The Front Page (1974)

Cast: Jack Lemmon (Hildy Johnson), Walter Matthau (Walter Burns), Susan Sarandon (Peggy Grant), Vincent Gardenia ('Honest' Pete Hartman), Harold Gould (Mayor Herbie), Austin Pendleton (Earl Williams- the guilty, but insane), and Carol Burnett (Mollie Malloy)

Director: Billy Wilder

Genre: Comedy/ Drama

Before Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau were playing “Grumpy Old Men”, they were playing rough-as-nails journalists who kept on top of the big news despite the important things of life. They both were so natural for a film like this. The pace of the film was as hard and tough as the journalists themselves. The tension and emotions of the press office came right out of the screen. The film had a taste of Neil Simon perhaps due to the fact that both are often seen in his films. Lemmon and Matthau were perfect for the roles. The two, like all the other movies they did together, played so well off of each other. Matthau especially played the perfect, model reporter who was as gruff and hardcore as any serious news story a reporter like him could cover. The role suited him to the cuff! Lemmon was entertaining to watch and played more off of Matthau that he could have actually been a real reporter as well. With Lemmon, it was fitting that he played the retiring reporter. Susan Sarandon played a wonderful girlfriend to “retiring” Lemmon and, even most enjoyable, was Carol Burnett who played the ill-reputed Mollie Malloy. Hildy Johnson is the best reporter for the Chicago newspaper, the Examiner, during the roaring 20’s. He quickly realizes that he would be much happier married and has firmly decided to quit his job and marry his sweetheart, Peggy. This is bad news to his boss Walter Burns. Burns quickly decides to execute his own plans to get Johnson to stay with the paper for just a little while longer and cover the execution of the guilty (but insane) cop-killer, Earl Williams. Johnson refuses but, conveniently for Burns, Williams happens to escape prison at the same time. With this breaking news at hand, and with a snot-nosed, “piss and vinegar” college kid planted to take Johnson’s place, Johnson feels compelled to at least help with the story a bit “to do Burn’s a favor.” Nobody knows what is going to happen next as events unpredictably go in all directions- the Neil Simon feel. The film is a brilliant comedy and can be called nothing but a classic. Besides the superb casting, the dialogue was perfectly timely. It was well scripted so as to be another character. Matthau and Lemmon were so well together that they truly sit among the ranks of genius comedy duos like Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello, Martin and Lewis. This was not a silly sort of comedy but a matter-of-fact comedy that can only laughed at from an outside perspective. If the characters where looking at the situation from the audience perspective, they would be laughing to. This was the third adaptation of the play. All the sharp profanities set this film apart from the others. They came directly from the play and whether profinity bothers you or not, well...they're playing journalists after all. Atleast playing writers, the characters know how to use them.

The Queen (2006)

Cast: Helen Mirren (HM Queen Elizabeth II), Michael Sheen (Tony Blair), James Cromwell (Prince Philip), Alex Jennings (Prince Charles)

