Braveheart (1995)

Braveheart (1995) ★★★★★ 4/5

Huge issues here. Issues so big they completely take away from the movie. The issues I have with Braveheart are the same issues I had with Gunfight At The OK Corral.

Braveheart is a film about a historical figure. The figure being held tribute to is William Wallace. Wallace, played by - as well as directed by - Mel Gibson, was a Scottish rebel who launched campaigns to overtake England's King Edward (Patrick McGoohan) and his reign of Scotland by England. The film is set in the 1300s and does a wonderful job of portraying a feudal society where Nobles lease land to peasants and farmers in exchange for their protection. The system has major societal issues and are examined in the film. Among these issues are the abuse of power. Sadly, the film made up laws enforced that never really existed. The law in question here is one that gave nobles the right to sleep with a bride on the night of her wedding. Not true. Didn't happen.

Not only is this not true, but the vast majority of the film is a bevy of fabrications. Edward II's (Peter Hanly) wife Isabella (Sophie Marceau) has several meetings and an affair with Wallace. The truth is Isabella never met Wallace, let alone slept with him. The revolution against England didn't start because a noble executed Wallace's secret wife (Catherine McCormack). But above all the falsifications the worst is the actual name of the movie, referring to Wallace as Braveheart. In fact, the nickname of Braveheart was given to Robert the Bruce (Ian Bannen). It's all very bizarre.

The movie is well done and it is very enthralling and gripping - until of course you look into the truth of the film further. According to Mel Gibson storylines were changed to make the film more compelling. I find this highly offensive as a movie goer. If I am watching a movie about a historical event, I demand accuracy. If someone is going to blotch the script up so much that it has no relevance to accuracy, then reevaluate the entire film. Why not make up a new set to the story. Make up new characters. I absolutely despise and loathe films that alter historical facts.

Had it not been for this, I would have easily gone 5 stars on the movie. This knocks it down to 4 - almost 3. The cinematography is breathtaking. The editing has some flaws if you are watching the film closely. The only reason I mention this is because the the film was nominated for an Academy Award for editing. It did not win and those minor flaws, probably unnoticeable by the untrained eye, probably cost it that award. But it did win a slew of others including Best Picture.

Yes, it is a compelling and emotionally charged movie. It captivates you and enthralls you. But if you really want to enjoy this movie, don't ever bother to ind out what really happened in the life of King Edward, King Edward II and William Wallace. The truth is a much better story and knowing this will make the movie disappointing.

Network (1976)

Network (1976) ★★★★★ 5/5

In this film there are four major television networks; NBC, ABC, CBS and UBS. Clearly this is before the days of cable, television and satellites. When the film opens, the viewer is "overloaded" with information from the networks. The screen is filled with four television sets to represent each of the networks broadcasts.

UBS' top news anchor is Howard Beale (Peter Finch) and is baout to be fired by his boss, Max Schumacher (William Holden) as a result of failing ratings. Beale is given a two weeks notice and on his next broadcast he reveals to the public his plan to committ suicide on air at the end of the two weeks. He is immediately fired. However when ratings skyrocket the next night because all the other news netwroks are covering the story, Max gets him back on air so he can apologize and bid the public farewell in an appropriate manner. Beale comes back on air and rants and raves about everything being "bullshit." Again, ratings go up. His third night on air during his final two weeks is the big "I'm mad as hell speech." Perhaps one of the most famous fits in the history of film. Beale defies everything about 1970's network news and rants and raves.

Diana Christensen (Faye Dunaway) sees nothing but dollar signs and ratings in this fit and talks her boss, Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall) into giving Beale his own show. His show essentially becomes what would today be nothing more then a Fox News or CNN ranter. Perhaps a Glen Beck or Nancy Grace so to speak. The whole point of the show is for Beale to speak his mind, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. His viewpoints however, completely ungrounded and not thought out, interferre with the business of international loans, debts, and money exchanges. Over time, his rants cause problems with the network financially in more ways then one. Ratings fall and Christensen can't have that. Ultimately, the only way to bring ratings back up and to get rid of Beale is to kill him...on air. This is done with members of a political opposition group who is about to be given their own show. This stint would be the perfect tie in to that show and a great way to get the largest share of viewers.

The movie is well written and extremely ahead of it's time. When you watch it, you have to remember the concepts were somewhat foreign at the time. People didn't speak their mind on the news. Perhaps this was an introduction to real networks using personal viewpoints as the basis to their shows. Was UBS an inspiration to FOX becoming the 4th network with shocking, controversial material to get viewers. Watching this movie today is probably more interesting now because you can see the impact it had on the industry. In 1976, the ideas in the film were probably quite comical and extreme. There are several references to the current culture of the 70's - particularily other shows on air and the Patty Hearst headline. Which was followed by their version of the story with the heiress being named Mary Ann Gifford (Kathy Cronkite).

