madcardinal

One of the best Westerns ever made. Superior to other films of its time because it possesses more realism and authenticity and shuns the silly, false and simplistic moralizing which was almost a requirement for American films of this period. This is a film about real, complex people involved is realistic, complex events. Film-maker Anthony Mann hailed from Great Britain - perhaps this had something to do with the unusual realism. Positives are: 1 - The beautiful cinematography alone is enough reason to rent. The lighting is superb, there is sumptuous use of darkness, and the twilight and night scenes are ravishingly beautiful. 2 - Strong, resourceful female characters instead of the usual phony, helpless, wilting flowers. These women are people in their own right, not merely appendages of some male character. 3 - The characters are an honest mix of good and bad qualities - not artificial cardboard cut-outs simplistically meant to serve as types. 4 - Minorities are portrayed as real people. The Mexicans are portrayed with sensitivity and understanding, instead of the usual condescending caricatures. 5 - Walter Huston, Barbara Stanwyck & Wendell Corey do an excellent job of bringing their characters to life. The other actors are solidly top drawer. 6 - Excellent story-telling at its finest. With repeated viewing, you see more deeply into the complex and surprisingly subtle motivations of the characters. The only negative is that the sensuality of real life was artificially pre-filtered out of the film; but in full fairness to "The Furies," this is true of all American films of this period, due to the de facto censorship which held sway at the time. In sum, a complex, vivid depiction of love, hate, greed, loyalty, betrayal, devotion, affirmation of life and the inexorability of death, as they course through the lives of real, breathing people. Anthony Mann was far ahead of his time in crafting this truthful gem. What a special achievement!

Film-maker Ang Lee scores a win with this film about a widower master chef and his three attractive 20-something daughters. "Eat Drink Man Woman" is a sensitive portrayal of emotional dynamics as the daughters wrestle with leaving the nest, whether physically or psychologically. In this somewhat stiff, formal family, people communicate - or fail to communicate - through food; and the viewer is treated to many sensuous culinary scenes. Yet as the movie progresses, we witness the characters' growing drive to verbalize what they mean and feel. The beauty of the daughters is depicted in a very restrained manner, so if you're looking for Chinese eroticism, best to look elsewhere. Give this fine movie a chance. "Eat Drink Man Woman" will have added appeal for most female viewers.

"Fingersmith" is divided into two episodes, and it is truly a hit and miss film. While watching the first episode, I thought I was experiencing one of the finest films ever made - it developed like a Dickensian novella courageously and poetically weaving a tale of lesbian love. Until just before the end of the first episode, I was fully expecting to give "Fingersmith" my highest recommendation.

The organic kernel of the movie - as presented in the summary on this web site - is superb and of the highest quality. The movie goes off the tracks, however, at the very end of the first episode and never really gets back on track after that. There are too many plot twists which stretch the viewer's capability for suspension of disbelief past the breaking point. The film becomes much too impressed with its own cleverness and the second episode just feels inauthentic and overly contrived. It's almost an insult to the viewer's intelligence and a betrayal of the time so well invested up to that point. It also robs the film of its crux and primary dilemma, namely, after wrestling with her powerful feelings of love, her past loyalties and moral and ethical considerations, what decision will Sue Trinder make regarding the plan to defraud Maud?

There's no doubt about it, simpler would have been much much better in this case. Nine stars for the first episode. One star for the second episode. Five stars overall. This could have been so much better.

Although funny, "Blazing Saddles" suffers in comparison with "Young Frankenstein," which is one of the greatest films ever made. The humor here tends to be drier and there is less of it. My teenage daughter put it this way, "Westerns are not as good for comedy as horror films." I also found the frequent use of the "N" word to be distracting. I wonder how folks would take it if the situation was reversed: A black film-maker making a comedy in which the "H" word and "K" word were used to refer to a Jewish character. Can't think of any films like that. Can you? I still recommend this film for the moderately effective humor and the incredibly good performance by Madeline Kahn. What an incredible talent she was.

