Amadeus (1984)

Cast: F. Murray Abraham (Antonio Salieri), Tom Hulce (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart), Elizabeth Berridge (Constanze Mozart), Jeffrey Jones (Emperor Joseph II)

Director: Milos Forman

Genre: Fictional Biography/ Drama


When your usual average “Joe Sixpack” goes to see a movie, historical accuracy in a film based on a real event or person isn’t normally priority #1. It’s sad I suppose but true nonetheless. In the case of this film, I don’t think it matters. Only the historical facts in the life of Mozart that are important for the film’s story are presented correctly. Otherwise, the rest is more or less fictional. Besides, the purpose of the film Amadeus isn’t to present a biography as much as it is a moral lesson. Amadeus, based on the play of the same name by Peter Shaffer, is actually more about the Court Composer to Emperor Joseph II of Austria, Antonio Salieri (F. Murray Abraham), during 18th century Vienna-the city of musicians. Salieri idolized Mozart and considered his music to be purely divine. Salieri prayed throughout his childhood that God would make him a great musician so that he could praise God through his music and his industry. He eventually becomes the personal musician and instructor to the Emperor of Austria. He gets to know Amadeus Mozart when the Emperor requests Mozart’s presence at the royal palace. Seeming that God removed all obstacles in order to answer his prayers, he can’t understand why God has made Mozart, a dirty minded buffoon, more of a “divine” musician than he. His jealousy towards Mozart grows so strong that eventually, he swears himself God’s enemy and is determined to do anything to silence Mozart- or rather, silence God through Mozart. The story is told through flashbacks as Salieri, spending his last days in an insane asylum- old, frustrated, and forgotten- tells his story to a priest. The acting in this film is, by far, the best acting I have ever seen in any movie since The Godfather. F. Murray Abraham accomplished the feat of convincing audiences by his mere facial expressions. This film offers so much! The moral lesson is very bluntly and very well portrayed. Salieri’s prayers were answered but not the way he was planning. Who’s glory was he most concerned about? I took to this film right away and never get bored watching it. I also consider the casting to be perfect. If any of the actors were different, I don’t believe it would have been the same film. The portrayal was excellent. The music of Mozart for this was performed by the Academy of St. Martin-in-the-Fields- one of the best symphonies world wide. It was absolutely uplifting. The music was surely its own character. The producer really took his time and put in a lot of effort for this film. It rightly won 8 Academy awards including best picture for 1984. I recommend this film highly above all other films I’ve posted so far. The hatred of Salieri towards God may be harsh for many to see but such is presented for exactly what it is- insane!

Point Missed:
I showed this film to a musically talented and experienced friend of mine. He pointed out a very common fact most musicians deal with which the film captured very well- prejudice. The committee in the royal court in Amadeus was made up of three Italians- not necessarily an important fact in itself. Mozart considered them "musical idiots" yet they were set up to judge his work- his pure God given talent. All the three cared about it seemed was to destroy Mozart. Why? They all had their biases towards him despite his talent. One member, who happens to be the one narrating the story, hated Mozart because he had pure talent while he had to work for his own. Another hated Mozart because, well, why should some non-Italian have a gift that suits Italians better. The last, pudgier member, just seemed to go along with the other two like a trusty sidekick who wouldn't want to disappoint his fellow Italians. This is supposedly a typical element in musical circles, especially when committees are set up to judge talent. Despite it all, talent was triumphant. In this case because it was God given talent. To make a similar point concise, Salieri misused his talent completely. What a shame! And where did he end up!?

Comments on the Director's Cut:
The director’s cut perfectly fills in gaps which audience members might miss or not understand perfectly in the original theater release. Some of the deleted scenes, I think, should have been left in the theatrical version. A lot of dialogue between the Priest and the aged Antonio Salieri was put back in, making Salieri’s hatred towards God much more clear. The audience now has a better picture of why he felt cheated by God and the extent of his hatred. His pride in himself is seen with the cut dialogue put back in. The desperation of Mozart and his wife for money is also much more clearly displayed by certain scenes. It was interesting to see Mozart with pupils. These scenes make his later statement to his father, “I don’t want pupils. They get in the way” more sensible. Finally, a point I never quite understood in the original version was Constanze Mozart’s bitterness towards Salieri at the end of the film. She was obviously clueless towards Salieri’s bitterness and schemes against her husband. In the director’s cut, this fact is made clear. The director’s cut has a scene of frontal nudity that was completely unnecessary. Aside from that, like all deleted scenes, there were a good number that were clearly unnecessary and simply made the film longer. I enjoyed it as it made understandable many elements of the story that I didn’t think were clear enough. It also shed some light on certain elements I never thought about or caught when watching the theater version.