Director: Stephen Frears

Genre: Biography/ Drama



I was never much into the politics of the Royal Family, nor interested in the doings and ramblings of Princess Diana. U.S. politics are enough of a burden and a headache. Why should I get concerned what those “Brits” are doing across the Atlantic. Still, I became eager to see this film as soon as I heard about its release. When I finally saw it- luckily it was playing close by to me as this movie was only showing in selected theaters- I was not disappointed. The acting and cinematography were outstanding. The casting was just as great. The "Royal" politics depicted were very interesting and even more so was how various characters alluded to the conspiracy regarding the Royal family's involvement in Diana's death. The movie revolves around the Royal family's reaction or apparent lack thereof- particularly on the part of Queen Elizabeth- to the Princess Diana’s death in 1997. Tony Blair had just been elected the British Prime Minister and his first task is an unexpected one. The Princess is killed in a motor caravan, which had been flocked by paparazzi. He has to console a Britain that is both grieving a loss and angry at their Queen for remaining silent towards the whole situation. He tries as best he can to get the Queen to make a public statement showing her sympathy. The Queen on the other hand claims the best way to deal with the princess’s death is with silent mourning and dignity. She claims such as the wishes of Diana's family. The Queen's refusal to make a public appearance seems based mainly on her resentment of the Princess. She falls into a sort of "tug-o-war" with Blair on one side hoping for a statement and her own family and best interests for her grandkids on the other side encouraging her to remain silent. All the while, she tries to remain serious and dignified in both the public eye and the eyes of those around her. There is so much truth and mystery in this whole story. As far as I know, this film is quite accurate with regards to the situations presented. It seems that it wasn't acceptable that Princess Diana was involved with the Muslim millionaire Dodi Al- Fayed. The possibility that she could have married him and become pregnant with his children- heirs to the throne- was completely deplorable for the Windsor family. That Muslim children could have claims to the throne through their mother was intolerable and for good reason, too. Hence, the speculation arises that the Royal Family was involved with Diana's death. In the film, the Queen makes the claim more than once that Diana was “no longer a member of the royal family”. It never did make sense how paparazzi could cause such a fatal car crash in a tunnel. However, this is the story that was presented to the media. In the film, various subtle allusions are made regarding the Royal Family's involvement but it is left up to the audiences to decide. There is just one question that came to me at the end of the picture. What did the Queen herself think of this movie? Was she amused at all? All in all, excellent film!

Silent Movie (1976)

Cast: Mel Brooks (Mel Funn), Dom DeLuise (Dom Bell), Marty Feldman (Marty Eggs), Sid Caesar (Studio Chief)

Director: Mel Brooks

Genre: Comedy/ Slapstick


I don’t think there is any genre of movie that Mel Brooks has not slapped around and put in its place. He made fun of Westerns with Blazing Saddles, took shots at classic horror with Young Frankenstein, he went from light speed to “ludicrous speed” in the film Spaceballs taking on the haughtiness of the “ultimate” sci-fi film. He even took on what I call “60’s Bible flicks” with his History of the World, Part 1” and kicked those in the pants. He left no stone unturned, no matter how old a stone, with Silent Movie.
To think that people can be staunchly against bringing back old school filming methods, thinking them to be outdated and no good, are definitely brought to their knees by this film. The title states exactly what the film is- a silent movie. This was the first silent movie to be filmed since movies went to sound 40 years ago. The story line is simple but the acting and improvisation speaks wonders. Mel Funn, Dom Bell, and Marty Eggs have a movie script that's destined to be a huge success. The film is to be a silent movie and the key to its success is not only its silence, but its huge cast of big-name movie stars. The big-wig movie producer, played by Sid Caeser, doesn't like the idea at first but when he hears its cast of big name hotshots, he agrees the film will be a big success and bring in enough money to save his studio from falling into the hands of the studio creditors, Engulf and Devour. So Funn, Bell, and Eggs set off to search for the stars. Marty Feldman is the funniest of the three. His goofy looks, which he is famous for, adds so much humor to the film. Who needs sound when you have so much more that can only work when dialogue doesn't get in the way. The best scene was of course Funn's fall off the sober band wagon to briefly become the ''Lord of the winos". The cast of celebrities is very entertaining. This is a great movie to watch with others. In typical Brooks fashion, the film does contain a few scenes with lewd humor and content. Otherwise, what makes it great is that you can talk during the movie and not worry about missing an important line. The film only has one word of dialogue spoken by a very unlikely source.

Wag the Dog (1997)

Cast: Robert DeNiro (Conrad Bean), Dustin Hoffman (Stanley Motss), Ann Heche (Winifred Ames)