A very good movie. First of all, it avoids the ludicrous pitfall of thirty-somethings or twenty-somethings trying to play teenagers a la Olivia Newton John and John Travolta in "Grease". That kind of inauthentic casting has ruined the verisimilitude and integrity of far too many movies about young people. Roger Ebert once said only half jokingly that there should be a law that actors playing young adults or children must be the age of their characters; and judging from some of the untenable performances turned in by older actors in movies of this genre, I'm inclined to agree with him. All the actors playing teenagers in this movie are believable as teenagers, and this authenticity is a decided asset. I found this movie poignant, touching and aptly awkward in places. It reminded me of high school life. The director and actors achieve just the right mix of erotic longing, real-world constraints, uncertainty and the tension of trying to build a self in a complicated world. Not quite as superb as its close cousin, "Beautiful Thing," but very good nonetheless. Highly recommended to anyone fair-minded enough to appreciate a movie featuring gay characters.

An excellent movie. Considered very racy at the time of its release, today it is the excellent performances that stand out. Welles, Newman and Woodward are superb. There's one scene where Welles breaks a table (not in the script), and it's fantastic. All the other actors are very good. Plus Lee Remick is a wet dream come true for heterosexual young men.

And how can you go wrong with William Faulkner providing the source material?

Well written; stylish; and clever, simmering dialog. This film deserves its classic status.

Walter Huston, Tim Holt and Humphrey Bogart star in this ideal film about two down-and-out Americans who team up with an old prospector to find gold in the wilds of Mexico. Throw in a cameo by acclaimed director John Huston, and what more can you ask for? Walter Huston turns in one of the best acting performances I've ever seen as the savvy old prospector who gives it one more try. Dreams of gold dazzle the imaginations of the characters played by Holt and Bogart; but as the wealth starts to build up amid the physical hardship, greed laboriously works its way into their hearts like a gila monster clambering into camp. Will The Lord play tricks on those who choose to follow the siren song of riches? Watch this movie and find out.

An excellent achievement by Mel Brooks and cast. This film is steadily funny throughout with everything from slapstick to subtle innuendo to a musical number to visual and verbal puns. Of course it's all the more enjoyable if you've seen the classic Frankenstein movies previously. In terms of cinematography, this black-and-white film is one of the best executed, most beautiful films imaginable. The mise-en-scene is exquisitely adept with opulent room settings filling the frame to the brim, a cobweb-strewn towering laboratory shot at oblique angles and even the use of a circular convex mirror to reveal action. The contrast range from the whitest white to the darkest black is incredible and the night scenes are breathtaking. All this in a movie that is actually funny! All the actors do a commendable job. Worth noting is Gene Hackman's brief standout performance as the blind man. Needless to say, no spoof/homage to the classic horror film will ever come close to this awesome achievement. This is probably one of the best films ever made and Mel Brooks can rest assured that it will be the vanguard of his legacy for generations to come.

This film is to slasher flicks what "The Changeling" (1980) is to horror flicks: intelligent, somewhat reserved, and representing the cream of the crop for the genre. Can a low-gore slasher flick really work? You bet ya! Much better than most of the bloodbaths earning millions of dollars nowadays. "Black Christmas" is big on atmosphere and fear - but quite reserved regarding dismembered bodies and blood spatter. Also unusual for this genre, the acting is competent, and the potential victims are believable, likable characters - not insufferable morons. On top of all this, the fact that Olivia Hussey is in the cast makes this film a really good choice. Recommended.

Lord of the Flies (1963) has two things going for it: 1) It is actually faithful to the novel it's based on - a rare achievement in cinema. 2) The film features beautiful black-and-white shots with a pleasing dose of chiaroscuro. The cinematography of juxtaposing the human face and body with water, sand, rock formations and night sky is a visual triumph.

Did director Peter Brook miss his calling? Seems to me he would have made a superb photographer. A scene in which a dead boy is slowly, gently turned over by seawater achieves an odd beauty that is almost sacramental. Stills from this scene could legitimately hang in the finest art museums. Also, some of the facial close-ups reminded me of the photography of Henri Cartier-Bresson.

Ultimately, however, motion picture films cannot be judged as if they were photography exhibits. This slow-moving, somewhat ponderous film can be difficult to watch at times. In the dialog, there are often unnaturally long gaps between questions and answers. The boys sometimes seem to be speaking through a mental haze, the sound quality is poor, and the pacing of the action also seems to be poorly thought out at times. Scenes of conflict lack some of the grit and intensity they require.

