was reading the credits, but the young girl on the Huterite farm is a very young Glynis Johns (I had a crush on her as a kid). Raymond Massey is out of his usual character as an AWOL Canadian soldier. The cinematography is by Freddie Young, who went on to Oscar fame in some of the classic Hollywood films of the 1950s. Last but not least is a score by Raugh Van Williams.

In the end, this is a morality tale meant to show Canadians what they were fighting for in WWII. Some of the cinematography is beautiful and the acting is entertaining if not somewhat over done in places. The title to the film refers to the border between the United States and Canada. At the end of the film, the remaining Nazis try to escape into the United States (which had not yet entered the war). Needless to say, the United States saves the day but not in the way you might expect. This was an entertaining film that left me smiling but its message might be lost on the younger viewers of today.

SYNOPSIS: A young orphan in a boarding school leaves to find her older sister, who has mysteriously disappeared.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER: Uncovering the lives of others and the fear in finding things you never expected. A psychological thriller that is very subtle in tone and feel.

PROS AND CONS This is one in a series of films produced by Val Lewton for RKO pictures. Lewton's work is supposed to have a hint of terror and fear. I have the entire collection of Lewton's work and this is the first one of the series that I have screened.

This is a short film (only 71 minutes) that is full of film noir imagery, with light streaming through Venetian blinds, dark hallways and alleys with long shadows.

This is a good example of how entertaining cinema can be without all the bells and whistles that are thrown into films these days. The viewers interest is held by the writing and the imagery. There is a tension and anxiety in this film that is always just beneath the surface and the ending is not predictable until you reach it. And it is a strange ending, to say the least.

The actors are all competent in this film and it is fun to watch Hugh Beaumont (Leave It To Beaver's dad) acting in a dark psychological thriller.

It is films such as this that makes me lament the current state of cinema in America. Like the "Maltese Falcon" and "Out of the Past", this film shows a world that was more hip, dark, intriguing, dangerous and exciting, than anything the youth of today could ever imagine.

SYNOPSIS: Jesuit missionaries struggle to build and protect a mission in the Amazon jungle during the late 1700s.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER: Often times, good does not triumph over evil. But it is still worth the struggle.

PROS AND CONS This is a very good film. It won the Grand Prize at Cannes and also won an Oscar for best cinematography for obvious reasons. According to the opening credits the story depicted in this film actually happened.

The acting in this film is somewhat low key with the story and the scenery taking center stage. Having watched this film several years ago, I was struck by my slightly different perspective after this viewing.

The real focus is the turmoil and suffering of the Viceroy that is sent to administer the will of the king and not the fate of the native peoples or the Jesuits that are sent to show them salvation. The Viceroy, played by Ray McAnally, gives the best performance in the film as the ex-Jesuit Priest who now obeys the king and not the teachings of the church. In the end he is a shattered man, having done his duty against his better judgment.

This film is about the difference between doing what is right and doing what you are told. The struggle we all have between being obidiant or following our heart. This is a dilemma we all must face at least once in our lives.

The mercenaries and profiters try and comfort the Viceroy at the end of the picture by reaffirming that, "This is the way it has to be. So is the world made." To which the Viceroy responds, "No, So have we made the world." Even after 300 years, somethings never change. That is why this film still carries such profound meaning.

SYNOPSIS Classic horror film where past mistakes and mental illness come back to haunt the present, literally.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER Cinema history and not much else. A predictable tale of murder, retribution and mystery. When mental illness goes unchecked there can be deadly results.

PROS AND CONS I found this film in the public domain online and downloaded it. I had heard of it before, but never really knew what it was about. After the opening credits I was surprised to see that it was produced by Roger Corman and directed by Francis Ford Coppala (one of his very early films).

While the film starts out in an interesting manner, it quickly becomes a rather simplistic horror film that is straight forward and somewhat predictable. I suppose that this may have been an early attempt at a "thinking man's" horror film, but it is low budget and doesn't really hit its stride in the mental sense.