Director: Barry Levinson

Genre: Political Satire



Political movies are always the hardest to show the public with the expectation that the film will receive a decent amount of attention. I often think that political movies have a limited audience even though their writers are probably aiming for everyone as an audience. Wag the Dog is about the only political film I can think of that has received a deserved amount of attention (JFK doesn’t count). Of course, it had a lot of indirect help from the Clinton administration even though it had nothing to do with Clinton. What makes this film stand out, other than similarities between the scandal of the fictional president of the movie and the Monica Lewinski scandal of Bill Clinton, is the thought the movie leaves the audience at the end. If one part of the story can actually happen, as Mr. Clinton proved to us, then what about the other half? I can't imagine anyone reading this blog passage, whether they're politically oriented or not, not ever hearing about this movie. There are only eleven more days until the Presidential election and the President has been caught with his pants down-literally. He has been accused of sexual misbehavior with a teenage girl in the oval office. A top presidential advisor contacts a Hollywood producer to help create a fake war between the U.S. and Albania in order to distract voters through the media in order that the President can appear heroic than horny and win the election. The director and presidential advisors go all out and cover all bases in order to get the public eye off the President's picadillos and focus on his heroic achievements in the phony war. A handful of Presidential advisors and one Hollywood director take the entire U.S. for a ride.
The whole film gave new meaning to the words "conspiracy theory". I really liked the attention it gave to the purpose of media. Not only was it timely with Clinton’s scandal, but it showed just how much the media fuels the public, who in return, fuel the media. The portrayal of media influence is straight forward, scary, and drives the movie’s audiences to anger. (Here I recommend the book MultiMedia Unlimited by Todd Gitlin- a Journalism Professor at Columbia University). Aside from a few rough words, this film is highly recommended, especially for the political science student.

To Be or Not To Be (1983)

Cast: Mel Brooks (Dr. Frederick Bronski), Anne Bancroft (Anna Bronksi), Tim Matheson (Lt. Andre Sobinski), Charles Durning (Col. Erhardt)

Director: Alan Johnson

Genre: War/ Comedy


I am definitely not a fan of Mel Brooks. His humor is so raunchy, he gives bad name. Even Groucho Marx once said “Be clean and make people laugh, that’s a comedian.” However, after watching a part of Mel Brooks’ film To Be or Not To Be some months ago I enjoyed what little I saw and decided to watch the whole thing. I thought this film would be an exception to my Brooks movie bias. For one reason, it was based on Ernst Lubitsch’s 1942 classic. For another reason, Brooks’ late wife (my favorite actress) Anne Bancroft stared as his character’s wife. “Surely”, thought I, “he wouldn’t get gutter-dirty in the presence of his wife”. Whether this was the reason he kept the humor clean -for the most part- I don’t know. Nevertheless, it was a safe picture to watch when compared to his previous films. Brooks plays Frederick Bronski, a bad polish actor, who is merely minding his own business trying to make a living when World War II steps in and ruins everything. The Nazis make their way into Poland and, to top his troubles, his wife Anna has been fooling around with a young polish officer, Lt. Andre Sobinski (Tim Matheson), each time her husband is on stage performing Shakespeare’s Hamlet. When Sobinski is introduced to Prof. Siletski (Jose Ferrer), whom he rightly suspects to be working for the Nazis, he flies to England and reports to his superiors that during the Professor’s visit, he and other officers gave him the names and addresses of underground rebels- thinking the Prof. was on their side. A plan develops, involving Bronski and his wife, to retrieve those names and but it turns out to be a greater task than everyone thought. My main objection to the film was the character Sasha, Bronski’s servant. He is an obvious homosexual whose jokes take away the decency of the film. It was a rather tasteless act and was clearly used for the sake of arousing sympathy for homosexuals. If it wasn’t for him, the film would have been more enjoyable. One of the opening acts in the beginning of the film, “Naughty Nazis” (don’t let the term “naughty” frighten you) was extremely funny. Seeing Nazi officers do a short kick-line on stage with Mel Brooks dressed like Hitler singing how he only wants “peace” (i.e. a piece of Poland, a piece of France, etc…) was absolutely brilliant. It reminisces "Springtime for Hitler" in the Brooks' film The Producers. Such humor is typical of Brooks and was completely hysterical. I must give him credit for that! The most enjoyable character was Col. Erhardt (Charles Durning), the head of Gestapo. His German accent and fumbling “Nazi-isms” were amusing to watch.
Christopher Lloyd played a kiss-ass Gestapo officer who knew absolutely nothing other than his orders! To top all this off, the late and great Anne Bancroft was so brilliant and funny, fitting her role so well, that she had an Oscar Nomination for this film. I really liked her in this film. Though this is not what I would call a family film, I think the only people who would enjoy it are spoof fans and those who like to see history get kicked around somewhat. I give this one