For those who really want to see a film version of William Golding's classic novel, this black-and-white movie, with all its flaws, is substantially better than the American color remake in all ways except sound quality.

Justifiably praised for the successful pairing of Robert Redford and Paul Newman, "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" is an expertly crafted Western which turns away from being bombastic or hard-hitting. The moderate to light tone the film-makers choose makes this film like a refreshing summer breeze: By the time you appreciate how fine it is, it has nearly blown past you. Thoroughly entertaining yet not insipid, this movie has visually memorable moments. For example, when Butch and Sundance flee to high ground as night falls, they turn round to look for the trackers pursuing them and see the beams of their lanterns advancing in the darkness - a scene which is simultaneously beautiful and unsettling. Well wrought and enjoyable, Butch and Sundance displays a very rare achievement in Hollywood: combined star power effectively employed.

A stirring, high-quality film with solid acting and an interesting story, what sets A.I. apart from the usual Hollywood fare is that it is not mere entertainment. This film explores human moral obligations regarding the things we create. If humankind creates a robot that can love and develop a will of its own, is it still just a machine? The viewer begins by watching a sci-fi flick set in a family home; but the film becomes extraordinary through two expansions of our frame of reference, suggesting that we weigh the human capacity for cruelty and consider our own existential significance in time-space. And it's entertaining! Good stuff, this one.

Warning to testosterone-inflamed fans of Clint Eastwood: "The Beguiled" is not a macho Western. Imagine instead Edgar Allen Poe journeying to France to shed some of his Victorian-American prudery and then returning to the U.S. to write a Southern Gothic story about sex-deprived young women at a finishing school who take in a wounded Civil War soldier. While Poe's writing the story, Walt Whitman is looking over Poe's shoulder to make sure there's no self-censorship. This will give you some idea of this film's flavor. A possible alternative title could be "Picnic at Hanging Rock Meets Body Heat." The positives are: 1 - A great study of repressed sexuality percolating to the surface; 2 - Vivid, moody scenes of people in Southern outdoor settings and young women carrying candles through a dark house; 3 - Geraldine Page is great as the sex-starved head of the school; 4 - Elizabeth Hartman is well cast as her virginal, proper young assistant; 5 - Jo Ann Harris as Carol is the quintessential hottie - nubile and sultry; 6 - Clint performs very well playing against type. The negatives are: 1 - The voice-overs of the characters' thoughts are unnecessary and, in a few cases, unintentionally comical; 2 - Occasionally, some of the dialog strikes the viewer as inauthentic. Be advised that the "N" word is used a couple times. We also briefly see the - ahem - "charms" of Ms. Harris. She's a beautiful young lady if ever there was one. This film was very daring, considering its provenance. Even today, I will say it's not for the prudish, squeamish or easily offended. Not perfect by any means - but a good, strong movie.

"Antonia's Line" is a beautiful, poignant film which skillfully manages to celebrate life in all its fertile richness while it simultaneously throws a richly deserved counter-punch into the face of 2,000 years of arrogant, church-sponsored misogyny.

When a modern film such as this one cleverly turns the tables on real historical injustice, I do not find it offensive at all. I'm a man and I found this film admirable for giving a hoot about redressing a justified, legitimate grievance. Until very recently, women were not regarded as significant beings in their own right; they were deemed valuable only as helpmates to be utilized and governed by men - significant only to the extent that they were subordinate to a father and later a husband, and they were supposed to accept this secondary status without complaint, protest or challenge. Such traditional subjugation of women is rubbish and this movie plainly says so. That's a good thing. I see no reason to be offended by such truthfulness. These are not matters of conjecture but of historical fact.

This movie features wonderful, strong female characters who are people in their own right - they are not compliant appendages of domineering male characters. Strong, independent women are found in cinema with extreme rarity, and this film has five of them! There are at least three male characters who are good human beings in this film: Farmer Bas; Crooked Finger; and Simon; so you can forget the reviews falsely complaining that all the male characters are creeps. Refreshingly, this movie also celebrates sexual joy without censorship or hand-wringing. It's even quite amusing, bringing a life-affirming smile to the viewer's face despite some of the violent and somber events which occur in other parts of the film.