Murder by Decree (1979)

Cast: Christopher Plummer (Sherlock Holmes), James Mason (Dr. John H. Watson), Sir John Gielgud (Lord Salisbury), David Hemmings (Inspector Foxborough), Susan Clark (Mary Kelly)

Director: Bob Clark

Genre: Mystery/ Horror/ Suspense

You might think this sounds kind of stupid but I actually felt privileged after I saw this hard to find film. The content behind the story line makes it supposedly disliked by many powerful people. Maybe that’s why its availability was once scarce. I even heard that it was pulled from theaters shortly after its release. But nevertheless, it’s an incredible Sherlock Holmes film, based on some not-so-talked about theories behind the Jack the Ripper murders. Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) investigates the mysterious, almost ritualistic, murders of Jack the Ripper. As Holmes notices a pattern behind the mysterious murders of women in 19th century London, he ties the murders to the secret sect of Freemasons. He also unveils specific secrets of Freemasonry. As he does this, he exposes the secret group for what they really are and this, obviously doesn’t settle to well with the Masons. As the Freemasons do all they can to protect their fellow member, Jack the Ripper, Holmes is determined to captured Ripper and cease the terror which plagues London women at night. Not only does he expose these Masons, he sheds light on their hatred for the Roman Catholic Church. This story was an incredible insight into the world of the secret society. It gives a taste of how powerful this sect is and how they operate. Christopher Plummer plays a great Sherlock Holmes. He’s no Basil Rathbone but gets through his role pretty well. This is already a classic in my book. It was certainly an original story! It also portrays a reasonably good theory behind the mystery of Jack the Ripper- one which has never been solved for certain. It really gets the audience to think. There is more behind the plot than what I’ve posted. It has such an incredible twist at the end that I can assure you, I haven’t revealed too much of the movie to ruin it. This film pulled me in right away. The intensity and suspense grows stronger as the film progresses! This is mystery at its best.

Babettes Gaestebud- Babette's Feast (1987)

Cast: Stephane' Audran (Babette Harsant), Birgitte Federspiel (Old Martina), Bodil Kjer (Old Philippa), Jarl Kulle' (Old Lorenz Lowenhielm)

Director: Gabriel Axel

Genre: Foreign/ Comedy/ Drama


A film about an elaborate and exquisite meal might be enough to attract an audience but still may sound boring nonetheless. This film made a very creative storyline out of one hell of a meal. Set in 19th century Denmark, two adult sisters within a religious community of Puritans, have an opportunity to leave their village but decide to stay with their religious father so that they can assist him and be with their church. After many years, a French woman, escaping the rebellion in France, arrives at their doorstep seeking shelter and hospitality. The two sisters take in Babette Hersant (Stephane Audran), the French refugee, and she in turn commits herself to their service as a house servant. When their father dies, the sisters plan to host a dinner for their village to honor their father’s 100th birthday. Being Puritans, the sisters plan to hold a very simple and meager meal. Babette convinces them to hold a much more exquisite meal which she alone will prepare. She thinks their father deserves such an honor. The two sisters, apprehensive because of Babette’s Catholic faith and their fear of what she might do, agree to Babette’s request despite their doubts. On the father’s 100th birthday, she serves them a meal that neither they nor anyone else from the village have ever seen the likes of. The sisters and all dinner guests initially chose to eat but not enjoy the meal. As the meal progresses, they all make up excuses to eat and drink more without giving away the fact that they’re completely enjoying the feast. I found that the meal aspect of the film was enticing enough. It was also a hilarious twist to see the difference between Catholic ideas of celebrating as opposed to Puritanical ideas. The story line was very clever and the movie was enjoyable. It never had a dull moment. The humor was more from the differences between Catholics and Puritans. Nothing was overdone so the humor came naturally from the situation. The acting was great despite the fact that I watch a dubbed English version of the film. All the cooking done in the film was real. It was very enticing and looked so easy. The best part came at seeing drunk Puritans at the end of the meal. The shots of Denmark were fantastic. Various shots of such a beautiful country were enough to want to watch more. This is definitely a film for anyone, especially for the cooking enthusiast. Surely, this was another clean-cut movie that I wouldn’t mind watching again.