On the Waterfront (1954)

Cast: Marlon Brando (Terry Malloy), Lee J. Cobb (Johnny Friendly), Karl Malden (Father Berry)

Director: Elia Kazan

Genre: Crime/ Drama/ Romance


It’s rare to find a film these days in which the realism is real. Marlon Brando is the only actor I’ve seen who has easily pulled off this feat on more than one occasion. On the Waterfront is just one example. Brando was such a natural at acting that he rarely, if ever, memorized his lines. Even while he was playing Vito Corleone in The Godfather, he had his lines posted over head, off camera and read them as they shot his scenes. That’s a natural talent, for sure. Marlon Brando’s unique gift is perfectly evident in this film. Ex-prize fighter, Terry Malloy, wishes he was still doing what he always loved to do-fight. In the mean time, he keeps himself busy tending his homing pigeons and running errands at the docks for Johnny Friendly- the shady boss of the Dock Workers Union. His life takes a raw turn when he witnesses the murder of Joey Doyle by two of Friendly’s henchmen. Keeping this secret to himself despite the sting of his conscience, he meets Joey’s sister Edie. This meeting rattles his conscience even more but doesn’t keep him from taken an interest in her. She introduces him to a priest, Fr. Barry, who is adamant in stopping the shady activities on the waterfront docks despite his own safety. Edie falls in love with Terry which, along with the influence of Fr. Barry, ultimately leads to the biggest act of Terry’s life. This movie is the epitome of classic film. The supporting cast of Lee J. Cobb as Johnny Friendly and Karl Malden work perfectly with each other. The shots of New York City are absolutely brilliant and the dialogue is well done- “I coulda been a contender.”
I’m willing to bet money that when Marlon Brando played Don Vito Corleone in the The Godfather, he thought back to his role as Terry Malloy as I saw a few minor similarities between the two characters. I certainly recommend this film. I suppose it could be loosely fall into the genre of sports films as the boxing plays an important element. Still, the movie really centers around Terry Malloy. Hollywood does not make them like this anymore. Brando is magnificent, realistic, and brilliant. The supporting actors are well cast and blend together nicely in this film.

The Man Who Would Be King (1975)

Cast: Sean Connery (Daniel Dravot), Michael Caine (Peachy Carnehan), Christopher Plummer (Rudyard Kipling), Saeed Jaffrey (Billy Fish)

Dircetor: John Houston

Genre: Adventure



This was a superb story adding comedy to reality in a not so expected way. In the end, this movie was not the least bit disappointing. Originally, John Huston wanted to cast Humphrey Bogart and Cary Grant as the two leading roles but due to uncontrollable circumstances (they both died and went to wherever), Houston cast Sean Connery and Michael Caine as the two leading roles. They both played off each other so perfectly that they could have paired up as a comedy team- similar to Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau but in a different caliber. To top this brilliancy, the whole bloody thing was directed by John Huston who has some big films under his belt (Maltese Falcon, Asphalt Jungle, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, and African Queen- to name a few). The story line is from the short story of the same title by Rudyard Kipling. Incidentally, Christopher Plummer plays Rudyard Kipling in the movie- another brilliant addition to the film and a favorite actor of mine.
Two ex-British soldiers in India, Daniel Dravot and Peachy Carnahan, take it upon themselves to leave India and travel to the far off land of Kafiristan in order to become kings of their own custom. They sign a contract between themselves with Kipling as their witness that they will not fail in their mission as Alexander the Great did not fail in his similar mission. Until they make Kafiristan theirs regime and destroy whatever enemies it may have, they will not so much as look upon a woman until they accomplish their goal.
Luck turns to their side as they travel through harsh conditions to reach this far off country. They win the favor of the natives quickly. Daniel is made a divine ruler due to his bravery and ability to fight off their enemies. They also earn the awe of the natives once they see one of the officer’s rifles. However, the high priest of the native god is not so certain of the two and tests Daniel’s “divine nature” by attempting to kill him.
While testing Daniel’s divinity, as luck would have it, the high priest catches a glimpse of the freemasonic emblem Daniel wears and recognizes it as the secret emblem of the god. This saves Daniel’s skin and is declared to be the long awaited son of their first divine king, Alexander the Great. As Daniel sits high and mighty on his throne, luck eventually turns on him when he chooses a wife. How life tends to repeat its habits!
This was a very entertaining flick; however, there are two scenes I found objectionable. When the two are offered gifts, the leader of the Kafiristan people offers his sons to the soldiers as an alternative to his daughters as gifts- if you catch my drift. When Peachy expresses his disgust for such an offer, Daniel rebukes him by saying their “culture must be respected.” Another seen shows the backside of a woman who tries to offer herself to Peachy. Thankfully, he refuses her in honor of the contract. Despite this, the film is well done and the cast is extremely enjoyable. The plot is easy to follow. The film almost seemed like a political satire of sorts but I will leave that up to the audience.