I found Dennis Littrell's review on this web site to be excellent, because it cites the ancient mythological underpinnings of this film.

The soundtrack is beautiful.

I suggest paying especially careful attention to the conversations between older and younger female characters, because they contain a complex interplay of emotion, intelligence, belief and intuition - and so, just when you think you have a character pigeonholed (for example, Antonia is completely atheist), you notice a nuance pointing in another direction. Sarah's final pronouncement in the film also alludes to new possibilities, if you're listening carefully.

A fabulous, unique film, "Antonia's Line" gets my highest recommendation.

An ambitious work of art, "The Reader" nearly matches the very high achievement of the novel on which it is based. There is no syrupy, Disney-style distortion of real life; nor will you have to endure the usual Hollywood pandering to pressure groups - no tired prudery masquerading as pseudo-raciness in this film. Simply put, the honest, forthright portrayal of a beautiful, terrible and heart-wrenching love story is a godsend for those used to the dishonest babble of Hollywood.

Kate Winslet does a fine job of portraying Hanna, both as a seductive train conductor in her thirties and as an older woman wasting away in prison. David Kross's performance as young Michael, however, is slightly superior to Winslet's. When it comes to young male performers, forget the insipid silliness of Zac Efron and Jesse McCartney. Kross is not a hollow piece of eye candy, but a young man of substance who courageously dedicates his body and his considerable acting skills to his craft. He is especially good in the scene where he reads "Huckleberry Finn" to Winslet.

To its credit, "The Reader" does not shy away from the negative after-effects Michael struggles with when dealing with his cub-cougar relationship with Hanna. Regarding the Holocaust, when Hanna asks the judge a pointed, naive question, we are forced to consider the role self-preservation and human frailty play in the face of overarching, domineering evil.

This movie easily surpasses some films frequently listed by critics as among the greatest of all time. Off the top of my head, "The Reader" is superior to "The Searchers" and "Midnight Cowboy" by a good margin. It contains some of the finest love scenes ever filmed, and the scene in which Hanna washes Michael while they're both standing is one of the most poignant, beautiful depictions of the male body in all of cinema. "The Reader" deserves the highest recommendation, and all adults should make time to view it except, perhaps, for those who have an aversion to the sight of the human body.

I read the novel before watching the movie, and both are excellent, with the book being slightly superior to the film because it can weave in the innuendo, nuance, and Freudian symbolism more effectively than the film. The movie is quite faithful to the book, although the film gives comparatively more attention to the Sara Waybourne character and less attention to Irma Leopold.

I highly recommend considering the rock a character - perhaps the most important character - in this film; I ask you to consider that the rock is not a static, dumb object as we would interpret it from our modern, materialistic viewpoint. Rather, by accepting a more aboriginal, animist interpretation of the rock as a living being, the viewer gets in tune with a different understanding of the underlying reality of things which should make it easier to comprehend and appreciate this film. In connection, it also may be helpful to remember Australia is a continent which was stolen away from the native inhabitants by Europeans, who fancied their culture more advanced, civilized and reality-based than the aboriginal culture; this European conquest has lasted for a tiny blip of a second when compared to how long the natives have lived there. Also, one of the cultural hallmarks of Christian Europe was the (at least partial) sublimation of sexuality in order to fuel presumably higher goals, for example, art such as this movie.

On one level, "Picnic at Hanging Rock" is about the suffocating sexual repression of the Victorian age. The older students at this girls boarding school are just entering into that golden period of 16 to 24 years old, that fleeting period when humans are at their most vigorous, fertile, robust, sensual and beautiful. This makes the repression all the more crucial. There are clues sprinkled into the movie to help the viewer make up their own mind as to what happens, but you have to pay careful attention: this is not a Hollywood style movie where you're hit over the head with plot developments or character motivations in high relief, nor is every question that arises clearly answered in a reassuring, formulaic way. If you like easy answers, forget this movie and watch a Hollywood flick.

Most of the cast is solidly good. Dominic Guard as Michael Fitzhubert and Anne Lambert as Miranda are perfect choices for their facial features, physical build, and mannerisms. I would have cast the character of Irma Leopold differently. In the book, she is described repeatedly as stunningly beautiful, and although the actress who plays her in the movie is quite attractive, she is not stunningly beautiful.