The acting in the film is a bit stiff and wooden and the dialog / screen writing is not really up to par. One interesting aspect of the film is the rather loud and clunky Foley work. The sound of footsteps and creaking doors is often times overpowering in some scenes and distracts from the action that is going on.

The two best performances in the film are turned in by the wife that drowns her husband in the opening scene and the family doctor that has a rather creepy edge to him. The rest of the cast is just going through the motions.

It is interesting to see where Francis Ford Coppola started, but needless to say, he could only have moved up from here. This might be good to watch on a dark stormy night with your teenage girlfriend, but hopefully you will end up necking on the couch before the final credits roll.

SYNOPSIS The future as seen from 1939 England. As war loomed over Europe, the salvation of mankind will not be found in the politics of the past. It is up to the brave new world of science to overcome man's past mistakes.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER Beware your leaders and what you are told. Thinking outside the box can lead to a brighter tomorrow. There will always be descent and fear, and learning to overcome it is our only hope.

PROS AND CONS I had seen this film long ago and recently downloaded it off of the internet (it is in the public domain). This is a fascinating work on numerous levels. Since it is a story about the future as seen from 1939, it has obvious flaws. This vision of the future is both terrifying and whimsical. This film was cutting edge for its day. The special effects are very good as is the story line. The acting suffers a bit in the British theatrical sense, in that it can lean a bit toward Shakespeare.

One of the underlying themes of the film is that science and technology can solve all our problems, which we now know is not always true. The films other plot line is that charismatic leaders are a curse of human existence and will probably always be with us.

The underpinnings of almost all later science fiction movies can be seen in this film. The set design and wardrobe of "Forbidden Planet", the failings of technology in "2001: A Space Odessy", even the lush landscapes / cityscapes of "Star Wars" owe some amount of inspiration to this film.

The ending of the film leaves the viewer a bit perplexed. While it is optimistic in its ending sequence of reaching for the stars, we are left to wonder if mankind will ever be able to make it. Even as we reach, there are those that are trying to hold us back. This films vision of the future while interesting is also a bit humorous by todays standards. Huge flying machines and guns that could shoot people into space never materialized in the real world, but in 1939 they were considered the next logical step.

Many great British actors are in this film as young men. Cedric Hardwicke and Ralph Richardson are the most recognized and their oratory skills are evident here. Raymond Massey is a curious choice to play the lead character, Cabel. His character almost comes across as the new Christ sent to save the world from its own destruction with the new religion of science.

This is a good piece of cinema history whose themes are still relevant today even if its vision of the future missed the mark.

SYNOPSIS: A Mid-Western frontier family is torn apart when it is discovered that their adopted sister is actually of Native American descent.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER: The hypocrisy of ethnic stereotyping and bigotry. How racial hatred is learned and the consequences of realizing that all you were taught and held as true is a lie.

PROS AND CONS: I started watching this film not knowing what to expect. Based on the credits, it should be a good film. Directed by John Huston, featuring Burt Lancaster, Audrey Hepburn, Lilian Gish and Audie Murphy with a soundtrack by Dimitri Tiomkin. As the story unfolded it turned out to be a very good film.

Much of our impression of the American West is overshadowed by the films of John Ford and the acting of John Wayne. This film takes a different slant on the American West and touches on some of the themes in John Ford's "The Searchers". It is more gritty and less heroic than most westerns for its day. This film was made when Hollywood was addressing the concepts of segregation and race relations in America. Similar films of this era that touch on the same themes were "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner", and "Giant".

The cinematography (shot in 70mm) along with the score by Tiomkin give a vivid portrait of the Western Plains, with broad rivers, endless skies and a sense of life on the frontier. While I have always thought of Lancaster as a bit of a one dimensional actor, he is good in this film and very believable. Audrey Hepburn as the mixed blood sister is a bit of a stretch, but she is pretty to look at. Audie Murphy as the bigoted brother is a departure from most of his western roles.