Therese (2005)

Cast: Lindsay Younce (Therese Martin), Leonardo DeFilippis (Louis Martin), Jen Nikolaisen (Celine Martin)

Director: Leonardo DeFilippis

Genre: Biography/ Drama/ Religious



Just because a movie about a saint should be made with respect and accuracy, doesn’t mean it has to be sappy. Movies about saints have been done before (i.e. Joan of Arc, Becket, A Man for All Seasons) and they were anything but sappy. Even The Ten Commandments wasn’t flaky! It was a little over dramatic, but what 60’s Bible flick wasn’t a little over dramatic. Why do a lot of Catholics think they need to make saint stories, or any kind of religious story, mushy with sentimental nonsense. Just because the life story of St. Therese of Lisieux is full of emotional events, doesn’t mean that DeFilippis needed to over exaggerate them to the point of writing such simple dialogue and irritating corniness. Based on the autobiography of St. Therese of Lisieux, The Story of a Soul, this movie accurately depicts the life of Therese Martin, from the death of her mother through her life in a Carmelite convent. Young Therese Martin struggled through her childhood to become a “little flower in the garden of God”. She realized that this would involve detachment from herself and more of a concern for others. Once she realized this calling, she wanted to follow her sisters by entering Carmel and living completely for Our Lord. Being 15 years old, she needed the Bishop’s permission to enter. Not satisfied with the Bishop’s refusal, her desire was strong enough that it led her to Rome where she was privileged to have an audience with Pope Leo XIII. Despite proper protocol, she asked the Pope for the permission her bishop failed to give. She learned truly valuable lessons in accomplishing God’s holy will and practicing true charity. The film, just like the Saint’s life and her writings, centers on her true love for God. It depicts well her efforts toward complete selflessness in order to belong entirely to Our Lord. A movie like this is a breath of fresh air in such a supposedly “reasonable” society. Particularly, it’s refreshing to see a film that portrays women (or a woman) in a true, feminine manner- acting the way God has made and intended for women to act. In other words, it totally contradicts the accursed ideas of modern feminism- a concept that destroys women and their femininity. Yet the film was way too sappy and overly emotional. This film seemed to depict St. Therese’s love for God in a more unrealistic, sentimental way rather than in the more straight forward way. At times it seemed that it needed was Bing Crosby singing some dopey song. The casting was all right. The acting was lousy. There was too much over emphasis on specific emotions. The dialogue was really simple and unbelievable. It made the film more of a children’s movie than a biographical depiction. Leonardo DeFilippis, the director, was the worst in his role as Louis Martin, Therese’s father. Ridiculous isn’t a good enough word to describe his acting. He may have had good intentions in making this movie and God bless him for it, but there was plenty of room for improvement. This movie had potential but it’s too-idealistic nature got in the way. Sure, it showed how Therese Martin had to deal with crosses in her life, but that didn’t make up for the fluff. Readers can certainly identify themselves with St. Therese after reading her book. Unless someone in the audience is so sentimental, that they forgot what the ground feels like under their feet, it’s hard relate to the Saint in this movie. All in all, the story line was well done, as was the accuracy in depicting St. Therese’s life. The acting, the dialogue, and the quality of the portrayals were in severe need of adjustments. It makes a good family movie and is obviously suitable for everyone.

