rclements3

This movie is a great example of how style can prevail over substance in a film. The story is straight-forward enough, but nothing outstanding - Det. Bullitt is assigned to protect a witness who will testify against the mob. He must protect him for about 40 hours, but somehow, hitmen discover the location of the witness and gun him down before he can testify. Then Bullitt must find the hitmen, as well as deal with an identity twist concerning the witness.

However, the music score, tight direction, the car chase, McQueen's performance, and especially Robert Vaughn's performance as a ruthless politician make "Bullitt" worth watching. In fact the performances are excellent all the way through the cast (with the exception of Jacqueline Bisset, who's there only for eye candy and brings nothing special to her role).

Of course, the car chase is the most famous aspect of the film. Simply put, it's the best car chase ever filmed, bar none. It's been copied, and with today's technology, should have been exceeded. Yet it still stands alone. Why?

First, the presence of Steve McQueen - who else could bring it off as well as he did? Second, the era it came from, the late 60's. Films in those days didn't have chases, so it set the standard. There's no camera tricks or special effects to screw it up, what you see is what you get. It's just wouldn't be the same if one of today's big stars got in his BMW to chase another guy in a Porsche, complete with special effects, the obligatory explosions and slow-motion techniques.

If you've never seen it, watch it. If you have seen it, it still holds up after repeated viewings. 9 out of 10.

All Bond movies should be taken with a serious grain of salt, but Goldfinger is one of the better ones. Connery is more confident in the role, and shows more humor. Goldfinger is one of the great Bond villains, as is Oddjob. The story and screenplay are good and hold your interest without many deadspots. The plot here is not quite as ridiculous as most Bond plots.

One liners became a staple in Bond films beginning with this one. After electrocuting a man in his bathtub, Bond says "shocking", and before killing one of his business associates and crushing the victim and his car in a metal crusher, Goldfinger tells Bond the soon-to-be victim has a "pressing engagement". One of the saving graces of "Goldfinger" is humor.

Honor Blackman is a beautiful Pussy Galore, but she is way too harsh in the role. It's not at all likely she would suddenly fall for Bond, but she does. It would have been more feasible to have Bond hit on one of Pussy's young pilots, and convince them to switch the nerve gas.

But, all in all, a great Bond movie. 8 out of 10.

I've seen this movie all the way through twice, and attempted to sit through all of it many other times. I think it's classic status owes more to all of the hype surrounding its production than anything contained in the movie itself - the search for the right actress to play Scarlett, the trouble with directors, Selznick's infamous memos, etc., etc.

This is not to say there are no good things about the film. Clark Gable is perfect, and so is Vivien Leigh. Hattie McDaniel, Thomas Mitchell and Olivia De Havilland are also excellent. There are some memorable images, such as the Atlanta fire, in fact the production values are good. The use of Technicolor is outstanding - by 1939 standards. And it stands as a great reminder of Hollywood's golden age.

But, the bad outweighs the good. First of all, about 45 to 60 minutes could be shaved off of the running time. Second, Leslie Howard is far too old for his role (Margaret Mitchell's quote - "(Howard) was dreadful beyond compare") and, really, how can anyone be as wimpy as Ashley Wilkes? Then, the alleged heroine, Scarlett, has no redeeming qualities whatsoever; she is dishonest, she steals a man away from her sister to get money, and she is lazy and petulant through most of the film. How can anyone root for her?

This film more than any other serves as proof of David O. Selznick's theory that hype and publicity can elevate the status of an average film to classic status. Those who think this is a "timeless classic" have been swept away by the hype. I'd give it 6 out of 10 points.

Just saw this movie again for the first time in awhile. As a long-time fan of McQueen, I liked him in this role because it was different for him. It was said to be his favorite movie because he had to fight for the role, as Norman Jewison, the director, wanted to cast a stereotypically suave actor like Sean Connery in the role.

Some comments here say he is miscast, or mumbles too much, or is too arrogant, or all of the other standard knocks against McQueen. That's missing the point - casting McQueen as far away from type as possible is one of the gimmicks of the film. Would Laurence Olivier or Richard Burton, great "actors" - i.e. overactors, been right for that role? Of course not. Nor would Connery, with his growling Irish accent.

I'm sticking up for McQueen here, as he brought the role off with a certain jumpiness that made the character more interesting. Crown is also more approachable than most McQueen characters. In contrast, Pierce Brosnan, the star of the remake, is OK but not nearly as compelling as McQueen.

