kyle_c

With Bringing Out the Dead, Martin Scorsese returns to the same territory as Taxi Driver, with Nicolas Cage starring as Frank Pierce, an ambulance driver burnt out from his job and in desperate need to save someone. Like Taxi Driver, it takes place late night on the streets of New York, with a main character on the brink of insanity. However, while there are surface similarities, the characters and themes are completely different. Taxi Driver is about loneliness and the struggles of a man out of step with society. Bringing Out the Dead is about guilt – Frank is haunted by the `ghosts' of those he failed to save. Scorsese and writer Paul Schrader carry over their wit and humor from Taxi Driver, only to a far greater extent, which gives the film a strange tone. There are numerous spots that walk the line between harrowing and hilarious - laugh out loud jokes interspersed with violence and blood. What is the result? Somehow these two mix together well to capture the strange insanity of the life that Frank lives. This odd mixture will be sure to put off viewers, and it doesn't seem quite right at parts, but on the whole it is quite effective.

The only thing this movie lacks that Taxi Driver has is an unforgettable main character – Frank is a fully developed character, portrayed brilliantly by Nicolas Cage, but he doesn't have that uniqueness that Travis Bickle had. Everybody can see a little bit of Travis Bickle in themselves, but Frank's situation is so unique that at times it is difficult to relate to him. In fact, at times, he is even overshadowed by some of his partners, who are hilariously insane and over the top, superbly portrayed by John Goodman, Ving Rhames, and Tom Sizemore.

Perhaps the comparisons to Taxi Driver are unfair – Bringing Out the Dead stands firmly on its own two feet. It's not perfect, but it is an incredibly ambitious project, and Scorsese and Cage deserve kudos for even taking the chance of making this film. When all is said and done, the merits far outweigh the flaws, and this goes down as a valuable addition to Scorsese's canon.

Truffaut's homage to the American gangster film stars Charles Aznavour as a smalltime piano player in a bar who has a secret past that he keeps hidden. The film almost falls into the trap of not being an homage to the gangster film, but rather being one itself. What saves it is the film's unique wit and charm - it's a blend of humor, romance, and gangster film. The gangsters themselves are quite funny, casually discussing everyday matters in a way that certainly had to influence Quentin Tarantino when he was writing Pulp Fiction. Some of the jokes are funny just because they are so silly (i.e., the gangster swearing his truth on his mother's grave). It's this sense of humor and the fact that the movie doesn't take itself seriously that sets it apart from other gangster movies of the day.

Peter Weir's first Hollywood film places Harrison Ford as John Book, a big city police officer, who, after investigating a case involving police corruption, hides out in an Amish community. Ford's performance is spectacular, proving his capabilities as a dramatic actor. Many of the scenes work well – Weir uses his trademark `stranger in a strange land' theme to create an interesting premise. The little details about Amish culture and how Book fits in with them are fascinating. However, in the movie's attempt to tell several different stories – a love interest, the culture clash, and the police conflicts – lead to the latter one being undeveloped and almost feeling unnecessary. To make matters worse, the film resolves itself in a very standard, tacked on payoff, that seems grossly out of place in an otherwise touching, well crafted film. A very strong film overall, brought down just a little by Hollywood's desire to please its crowds.

John Frankheimer directed this dark thriller about a man who gets a new identity and life through a secret company. It's well made and incredibly disturbing. Every frame of the film has a sense of uneasiness about it, and the viewer never really becomes comfortable. This works sometimes but fails at others – regardless of final result it means that the viewer is probably going to have an unpleasant experience along the way. The premise feels like an episode of the Twilight Zone (in fact, it does bear something of a similarity to one), and if the film were tightened up a little more in would've been incredibly effective. The beginning is slow going but absorbing, and at the end it becomes fascinating and disturbing. However, the midsection of the film lags and meanders, with extended sequences such as the hippy party and the other party dragging on for far too long. Very flashy direction by Frankheimer - while many of the compositions are immaculate, others are simply showing off. For all its flaws, it is definitely original, and among the weirdest films ever made.

Mildly enjoyable diversion seems grossly out of place it De Palma's canon. The premise is interesting - two loser hoodlums (Danny DeVito and Joe Piscapo) try to screw over a mob boss and end up getting hunted down. However, it is never particularly funny and the story isn't really that interesting. De Palma's directorial mastery is nowhere to be seen here - the direction is competent but the script never really gives him a chance to demonstrate his skills. Not as bad as some make it out to be, but certainly a failure, especially considering that it came between Body Double and Casualties of War, two of De Palma's best films.