An American Haunting (2005)

Cast: Donald Sutherland (John Bell), Sissy Spacek (Lucy Bell), James D'Arcy (Richard Powell), Rachel Hurd- Wood (Betsy Bell)

Director: Courtney Solomon

Genre: Thriller/ Mystery

I don’t know whether taking a perfectly well written ghost story and then completely ruining it can be called entertainment. I was drawn in right away with this ghost story- supposedly a true story- until they made it into “nothing that science can’t explain” propaganda. How American! The atheists in Hollywood weren’t fooling anyone here. First, they tell the audience that the events in the movie were based true occurrences. Ok! That’s kinda cool! But then, in a stupid effort at a twist of plot, they leave the audience with a lame explanation on how a spirit can kill a person despite such phenomenon as disembodied voices, a young girl levitating in mid air and getting viciously beat up by an invisible force in front of witnesses. Their lame explanation wasn’t worth the $7.50 I paid to see this massacre of a ghost story. The story is taken from a death account in 1818 that’s supposedly the only known case where a spirit was responsible for a death. A family member of the Bell family living in modern times discovers a manuscript by a teacher who had recorded strange events surrounding the Bell’s during the 1800’s. This takes us into the actual story. The Bell family of Tennessee find themselves suddenly tormented by a poltergeist immediately after Mr. Bell (Donald Sutherland) is taken to court on usury charges. The evil spirit seems to focus on the family’s youngest daughter, Betsy (Rachel Hurd- Wood). It manifests itself through strange voices, severe beatings, and other basic typical poltergeist activity. The family tries to search for logical explanations for this phenomenon but to no avail. It eventually turns out that the source of this haunting is from the person they least expect (how typical). The acting of both Donald Sutherland and Sissy Spacek (Lucy Bell) do not make up for the downhill plummet of this movie. If the writers wanted to keep a good thing going, they should have written a much more appropriate ending that was not mere propaganda. It could have been a good old- fashioned American ghost story. Instead, it turned out to be a good old- fashioned inadvertent bow to science story.
The special effects were good and the story grabbed your attention right away but that’s all that I can say about it. It also had more jump scenes than you could shake a stick at, if that’s your idea of a good time. I thought the acting went pretty well, especially on the part of Sutherland and Spacek. Was it scary? Well, it was in the long run despite the ending. All in all, it was just another attempt for the idiots in Hollywood to explain something they know nothing about.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1966)

Cast: Clint Eastwood (Blondie), Eli Wallach (Tuco), Lee Van Cleef (Angel Eyes- Sentenza)

Director: Sergio Leone

Genre: Western



This is another of my favorite Clint Eastwood flicks. A well-made and classic spaghetti western! It is the third of the series known as “The man with no name series” which includes A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More. This film fits into the large vault of classic Hollywood. Like its two preceding movies, the film surrounds the same characters during the Civil war. Blondie (Eastwood) is a bounty hunter who looks out for himself. He’s the character whose persona alone convinces the audience he is not to be messed with. In the TGtB&Tu, Eastwood is partnered with Tuco (Eli Wallach). Tuco is a bandito who only cares for one important person in his life- himself. Tuco, wanted by the law, collects the bounty on himself by having Blondie turn him in to the law only to help him escape. Blondie finally has enough of Tuco and decides to ditch his loud mouth partner. Tuco swears to himself he will get his revenge on Blondie; he does. Tuco forces Blondie through a hot desert without food, water, or shelter. As they venture forth, they come across a runaway wagon full of dead Confederate troops. Tuco thinking all the soldiers are dead, pockets through their belongings and finds one soldier, Bill Carson, still alive. Carson reveals the whereabouts of some hidden treasure buried in a cemetery. As Tuco rushes to fetch him some water, Blondie makes his way to the wagon. By the time Tuco returns, Carson is dead and Blondie was the last to speak to him. Tuco knows the name of the cemetery while Blondie knows the name on the tombstone. Neither man trusts the other. Little do they know that a third person, Angel Eyes has been searching for Bill Carson as well. He knows there is treasure to be discovered, but that’s all he knows. Angel Eyes finds out that both men know this valuable information and sets out to hunt them down. With each man knowing only an important detail regarding the treasure, it’s up to the sharpest and quickest bandito to get to it first. The only problem is each man needs another to find it. It is a very creative plot indeed and is well played out. Normally, I find most westerns to be stale, repetitive, and downright lame. This is anything but all that. It makes a good weekend movie to watch for pure adventure. Clint Eastwood is the awesome, real “tough guy.” He doesn’t need to blab on and on like John Wayne to convince audiences how bad he is. He just needs a camera on him and nothing more. Eli Wallach plays the part perfectly. The two make the perfect duo as they’re so opposite from each other. I haven’t grown bored with it yet. Its famous soundtrack is a serious bonus. The music adds to the nostalgia. This third one doesn’t seem to need the first two for it to make sense and be enjoyable.