Zulu (1964)

Cast: Michael Caine (Lt. Gonville Bromhead), Stanley Baker (Lt. John Chard), Jack Hawkins (Rev. Otto Witt), James Booth (Pvt. Henry Hook), Ulla Jacobsson (Margareta Witt)

Director: Cy Endfield

Genre: Historical/ Action/ Drama


I can’t say for sure whether there are a lot of biographical war movies that can keep an audience on the edge of their seat- even though the audience might be well educated in their history and already know how the movie will end as witnessed in time. This movie is an “edge of your seat” film that keeps the audience locked in from beginning to end. It’s about the British war with the Zulu tribe in Africa January 22, 1879. After the British have suffered an immense massacre of 1500 troops by the Zulus, 4000 Zulu warriors return to infiltrate a small British infantry that remains. Only 140 British soldiers, composed of Welsh infantrymen, are left to single handedly fight against the Zulus. The British maintain a closed circle tactic inside a British supply dump, and keep constant fire against the Zulu warriors. The Zulus themselves retreat and return over and over in order to wear out the British. This film concentrates on the historical 12-hour battle. It maintains historical accuracy in the crucial parts of the war. The realism is incredible and the intensity of this battle is well documented in the film portrayal. Just by the fact that the film sticks to historical truths is commendable as most history movies normally divulge in many ways. Michael Caine, as always, plays his role seriously. He always gets just the right emotions down well and at the right times. Acting must be second nature to him. He never shows himself through his acting but really becomes the person he is portraying. Even my favorite actor, Sir Anthony Hopkins, usually shows a bit of himself in his characters. Michael Caine was perfect for his role. He is never the same actor in his movies! I never found this movie dull at any time. It goes through the major points of the real war. It gives a good lesson in the importance of confidence and perseverance in achieving goals no matter how impossible they seam. I definitely recommend this film to everyone.

Waking Ned Devine (1998)

Cast: Ian Bannen (Jackie O' Shea), David Kelly (Michael O' Sullivan), Fionnula Flanagan (Annie O' Shea), Susan Lynch ( Maggie O' Toole)

Director: Kirk Jones

Genre: Comedy



Despite the luck of the Irish, I have no qualms whatsoever about stating that the Irish are the worst movie makers. This movie is the only exception that I’ve found. I thought this movie was pretty quaint, funny and enjoyable but no big accomplishment. The story line was rather creative and that is what I enjoyed most about it. I wished I had thought up a simple story line like this one. Set in a small village in Ireland, two older men, Jackie O’ Shea (Ian Bannen) and Michael O’ Sullivan (David Kelley), discover that someone amongst them has won the lottery jackpot. It turns out that Ned Devine is that lucky sort. Sadly, the two discover that Ned has died from a heart attack because the shock of winning was too much for him. They determine that Ned would’ve wanted the whole village to profit from his winnings. Mike and Jackie convince the town’s folk of Ned’s probable wishes and all agree to fool the lottery board representative into thinking that Ned Devine is alive and well. Unfortunately, the town only has one hold out- a self-centered old lady who wants half the winnings or else she’ll report them to the lotto board. The character’s expressions were enjoyable and played well into the movie. I thought the ending was great and unexpected. The director did an awesome job of showing that Ned did indeed want his winnings shared like Mike and Jackie said he did. It’s definitely a film to be enjoyed when you don’t feel like thinking.