One of the greatest directorial debuts of all time is not just incredibly frightening, but it's a tour-de-force by Mario Bava. The cinematography and direction is spectacular – few movies in history have ever had such immaculate shot compositions. Horror movies today decide to scare us by having the bad guy jump out at us or by drenching the film in blood, providing the audience with a moment of shock. Bava uses the sets and the atmosphere to generate a feeling of terror that lasts throughout the entire movie. This idea succeeds because of Bava's direction, not because of the story or the acting, which seem a little bit silly and contrived. Certainly not flawless, but amazing in so many ways that it is worthy of its reputation. One of the most influential horror films of all time – its influence can be seen on films ranging from Brian De Palma's to Dario Argento's.

Robert Altman's best film is a fascinating look at twenty-four people whose lives all revolve around a political rally in Nashville. Somehow manages, in two and a half hours, to take a detailed look at all of the characters, comment on politics and our obsession with celebrity, and capture the essence of everything that is American. The loose structure of the film makes it difficult for the first third of the movie or so, but once we start to know the characters it becomes emotionally gripping, with some truly moving scenes. Not without its flaws, but a one of a kind film nonetheless.

A fascinating look at the mob-operated Las Vegas casino industry, Casino is a success on every level. Despite being three hours long, it never gets boring – it's driven by brilliant direction, superb acting, and an interesting screenplay. Covers familiar ground but never really feels like a retread of Goodfellas, although some make that claim. The only real similarity is Joe Pesci's character – while he delivers a fine performance, I can't help but feel that his presence is largely their because of his success in Goodfellas. Regardless, it can hardly be considered a flaw in the film, and it works very well. An excellent addition to Scorsese's already impressive body of work.

Directorial debut of Michael Cimino is an entertaining, if not particularly distinguished, action piece / buddy movie. Cimino's strong direction, combined with two very charismatic leads (Clint Eastwood and Jeff Bridges) and a solid script makes it an entertaining way to spend two hours. Ultimately though, it feels like just a Eastwood vehicle, punctuated by a strange tacked on ending. Not the best work of anybody involved, but a solid effort.

Fascinating Cassavetes work has Ben Gazzara playing Cosmo Vitelli, a California night club owner who, after racking up a huge gambling debt, is given the opportunity to clear it by killing a Chinese bookie. Cassavetes's distinctive style allows for a raw emotional feel that couldn't have been captured by any other director, and, like A Woman Under the Influence, it puts the viewer directly into a very real world populated by very real characters. However, at points the film loses itself amid some of it's lengthy, nearly plotless sequences. Necessary viewing for Cassavetes fans – people looking for a straightforward story should look elsewhere. One of the truly unique creations of 1970s cinema.

Immensely entertaining albeit somewhat trashy De Palma reworking of a few Hitchcock classics (Vertigo and Rear Window). Some of the Hitchcock references are quite obvious – However, it's clear that this isn't a direct rip-off, but rather De Palma melding some of Hitchcock's themes and techniques into his own style. Either way, you have to admit that De Palma takes these themes to a disturbing level that is well beyond anything Hitchcock ever did – whether this works for or against the movie is for the viewer to decide. The sleaziness and B-Movie feel is also something that may put off some viewers but others may enjoy. Some truly excellent scenes, and good performances by Griffith and Wasson, who fits the B-Movie actor role well. One point – I'm not really sure how the movie got from the climax to the final scene.

By the numbers thriller about a divorced boat builder (John Travolta), who's son (Matthew O'Leary) ends up living with a murderous stepfather (Vince Vaughn). The storyline never steps outside of the evil stepfather formula, and there's nothing particularly clever in the script or the direction. Travolta delivers a good performance, but Vaughn isn't particularly effective and O'Leary is downright unlikable as the child protagonist. Some moderately entertaining scenes, but overall it's just tedious.

De Palma's tongue-in-cheek twist on his own thriller formula works mainly as an inside joke for his fans - if you're looking for a standard formulaic suspense thriller, watch something else. Lithgow puts on a show with several superbly over-the-top performances. Some parts are scary, some suspenseful, and some hilarious, although they all have the mark of a virtuoso filmmaker - and they succeed because he doesn't take them seriously for a second. For De Palma fans, they don't get any more entertaining than this. However, non-fans might not get it.

Brian De Palma's only venture into war movies is a powerful, if somewhat melodramatic story about a squad in Vietnam who kidnaps a Vietnamese villager and rapes her. Michael J. Fox sometimes is a little too much as the clean cut guy fighting against the system, but it still works. Penn delivers a stellar performance as the squad leader he's fighting against. Some beautiful cinematography, with De Palma's usually flashy camerawork. The ending feels a little weak compared to the rest of the story, but all in all this is one of the most haunting films about the Vietnam War - made all the more effective by the fact that it is a true story.

Big, dumb action movie is worth a watch if for no other reason than its contribution to popular culture. The story, which concerns John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) returning to Vietnam to help rescue remaining POWs, is never really believable for a minute - but the plot isn't really important here. Required viewing for fans of over-the-top action and melodrama, but those who want to think should probably stay away.