The plot of the film isn't obvious in the beginning. In the end, this is a soul searching film. By the time it has run it's course, the viewer sees the folly of racial hatred on a personal level. Even the Native Americans in the film are seen in a slightly empathetic light, willing to make amends for past mistakes, but the hatred between them and the 'white man' is too great to overcome in the end.

This is a good western and I am surprised that I had never heard of it before. It is worth seeing on numerous levels, preferably on a big screen in its original aspect ratio and with a good sound system.

SYNOPSIS: The story of a British Destroyer in WWII and the lives of her crew. The stories of the various crew members are shown in flashback after the destroyer is sunk in the Mediterranean.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER: Propaganda in the 1940s. A film to boost British morale during their darkest hours of WWII. The film is meant to be an example of how the British were supposed to behave and fight and how British resolve can conquer almost anything.

PROS AND CONS: Noel Coward is the over-riding presence in this film, having produced, written, co-directed and stared in it. My primary reason for wanting to see the film is David Lean's directorial debut, having co-directed it with Coward.

While this is a competent film and enjoyable to watch, it shows the British as somewhat one dimensional characters. This probably has to do with the era in which it was filmed. The film also highlights the concept of class society in England during the 1930 and 40s, although this was not meant to be the focus of the film when it was made.

All of the characters in this film are basically emotionless. Noel Coward, as the Captain of the ship, never smiles and appears to be almost condescending to his ever-faithful wife and children. The enlisted seaman seem to be the only characters that have any real affection for their ship or their spouses, but this is also shown in the light of them being 'lower-class' individuals, fit only to be ordered around and to do physical labor.

While watching the film I noticed a small cameo by a very young Richard Attenborough, who is not named in the credits.

This film epitomizes the concept of the British 'stiff upper lip' and their sheer determination to prevail in the face of overwhelming odds. It is fascinating to see a culture such as this but I would never want to live in it. There is resolve....and then there is being reduced to an automaton. This film blurs the lines between the two.

SYNOPSIS: A young woman finds herself pregnant and unemployed in a rural Colombian village. In order to help out her family she agrees to transport narcotics into the United States as a mule for drug dealers. A human face to the concept of illegal immigration and the war on drugs.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER: The harsh reality of the lives of those in the third world. Desperate people do desperate things, sometimes with awful consequences.

PROS AND CONS: This films starts out as an interesting and beautiful view of rural South American life. When the circumstances become dire, there are those that will seek opportunity in the less fortunate.

This becomes an uncomfortable film to watch when the young woman begins her decent into the calculating and ruthless world of the narcotics trade. Her innocence and desire to do the right thing comes into sharp contrast with the reality of money and power.

Near the latter portions of the story, you are on edge of your seat with fear of what might happen to the young women as she tries to juggle the lies and secrets to stay one step ahead of the game.

Catalina Sandino Moreno is superb in her portrayal of the young protagonist and she brings depth and compassion to her character. Anyone who has a strong stance on the immigration / illegal alien debate in the United States, should see this film. It might change your point of view.

SYNOPSIS: A tramp steamer outruns a typhoon to Capetown, South Africa, with a disgruntled crew and a love triangle between the Captain, the Chief Engineer and his fiancé.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER: Second chances and re-thinking past mistakes. Macho defeats love in the short-term, but compassion triumphs in the end. A trip back to simpler times when everything was black and white, literally.

PROS AND CONS: This film was supposedly made as a follow up to "All The King's Men", which also starred Crawford and Ireland. "All The King's Men" got a lot of Oscar buzz, so the studios thought they could make lightening strike twice. They sort of missed the mark. This is a competent film, but can hardly be considered great film making.

This film rehashes the tried and true cinema gimmick of trapping adults in a confined space so they must face their past and confront the present. There is a bit of a fantasy element in the concept of a world in which tramp steamers were the semi-trucks of their day, ferrying oil and cargo across the ocean highways of the world. Crewed by men with checkered pasts who lived a nomadic lifestyle. It probably isn't very accurately portrayed in this film, but it does make you wonder.