A Night in Casablanca (1946)

Cast: Ronald Kornblow (Groucho Marx), Rusty (Harpo Marx), Carbaccio (Chico Marx)
Lt. Pierre Delmar (Charles Drake), Sig Ruman (Count Pfferman/Heinrich Stubel)

Director: Archie Mayo

Genre: Comedy
I thought I should post something about a comedy as all these dramas can start to be depressing and boring. I certainly wouldn’t want the wrong impression of me to start going around amongst the two or three readers of my blog. This is, by far, my favorite spoof on another movie. And it has the Marx Brothers. The other film it pokes fun at needs not to be mentioned- it’s pretty obvious. At a hotel in post-war Casablanca, manager after manager of the Hotel Casablanca mysteriously dies. Ronald Kornblow (Groucho Marx) is chosen as a new manager and the police hope he will lead them to some suspects. Unbeknownst to Kornblow but knownst to the police the previous hotel managers were murdered but they’re sure to keep it a secret. In the meantime, an ex-French soldier, Pierre Delmar (Charles Drake), suspects the involvement of ex-Nazis in these murders. He specifically suspects the suspicious Heinrich Stubel (a.k.a. Count Pfefferman). Pierre is suspected himself of working with enemies and he needs the aid of his girlfriend Annette, along with Corbaccio (Chico Marx) and Heinrich’s servant Rusty (Harpo Marx) to clear his name and put the kybosh on the ex-nazis. This was really entertaining for a “comeback” film on the part of the three Marx Brothers. As Chico Marx fell into financial trouble during this time, they decided to get back together to make another movie to help him out. It turned out to be a success! I consider it still successful myself since the jokes and puns seemed well thought out. The picture pulls you in right away and progresses nicely with its suspense. The humor factor doesn’t interfere in any way with the storyline. The humor of the Marx Brother’s is distinct because they abandon the element of slapstick that was common to that era. Their humor stabs at the rich and haughty of the era, which is still hilarious to this day. With this film in particular, they play off of some scenes and lines from the film Casablanca- ok, I said it. Even if you don’t like the Marx Brothers, I would still recommend this one. It has nothing unappealing about it. Actually, if you don't like the Marx Brothers, the managment isn't concerned with or responsible for your shady and hopeless taste in films!

Idi i Smotri- Come and See (1985)

Cast: Aleksei Kravchenko (Florya Gaishun), Olga Mironova (Glasha), Liubomiras Lauciavicius (Kosach)

Director: Elem Klimov

Genre: Foreign/ War/ Drama



This Russian film was the best example of a realistic war movie I’ve ever seen. The acting was extraordinarily well done and the use of real ammunition and war weaponry added to its realistic nature. The emotions of the actors were strong in this film. It displays a talent I don’t think Hollywood can reproduce. A Russian boy, during the Second World War, fights in a resistance group against the invading Germans as they try to conquer Russia. He enters the resistance against the wishes of his mother. When he comes back to look for her, he discovers that the Germans have killed everyone in his village, including his mother and siblings. As he travels with his resistance in various missions against the Germans, the horrific scenes of war causes him to lose both his innocence and his mind. His hatred for Hitler and the Germans grow with every murder he witnesses. It is a grim movie but definitely realistic in the strict sense of the word. It is the best foreign film and war film I have ever come across. I can’t think of a good enough way to describe the intensity of the story line, cinematography, and acting. It’s better explained when one sees this movie for themselves. The drama and reality behind war is well documented. Also, the horrors behind the reality of the attempted German occupation of Russia are portrayed very well. Being a Russian film, there are subtitles. Come and See may disturb viewers because of its realistic war scenes.

The Elephant Man (1980)

Cast: Sir Anthony Hopkins (Dr. Fredrick Treves), John Hurt (John Merrick- the elephant man), Sir John Gielgud (Carr Gomm) Anne Bancroft (Mrs. Kendal)

Director: David Lynch

Genre: biography/ drama


This film is another one of my Sir Anthony Hopkins favorites. Based on the books by Sir Fredrick Treves and Ashley Montagu, it’s a biographical film about the life of Joseph Merrick (John Merrick as he is called in the movie), also known as the “elephant man”. John Merrick had this title because of his severe deformation known as elephantiasis or elephantitis. The elephant man (John Hurt) is rescued from a circus freak show in early 20th century England by Dr. Fredrick Treves. He is brought to Treve’s hospital for examination. He is also given the the life of a normal person away from curious, intrigued, and laughing spectators. Treves finds out that despite his severe physical abnormalities, John Merrick is an intelligent 21 year old with a true love of the arts and literature. He was taught to believe, during his freak show days, that his disfigurement was due to elephants trampling his mother during her 4th month of pregnancy. Dr. Treves explains to him what his ailment really is and welcomes him into a normal, English life. Both Dr. Treves and John Merrick’s only worry is Merrick’s former “owner” who desperately wants him back in order to gain more money by presenting him as a freak. The acting was incredible in this movie. It made the story very believable, even when higher English society welcomed Merrick. Despite the fact that this film is used as a tool to over exaggerate the importance of human dignity, it is a decent display of the lesson that all souls are made in the image and likeness of God. It also displays the lesson to overcome one’s problems and not let such things hinder perfection well. John Merrick is portrayed as a man outside of himself. He did not play the victim to gain sympathy but over looked his sufferings in order to be a true man. The use of black and white film is a good touch as it takes away from any distractions that a colored movie might cause. It allows the audience to focus on the story line much better. I don’t know if that was the writer’s intentions but I think it helped in that regard. I recommend this film highly to anyone.