The Sting (1972)

Cast: Paul Newman (Henry Gondorff), Robert Redford (Johnny Hooker), Charles Durning (Lt. Wm. Snyder)

Director: George Roy Hill

Genre: Drama/ Crime/ Comedy


There’s no way I could possibly improve upon The Sting. I don’t intend to try. My critiques, whether good or bad, are like tin to a king. It took a while for me to figure out what was going on but once the film really got under way, I picked up on the plot immediately. So, what is “the sting?” Well, the “sting” is the con! The big con!! This is a crime film with a small hint of comedy. This film is creativity at its best. It's so creative that it won 7 Oscars, 9 other movie awards and 6 nominations. Robert Redford, ever fitting his role like the pro he is, plays a young con-artist Johnny Hooker. Hooker pulls a swindle with his partner Luther (Robert Earl Jones), which they both assume is no different than the other con jobs they’ve done. Little do they know that the victim of their con is a courier for a numbers runner under the payroll of Doyle Lonigan (Robert Shaw)- a big shot Irish mobster. Soon after, Luther is found murdered in the alley behind his apartment. When Hooker hears the news of his partner’s death, he is determined to get revenge on Lonigan. He partners with Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman) to pull the biggest of all cons. It will take a lot of steam, effort, deception, and serious acting to keep the gig rolling. All that’s important is not to give themselves away. The only thing that could possibly blow their cover is police Lt. Snyder (Charles Durning). Snyder will stop at nothing to get his hands on Hooker and bring him to justice. Perhaps it’s the greatest sting in crime history. The story moves along smoothly and still pulls you in. It’s difficult to make out which situations are part of the job and which aren’t. It’s surprising to find out who’s working for who, and if something goes wrong… was it supposed to? Incredible film! Certainly worth a watch- so long as you keep in mind who the bad guys really are. It’s fairly family oriented save for some violence and a dance hall scene at the start of the film!

Doctor Zhivago (1965)

Cast: Omar Sharif (Dr. Yuri Zhivago), Julie Christie (Lara Antipova), Geraldine Chaplin (Tonya), Rod Steiger (Victor Komarovsky), Alec Guinness (Gen. Yevgraf Zhivago), Tom Courtenay (Pasha)