The camera tends to linger on Ellen Drew's character a lot and she is working her "Betty Davis Eyes" as much as possible. The script and plot lines of the film seem a bit strained from time to time. The roots of the past love affair between the captain and the fiancé are never explained. The small boy that longs to go to sea only to be crushed by oil cans in the storm doesn't really make a lot of sense and his acting is terrible.

This is not a very deep film. The basic concept is how folks forced together on a ship in the middle of the ocean have to work as a team and overcome their past differences. Nothing more, nothing less.

SYNOPSIS: A shammed priest finds anonymity in Mexico where he wrestles with his past while serving as tour guide to a bus full of vacationing church women.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER: What happens in Mexico, stays in Mexico. Mexico has become a fantasy land that folks escape to these days. A place where cares, worries and responsibilities cannot follow you. This is a film that fosters that ideal. Cut off from the trappings of button-down 1950s American society, the characters find themselves in a world seduced by cabana boys, wanton desires and tropical sunsets.

PROS AND CONS: The dialog of this film still has the affect of the stage play from which it was based. Like "A Street Car Named Desire" and "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof", the characters in this film are struggling with inner turmoil sprinkled with sexual frustration. The fact that the lines are delivered by the likes of Richard Burton, Ava Gardner and Deborah Kerr make it an enjoyable film to watch. One of the better performances is turned in by Grayson Hall (whom I had never heard of prior to this film). Her performance as the repressed and bitchy Miss Fellows is fascinating to watch and she more than holds her own with Burton and Gardner.

Most of the film is a long setup to the evening scene between Burton, Kerr and Gardner, in which their demons are discussed, exposed and cast away. It is very good acting although it takes a long time to get there. Comic relief in the film is provided by Skip Ward (the essential early 60s screen idol persona) as the bus driver and the two beach boys that continually dance around Gardner's character while shaking maracas. When the likes of Burton, Tennessee Williams and John Huston get together to make a film, it is bound to be worth watching. Especially, now that I am older and my life experience make me appreciate what the film is all about.

SYNOPSIS: An aging husband and wife visit their children in 1950s Tokyo. While all are well meaning and polite, the years and the miles between them have taken them all on different paths and they struggle to come to terms with their memories and their expectations.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER: Intimacy and how things change. A character study of the the differences between generations, their expectations (both young and old) and how the modern world has fractured the extended family.

PROS AND CONS: This is a slice of life / contemplation film as opposed to the fantasy / escapism film genre that is marketed to the youth of today. While many newer films have choreographed violence and action as the mainstay of their cinema experience, this film is the opposite. While film is a 'visual' medium, it can be a subtle medium as well, without all the 'eye-candy' and special effects that are so prominent today.

This film is long, over 2 hours, and it took me a while to get all the way through it. By the end of the film, I felt as though I was a part of this family and could sense their pain and grief . This film may not appeal to younger generations, but as we age, this type of cinema becomes more and more endearing to those of us that have experienced more than we allow ourselves to remember.

There are some interesting oddities in the film that stem from the culture in which it was made. All the camera angles are very low, usually less than 3 feet from the floor. Since there were few chairs in 1950s Japan, most of the characters sit on the floor. This is their living space, hence the lower camera angle. Almost everyone in the film has a hand fan, which they are constantly fanning themselves with. In a time before air-conditioning, this was the only way to keep cool in the summer. There is almost no panning on scanning with the camera. Most of the scenes are done with a static camera location with minimal scene editing. Finally, there are a lot of 'lingering' scenes, in which actors leave the frame or exit a room, but the camera keeps rolling for up to 10 seconds before fading to the next scene or editing to a different location. This appears intentional, as though the director wants to let us linger on what has just transpired.

In the end this is a film that makes you think. I love films that do that.