84 Charing Cross Road (1987)

Cast: Anne Bancroft (Helen Hanff), Anthony Hopkins (Frank Doel)

Director: David Hugh Jones

Genre: Drama




As a Sir Anthony Hopkins fan, this is one of my personal favorites. A movie that involves books and writing is enough to get me interested right away. It’s a true story based off the bestselling book about Helen Hanff (Anne Bancroft), an outspoken writer/ book enthusiast in New York City who orders some used books from a small bookshop in London owned by Frank Doel (Anthony Hopkins). The two end up creating a pen-pal friendship spanning several decades as they share their love of books and life stories. Though the movie sounds plain, it does have a creative story line. Many consider it a “slow” film since the only real plot involves Hanff’s attempts to fly to London and meet Doel and the other employees of his bookshop. If it weren’t for Bancroft’s character, this movie would have slumped big time. I was impressed how one character, portrayed well enough, could save a whole movie and make it worthwhile. As soon as I heard this movie involved reading and writing enthusiasts, I knew I would enjoy it before I even saw it. Other reading/ writing fans I’ve met seem to feel the same way about it. It seems that this is a film that has sadly ended up unknown and forgotten. It’s a very simple movie with nothing objectionable in it. You can really see a comparison between your typical American style of spunky enthusiasm and your typical British style of sophisticated and content, well mannered enthusiasm. Hopkins and Bancroft were perfect for those roles and acted off each other perfectly! I would recommend this flick to anyone! “Imagine! A whole country that says ‘ros-berries’.”

Barry Lyndon (1975)

Cast: Ryan O'Neal (Barry Lyndon), Marisa Berenson (Lady Lyndon), Patrick Magee (The Chevalier de Balibari)

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Genre: Drama


For a film that won 4 Oscars with another 10 wins and 11 nominations, I think this movie didn't add up to such praise. Adapted from the book Barry Lyndon by W. M. Thackery, this one is about a young Irish rogue who is driven by jealousy at the love between his cousin and her fiancé. He escapes to England when he kills her fiancé in a duel- or so he believes. In England, he wins the heart of a rich widow and takes up her dead husband’s financial position- all during 18th century aristocracy. The most notable but undesirable aspect about this film was its boring dryness due to the actors (Ryan O’ Neal and Marisa Berenson in particular) lack of any expression. O’ Neal does portray a snobbish, self important, aristocrat who is manipulative enough to always get his way very well. He deserts the British army to join a foreign army. He seduces a married woman during his tenure. Later, after he’s married, he constantly acts unfaithful towards his wife. His only enemy, it seems, is his oldest stepson who sees right through him- particularly because of Barry’s unfaithfulness to the boy’s mother. Lyndon’s false appearance seems to be a cover up for his snobbish and cowardly ways. Yet despite this excellent portrayal of such a character, O’ Neal doesn’t show any expression or emotion in the film. It’s as though the actor either isn’t trying very hard or is trying to prove that acting is merely second nature to him. The only real emotion and expression comes from Lyndon’s bitter stepson. I can’t see how such a film did so well. Perhaps it was the sophisticated setting of English aristocracy and the weird story line (or lack thereof as is common with W.M. Thackary’s books) that film critics considered it worthy of awards. Maybe it was merely because Stanley Kubrick directed it. To me, it seemed to have a mellow dramatic sense about it. It was dry!! Unless you read the book and what to see how the movie compares, I wouldn’t recommend this film. It included some weird, unfitting parts such as two obviously homosexual British officers bathing in a river and discussing their relationship. That just didn’t fit. It also included one or two scenes with partial nudity.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)