Director: David Lean

Genre: Drama/ Romance

This film is incomparable to any other I have seen so far. Everything about this masterpiece made it a work of pure talent and genius. The acting, the cinematography, the dialogue, and the casting all fitted together to make this a brilliant performance. It’s a love story told in history. The film begins as Gen. Yevgraf Zhivago (Alec Guiness) interrogates a young girl in the hopes of discovering whether she is the long lost child of Dr. Yuri Zhivago (Omar Sharif) and his mistress, Lara Antipova (Julie Christie). Set in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution, this love story seems to have an underlying tone of honesty, family, priority, and conscience. Lara is a beautiful seventeen year old who is completely unhappy as her fiancé starts getting caught up in the revolution. Her fear for her fiancé seems to weaken her and make her more vulnerable. Her older admirer, Pasha (Rod Steiger), must realize this as he begins to take advantage of her. After she fails an attempted murder on Pasha, who is married at this point, she flees to more rural areas of Russia. At the same time, Yuri Zhivago is saddened by the Bolshevik uprising and is forced to flee as well with his new wife Tonya (Geraldine Chaplin- daughter of Charlie Chaplin), child, and father-in-law. While fleeing, he is taken by troops and forced to doctor wounded soldiers. While doing so, he finds Lara as his nurse whom he recognizes from his own city during the primary stages of the uprising. After getting acquainted, the two part ways. Yuri travels to his family and Lara finds work elsewhere. Sometime later, they meet again unexpectedly. They fall in love and he fathers a child with her. They keep a secret relationship despite their marriages. It’s here that Yuri begins to struggle with his conscience. He tries to return to his wife, trekking a long journey to find her. In the long run, he loses his wife as she and their child fled Russia while he was seeing Lara. He also loses track of Lara as well, not realizing he has had a daughter with her. Finally, his infidelity causes him to lose everything he has. This film displays many artistic traits that play well together in order to present important morals and values. Such morals and values mainly involve fidelity and family. Such a portrayal is rare in films these days. I could be wrong but it seemed that Yuri’s depression only led to self-indulgence. It was as though he figured with all the horrors and hardships he had to undergo, he owed it to himself to grasp for happiness in whatever form he could get it. In the mean time, I highly recommend this film. It’s brilliant and highly entertaining. It has one of the greatest soundtracks produced that rank in the levels of great sound tracks such as The Godfather, Star Wars, and Pee-Wee's Big Adventure! It’s a love story in the middle of war. How fitting!

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

Cast: Johnny Depp (Willy Wonka), Freddie Highmore (Charlie Bucket), David Kelly (Grandpa Joe)

Director: Tim Burton

Genre: Family


Hollywood has deeply submerged itself into the not-so-competitive market of film remakes causing audiences to thirst all the more for half-way enjoyable cinematic adventures. It’s nothing more than a feeble attempt to remake the classic children’s film Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. This one has a slightly darker tone common with Tim Burton films. There was more to dislike about this film than there was to enjoy. Firstly, I thought Wonka had a sort of weird resemblance to Michael Jackson. He was creepier in a whimsical way than he was mysterious and actually enjoyable like Gene Wilder’s Wonka. Gene Wilder seemed like a Wonka who took his talent seriously but didn't let it get in the way of being human. He was a Wonka who made candy because it made people happy. Depp just seemed like a Wonka who simply had an issue with his father and was in serious need of therapy. I didn’t care much for the initial setting. It looked like industrial age England set in modern times. It didn’t add any sort of realism to the film. This particular element was horrible when compared to the original film. The fantasy in the original film was completely inside the factory while in the newer version the whole thing is fantastical. Sure, the world outside the factory is “real” but it’s displayed in a more storybook manner. It all seemed completely devoid of sense. The new version was a lame attempt at giving the older film a new look to suit today’s audiences. The music itself was horrible, excluding Roald Dahl’s lyrics from his book. One thing specifically I noticed was that Burton’s film had put realism into the fantasy (i.e. the great glass elevator) and tried to make anything fantastical, real. It was a different perspective of a film I enjoyed a lot as a child- nothing more. The chocolate itself is the main purpose of the film. I was more repulsed by seeing all the chocolate and candy in this film than I was with the original film. The older version was certainly more enticing. The children in this film over emphasized their particular faults- gluttony, avarice, pride, and sloth. Perhaps this was done purposely since the modern child-audience just wouldn’t be able to catch it. Charlie (Freddie Highmore) was terribly portrayed. He spoke in the same, soft monotone manner throughout the picture. His lame smiles were completely put on. In the older version, though those kids seemed slightly over the top (well, at least Veruca Salt), they were very convincing. The children in this latest edition over played their parts. Ok, so this film may have been more faithful to the book itself. That doesn’t help the film any. It was a good effort in trying to make some fraction of this film enjoyable. There were some jokes I found amusing and even worth laughing at. The relatively new puppet hospital and burn center was rather humorous. All in all, the film was gasping for help. It was nothing more than another of Hollywood’s lame attempts to remake a film that never needed improvement in the first place. Why doesn’t Hollywood remake some of the bad films from the past? That would certainly make more sense and maybe they might redeem themselves in areas where they failed miserably! The original was classic. This one turned into Pee Wee's Playhouse right as Depp stepped into camera. Watch the original instead!