Sam Peckinpah's only venture into war films is a mixed success. The storyline concerns a German World War II captain who's main goal is to earn himself the Iron Cross (Maximilian Schell), and how he butts heads with a corporal who's just trying to do his business and survive (James Coburn). At a few points in the movie, the story seems to forget where it's going, and trails off into unnecessary subplots and action sequences. Peckinpah's directorial skill is evident in these scenes – nobody has ever done action as good as him – but he could've used a better script. For all it's flaws, it's worthwhile viewing – especially for Peckinpah fans – but it is far from the director's best.

Sergio Leone set out to create the ultimate western here, and succeeded. Combining pieces from all of the great westerns that preceded it, he made a one of a kind film. Showing the natural progression from his first three westerns to here, he more or less takes a lot of the same themes and ideas from those and pulled them together. More epic and operatic than `The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,' and without the lightheartedness that gave that film it's undeniable uniqueness. Instead, Leone focuses more on the dark side of the west, and the dark side of human nature as well. The four main players, Charles Bronson, Henry Fonda, Jason Robards, and Claudia Cardinale, all give the performances of the lifetime. From a filmmaking standpoint, few movies have ever been so perfect – the combination of gorgeous cinematography, incredible music, and the sheer style are second to none. A true masterpiece.

De Palma's first venture into Hitchcockian territory is one of the most genuinely weird horror plots ever conceived. Some of his more obvious Hitchcock influences are in this one (Rear Window, Psycho), although they work well. A little raw, but still some excellent scenes - especially the dream sequence towards end. Interesting storyline, but some of the same themes would be handled much better with "Dressed to Kill" seven years later, when he had more experience, a bigger budget, and a better cast.

Spectacular return to the gangster genre is one of De Palma's best films. It tells the story of Carlito Brigante (Al Pacino), a former gangster who vows to go straight after getting out of prison, and his cocaine addicted lawyer (Sean Penn). Stellar performances by everybody - Penn is almost unrecognizable. Some great filmmaking, including a virtuosic climax that can be ranked among the best scenes he's ever filmed.

One of De Palma's best films is also one of his most mature and restrained . Relying more on an intelligent and thoughtful plot, rather than his style, De Palma has crafted a thriller that is not only exciting, but has some great character development and political/social commentary as well. De Palma makes use of some of his standard camera tricks - the 360 degree camera pan and split screen - better than he has in most any of his other films. A true landmark in De Palma's career, "Blow Out" not only marks the peak of his filmmaking, but is, along with "Dressed to Kill", one of the best movies of the decade.

Underrated masterpiece by De Palma was basically disregarded due comparisons to "Vertigo". Sure, the basic premise is the same, but De Palma takes it in a totally different direction. Technically, this is among his best works, with the beautiful camerawork complimenting a haunting, disturbing story. The story takes it's time, and while the slow pace may bother some viewers, patient viewers will realize that it works to draw them in. By the time it is over, it feels like you have just come out of a trance.

De Palma's second film about psychic powers features a stellar cast including John Cassavetes and Kirk Douglas, and some spectacular sequences, but fails due to a silly and muddled plot. A few scenes are particularly memorable, like the amusement park scene, but the entire middle section of the movie lags, setting up a rather unsatisfying finale. Douglas is excellent as usual, and Cassavetes plays the best cold De Palma villain this side of John Lithgow. Signs of a talented filmmaker are here, which De Palma would finally pull together a few years later to make "Dressed to Kill" and "Blow Out", both of which are vastly superior movies. Despite it's strengths, nothing really adds up to a satisfying film experience.

Sure, "Dressed to Kill" borrows from "Psycho", but it certainly has the power to stand on it's own. De Palma adds his trademark visual stylings to a fascinating and disturbing plot. Some truly magnificent set pieces - De Palma's strength is in his ability to tell a story with just a camera, and little dialogue. The script is very good, and Michael Caine delivers his usual excellent performance. However, the main reason why this film is so great is because it is superior filmmaking, pure and simple, by a man who knows how to make films.

One of the best horror films ever made, "Dawn of the Dead" relies less on frightening the audience than it does on disturbing them. The film takes the viewer through a plethora of emotions, from a state of terror to exhilaration to humor. Very well made, with an outstanding score by Goblin, and some excellent effects. Good performances by the entire cast. While it's not as terrifying or groundbreaking as "Night of the Living Dead", it is better in its own way, bringing lots of new ideas into the genre. A true classic.

Underappreciated masterpiece by Argento is a textbook example of how to create terror and suspense. The story follows a basic giallo formula - a jazz pianist witnesses a murder and tries to track down the killer. Lots of twists and turns in the plot, with a superb ending. The slasher element is minimized, with only a few murders, although they are all done perfectly. The script and direction are supplemented by an excellent performance by Hemmings. Lots of Hitchcock stylings, but he takes suspense and horror to places Hitchcock never went.