The rest of the cast is good. Faye Dunaway's character is there for mostly decorative purposes but she fulfills that need perfectly. Jack Weston, a great character actor, is excellent in his role also, playing it very believably. The police lieutenant, played by Paul Burke, was made far too unlikable, placing the viewers sympathies squarely with Crown - but that is not Burke's fault, he is more than competent.

The early scenes are the best, especially the robbery. The romantic parts of the film are good at first but begin meandering, too much time is spent on that. The music score, as commented on previously, is too intrusive. And the split-screen techniques became a distraction.

But comparing it to a movie made today is pointless. After all, the movie was made in 1967-1968. I'll take some of the dated aspects of this movie over the endless explosions, special effects, and wanna-be movie stars of today's films anytime. And the previous comment by someone that Looney Clooney and J. Lo were better in a recent film than McQueen and Dunaway were in the Thomas Crown Affair gave me the biggest laugh I've had for some time.

While no masterpiece, this movie is entertaining enough. I'd give it a 7 out of 10.

This is a very good crime drams, despite a few minor problems. Some have commented that Robert Ryan was too old for his role, but no actor in film history could play a racist better than he could (Richard Widmark is a close second), so his skill at this type of role makes up for the age issue. The script and acting are good for the most part- Harry Belafonte is excellent, and Ed Begley better - he nearly steals the film. Only weak casting is Shelley Winters, who is given very little to do, and doesn't come off convincingly.

My favorite scenes are, not in order of how they occur in the film: 1) Ryan has picked up the getaway car and decides to see how fast it can go, 2) Belafonte banging on the vibes after he's been slapped around by a mob boss, 3) Ryan shooting at a rabbit while killing time before the robbery, 4) Begley talking to the gangsters at a park, where he's referred to as the "clam himself", and 5) Ryan beating up Wayne Rogers in a bar.

The ending is abrupt, a little frutrating, and a bit of a copout. But remembering how movies were supposed to end in 1959, the bad guys could never win.

The Killing is the ultimate movie time capsule. If it were to be remade, think about how it would turn out:

First, cast Tom Cruise as Johnny Clay for box-office protection. Cruise, as usual, would never change expressions except when flashing his famous smile. One can see him pumping his fist in the air (and smiling) when he's got the $2 mil. Then add Kim Basinger as the sluttish Sherry Peatty, Crispin Glover as George Peatty, and Kevin Bacon as Marvin Unger.

Then, of course, add lots of needless explosions - such as blowing up the horse instead of shooting it. Show the dead horse and jockey flying into midair, in slow motion, from the resulting fireball. Also, have the Vince Edwards character come in with a flame thrower instead of a shotgun - then show Randy the cop, Mike the bartender and Marvin the accountant trying to scramble out of the room before the fire hits - in slow motion of course. They don't make it, naturally.

That said, I can't agree with the last reviewer's assessment of the film from 9-2-03. Yes, there are some plot holes, and the narration was corny and unnecessary, but this was 1956, not 2003. A 2003 film would have every aspect meticulously explained, and all of the rest as listed above, and be boring as hell, which the Kubrick film isn't.

The structure of the film was unusual, and added to the impact of the film. The charcters were well defined and were portrayed well by all involved. Much has been commented on by others about the work of Sterling Hayden, Marie Windsor, Tim Carey and Elsiha Cook - all were excellent, especially Carey - but I think Jay C. Flippen, Ted DeCorsia and Joe Sawyer were equally good. All were respected character actors of that time and are familiar faces to old movie buffs. DeCorsia, in particular, personifies a New York-style flatfooted cop.

I agree with those who think Johnny Clay was stupid not to get a decent suitcase, and even more foolish to let the money go on the plane. But with roadblocks probably being set up all over the place, what could he do? And how could he know the others would get killed, forcing him to keep all the money? You know he won't get away with the crime, so something had to trip it up.

One scene not mentioned in most reviews is the scene where Maurice, the wrestler hired by Johnny to keep the cops busy, goes into the racetrack lounge to do just that. The moment where he flips two cops into somersaults, one with each arm, was great. Also, when a bottle is broken over his head from behind, he swats aside that person as one would brush away a fly, sending him sprawling across the room.

All in all, despite some flaws, I would give this film an 8.5 out of 10. It holds your attention from start to finish, something most of today's films can't do. Let's just hope this one doesn't get remade, a la The Getaway, D.O.A., and others of this genre.