One of the girls quotes Poe: "All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream." Another girl gushes, "The rock has been waiting thousands of years, just for us!" Ultimately this film is relevant to everyone alive on planet earth, because on this second level, "Picnic at Hanging Rock" is about that biggest mystery of all - being and nothingness.

What a wonderful film! An ideal mixture of camp and eerie creepiness, this black-and-white horror flick is a joy to behold. What a gifted film-maker James Whale was. An atmospheric, creepy setting rendered more-so by excellent lighting and the wonderful, idiosyncratic characters make "The Old Dark House" a delight. This fine film amply deserves a thorough restoration, re-mastering and re-release. The sound quality is muddy, so turn up the volume. If you frequently have trouble enjoying films with less than ideal sound quality, watching this film could be frustrating for you. In the extra features, you can watch a brief recounting of how this movie was saved from disintegrating into oblivion. I am very glad it was saved.

Johnny Depp performs ably as the seemingly goof-ball author being persecuted by a stereotypical Southern hick. But everything may not be as it seems. As long as you're cool with movies that have no likable characters, you should enjoy this movie fairly well. There's some creepiness and mystery - no doubt about it. When it comes to the plot twists and the vantage point from which the story is told, however, this film cannot measure up to "Identity." I'd recommend watching both "Secret Window" and "Identity" to see if you agree that "Identity" is better by a good margin. "Secret Window" will have added appeal for authors and those who like quirky movies.

This film bungles what is an interesting story: two Jewish kids, fleeing the horrors of World War II and the Holocaust, arrive in the newborn nation of Israel seeking refuge and a decent life. On the plus side there are some picturesque, atmospheric scenes and some good sequences showing the refugees trying to make the best of a rough situation. On the other hand, there are too many flip-flops in the plot and in the behavior of the characters, and too many schmaltzy scenes. There are also some utterly preposterous fantasy sequences which made me doubt the seriousness of the film-maker's intent. The viewer gets the impression the screenwriter and film-maker were inexperienced at making quality films. There may be good films about Jews settling in Israel, but "Aretz Hadasha" is not one of these.

Camille is a professor at a conservative Christian college who is affianced to minister and co-worker Martin. When Camille meets and is attracted to nervy and vivacious circus acrobat Petra, an inner tension begins to build within her.

One gets the feeling the film-maker double majored in Art and Theater as this film is bursting with circus-themed surrealist metaphors and intense use of saturated colors. The surrealism sometimes seems a little heavy-handed, but I understand the film-maker was trying to contrast the Christian college milieu with that of the circus folk. The acting is very good and the film excels at depicting the hesitancy and awkwardness involved in striking out in an entirely new direction. Can you simultaneously reach physical fulfillment and grow spiritually by finding your erotic center and exploring new sexual possibilities? That's the question this film deals with. To the scriptwriter's credit, the professors and ministers who espouse decidedly conservative positions with regard to homosexuality are not superstitious, fire- breathing gay-bashers. There are some beautifully filmed and - by U.S. standards - quite revealing scenes of lesbian love-making in "When Night Is Falling," so if this sort of thing disturbs you, steer clear. In sum, this film works well and conveys the difficulty, awkwardness and joy of discovering new ways of being. To quote first Camille and then Petra: "I'm nervous." "So am I; I think you're supposed to be."

If you've been interested in watching a movie with gay characters but cringe in exasperation when you see guys dressing up as women, acting like tarts, courting death by way of promiscuity, taking drugs, feeling sorry for themselves or bathing in suicidal despair, then "Shelter" is the movie for you. Trevor Wright (who plays Zach) and Brad Rowe (playing Shaun) make this film very likable. They do not look offbeat or effeminate; they do not walk around singing Broadway show tunes; and they do not refer to themselves or other gay guys as "girl." They convincingly portray two healthy, regular American guys who just happen to be gay. In fact, they turn out to be intelligent, resilient and altruistic. Shaun is already well grounded in his identity and Zach is journeying toward his authentic self. This film is substantially more positive in tone than many gay flicks and contains no maddening goofiness or flippancy. Zach has to deal with some real-life choices - among them, choosing whether or not to realize that the most challenging homophobia does not come from an oppressive society but from within one's self. Throw in Zach's adorable little nephew - played by Jackson Wurth - and you have a movie that's pretty hard to resist.