Cast: Laura Linney (Erin Bruner), Tom Wilkinson (Fr. Moore), Jennifer Carpenter (Emily Rose)

Director: Scott Derrickson

Genre: Drama/ Thriller/ Suspense


I was rather skeptical about this film before I saw it. I have to say I was greatly impressed and even surprised about how exorcism and demonic possession were portrayed as being real and not presented as mere ancient superstition. This film is based on a true case of demonic possession that turned tragic. Fr. Moore (Tom Wilkinson), the Catholic priest who performed the ritual of exorcism, was put on trial for negligent homicide for the death of Emily Rose as she died during her exorcism. The film was based during the court room proceedings with flash backs to the exorcism. His lawyer (Laura Linney) -a self-proclaimed agnostic- decides to represent Fr. Moore in his trail even though she is very skeptical of the existence of demons, possession, and God. As a sort of “story within a story”, she soon realizes that indeed demons exist whether she believe in them or not. She also learns that if demons exist, then God exists. This leads to her final apparent realization that it’s necessary to “serve God in fear and trembling.” The truth about exorcism, its reality, and the fact that the Catholic Church is the only institution on earth that can successfully drive out demons from people, were very well brought forth to the audience. This film had an overall message that suffering is a necessity for the sake of good. It demonstrated, as the real case did, that God can and does use evil, including the devil, for a greater good to come about. This movie certainly did not bash God for allowing suffering. The message on Emily’s tomb, shown at the end of the film, was a good conclusion to that truth. A lot of facts about supernatural activity, which take place more often than people realize, were also treated in the movie. Unlike the films counterpart, The Exorcist (1973), this film seemed much more like a documentary of exorcism despite its courtroom setting. The acting was well done and very realistic. I even enjoyed how the Methodist prosecuting attorney was portrayed in a bad light with his constant scoffing and criticizing of the idea that the devil can and does possess souls and that the Catholic Church has the power, instituted by Christ Himself, to cast out demons in His name. I would recommend this film very much but with caution about the intense frightening scenes of the exorcism ritual. The “horror” factor in this film lies mainly in the freakish way the possessed Emily Rose contorted her body in unnatural ways and how the demons manifested themselves. Otherwise, I think it’s safe to call this an informational film.

The Deceivers (1988)

Cast: Pierce Brosnan (William Savage) ; Saeed Jaffrey (Hussein); Helena Michell (Sarah Wilson)

Director: Nicholas Meyer

Genre: Action/ Drama/ True Story


Around 1825, a secret religious sect of worshippers of the Indian god Kali traveled around India, killing travelers by strangulation and then burying them in a ritual fashion. After the buried remains of a murdered British soldier are discovered, a tax collector of the British Indian Company named William Savage (Pierce Brosnan) disguises himself as a cult member and infiltrates the Kali secret sect in order to reveal who they are, what they do, and what they stand for. I found this film to be a very good rendition of the true events surrounding this once real religious cult in India. I liked the fact that in the film, there was no over emphasis on the murders which the cult was famous for. The story stuck well to Savage’s desires as an Indian in order to expose this secret cult of murders in order to carry out justice for his fellow British officer and what he had to endure while within the cult. It was interesting to see how Savage, an Anglican, struggled in conscience at the same time when under cover in the cult. His observations of how the pagan Kali rituals were similar to Anglican worship drove him to such a bad conscience. This acting was performed well by Brosnan. His weakness took the better of him and this twist played an excellent accompaniment to the overall plot. The cinematography was well done. The shots of the Indian countryside were beautiful. However, I didn’t like how Savage gave in so easily to his weaknesses. He did display an obvious inward struggle but, naturally, when one fault is committed, the next one is easier to commit. It seemed that he gave in more to appease his new Indian cult buddies rather than to remain under cover to carry out the justice he originally intended to do. This aspect got carried away when he cheated on his wife with a prostitute brought to him by cult members. The twist at the end was unexpected. The end may be considered “scandalous” but it was something very believable when one considers William Savage’s weakness and injured conscience throughout the story. Obviously, I was more intrigued by his inward religious/ conscience struggle than I was with his attempt at exposing the cult and seeking the justice he initially attempted to gain. It made the story much easier to relate to. I would definitely recommend this film with a word of caution regarding the scene with the prostitute as well as the violent murder scenes.