I eagerly popped this DVD into my player because I've always been captivated by early still and motion photography. I was pleased with the beauty of this silent film: some scenes have a brownish color cast resembling a calotype while others look bluish like a cyanotype. This film follows the novel closely, so dickensians and purists should like it. Lon Chaney is convincing as Fagin, and child star Jackie Coogan - who enjoyed a resurgence later as Uncle Fester on "The Addams Family" - earns the sympathy of the viewer. There are the usual histrionics for this period: this is a silent film, and so they come with the territory. Highly recommended to those who like silent films. A must-see for Dickens devotees and Chaney completists.

As a stand-alone film, this is a fine accomplishment. It boasts very good acting, beautiful cinematography and almost matches the harshness Dickens so artfully portrays in his novel. The savagery meted out to the poor and destitute by the authorities and the middle class stands to this day as a major indictment of 19th century English society. But when the film is evaluated in light of the novel, there's no doubt purists and dickensians will be disappointed - because the screenwriters have rewritten parts of the story. The biggest change is Mrs. Maylie and Rose have simply been removed: they are major players in the novel. Also many details have been changed, for example, in the novel, Sikes's dog - not Oliver - is on the rooftop with him in his final moments. Viewers interested in this film solely as cinema should be thoroughly satisfied by its excellence. For those demanding accuracy to the book, you will need to ease up and drop some of your demands before watching.

There are two big problems with "Bram Stoker's Dracula." First, the movie takes too many liberties with Stoker's novel in terms of plot and tone, especially when you consider they went through the trouble of putting the novelist's name in the actual film title. This unusual step implies that you made a good-faith effort to stay true to the author's creation. In the book, Mina does not love Dracula at all and she is not the one who slays Dracula. And although you might be able to uncover some hints of sexual symbolism in the Victorian novel, the movie makes sexuality a major component of the story throughout. Now I believe firmly in zero censorship and I'm all for frank presentation of the female and male body and, if need be, sex - when it's artistic and appropriate; but out of respect to the novel, the eroticism in this movie is over the top, incongruous, and sometimes unintentionally comical.

The second big problem is the casting. A man of means, Francis Ford Coppola has made the gems "Apocalypse Now," "The Cotton Club," and "The Godfather." He could have insisted on top-notch actors. How he allowed Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder to assume British roles is beyond me. O.K., so the casting director made two grave errors, but this powerful director could have stepped in at that point. Reeves always comes off as stiff and lifeless and Ryder is seldom believable, and both are thoroughly American. Coppola could have held two casting calls in England, one for the character of Mina and the other for Jonathan Harker. By blindfolding himself and lobbing 2 balled-up socks into the British actors assembled, Coppola would have come away with a much better Mina and a much better Harker. Strangely, the normally superb Anthony Hopkins turns in an unconvincing and uninspired performance in this film. While watching the film, I got the feeling Hopkins realized the film wasn't going to be good early on and simply mailed it in.

The four stars are for some moments of eerily beautiful and effective cinematography. On the whole, this is a disappointment and a misfire.

Vastly superior to "Francis of Assisi," a movie which is as dry as dust. I watched the two movies one after the other with my Catholic mother-in-law, and she strongly preferred "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" to "Francis of Assisi." This film conveys real emotion and reminds us that those who feel called by God are different from most workaday folk. For those of you who have a strong aversion to the sight of the human body, be advised that there is a nude scene in "Brother Sun, Sister Moon." It has symbolic significance and is quite beautiful. Some reviewers on the internet thought the Francis and Clare characters seemed stoned. I did not see it that way at all. To me, they were conscious of being illuminated by the Holy Spirit. In other words, they were atypical and in a tiny minority of humans on earth; of course they're not going to act like your next-door neighbor or some concocted role model from a religious textbook. The acting is competent without being great. The soundtrack is written and performed by Donovan - think "Atlantis," "Jennifer Juniper," and "Hurdy Gurdy Man" - so you will either like or dislike the soundtrack because of this, depending on your musical taste. For those who strongly dislike the culture of the late 60s and early 70s, you may not like this film, because it was made in the early 70s and evokes the tone and feel of that period.