The only part of the movie I didn't like was when Max left his wife (Beatrice Straight) to start a love affair with Christensen. It was a relationship you knew wouldn't last or work. It slowed the movie down. I think maybe it was just to show Christensen as being cold and heartless and to exemplify how all she cared about was ratings. It seemed like pointless filler, but it did provide Beatrice Straight 5 minutes and 40 seconds to be in the film as Max's wife.

Academy Awards wise, this film has some interesting records. This is the only film that won 3/4 awards for the acting category: Peter Finch as Best Actor, Faye Dunaway as Best Actress and Beatrice Straight as Best Supporting Actress. Straight had the shortest amount screentime for an Oscar performance. Finch was the first to win the award posthumously.

The Nutty Professor (1963)

The Nutty Professor (1963) ★★★★★ 4/5

In watching this I was not anticipating much as I had seen Eddie Murphy's 1996 version of The Nutty Professor. I am not a fan of screwball comedies. Especially those of modern film where the humor is forced, exaggerated and primarily based on insults and crass humor. As I viewer, I require more substantial plots, humor and comedy. Jerry Lewis created a comical masterpiece with this film. I was disappointed when I read that Lewis produced the 1996 version and the 2000 sequel to that. That disappoint turned to relief when I further read that Lewis regretted his participation in those films. His disappointment and regret came from the crass humor Murphy used to get laughs.

This film is a fine example of how comedians could tactfully evoke humor without stooping to low gags and cheap one liners. This film brilliantly portrays Professor Julius Kelp (Lewis) failing in every way as a Professor. He blows up classrooms, has no respect from other administrators and is bullied by his students. The last straw is when a student throws him into a cabinet in front of the entire classroom and he is rescued by a beautiful student Stella Purdy (Stella Stevens). It's time for a change and he decides to take up going to the gym. Not getting the results he wants, he creates a serum to help him gain confidence. The results are far more then he could have imagined. Not only is he confident, but he is dashingly handsome, smooth talking and an instant social success. But there are side effects. His new alter ego, Buddy as he goes by, is cocky, arrogant and egotistical.

On his first night out as Buddy, he dazzles club goers with a stint at the piano crooning "That Old Black Magic." He gives a lesson in etiquette to a bartender and teaches him how to make a new drink. He keeps the boys in line and the women in awe, particularly Stella. With his smooth talking, he gets her to take him to a make out destination where he completely offends Stella with his arrogant, sexist attitude and expectations for her to provide some action. Being a complete sweet talker, he turns everything around and lays the romance on her. She is swooned and helplessly in love. As the connection between the two becomes strong, Buddy's voice begins to change. Instantly he goes from a smooth talker to the nerdy Professor. Before Stella can fully understand what his happening, Buddy disappears. Stella is left stunned, thinking only of Buddy. Upon seeing him in class as the nerdy professor, she does not connect, nor does anybody for that matter, that these two completely different men are really one in the same.

Eventually the dual roles catch up with him and he learns a valuable lesson about liking who you are. Stella reveals she always liked him or he was and order is restored as is romance.

What does conuse me about this movie, and maybe it was explained and I missed it, is where this takes place. It seems to be a University as the teachers are all professors and doctors. But then they have a senior prom implying it is high school. Which o course raises questions as to the teacher/student relationship. Other then this irritating act, the ilm is enjoyable. The transormation from geeky professor to swingin' ladies man is well done. Unlike it's 90's counterparts this film is fresh and the comedy is based on the plot rather then unneccessary crass jokes or one liners.

Black Narcissus (1947)

Black Narcissus (1947) ★★★★★ 5/5

Far up in the most remote mountaintops of the Himalayas sits a run down temple. This temple soon becomes a convent of nuns brought in to teach and heal the poor people of the nearby Indian villages. The convent is run by Sister Superior Clodagh (Deborah Kerr) who is young and inexperienced. Her first obstacle is making the place operational. Locks are missing, the plumbing is bad, and the water is causing sickness. Her second obstacle is that she has discovered the people coming to the convent are being paid to do so. There is no interest by the people coming to the temple to learn or grow. They just want to be paid. Yet another obstacle is that these people are superstitious and there is a fear that if a sick person were to die under their care, the rest of them would see the place as cursed and leave immediately.

British agent Mr. Dean (David Farrar) is an ambassador of sorts who lives in the convent and in a sense oversees the nuns. He offers his services which include repairs and advice. The advice often delivered with a tone found offensive to the nuns. Mr. Dean also brings them Kanchi (Jean Simmons). Kanchi is a local problem girl. She is 17 and at the age where she should be married off. She speaks no English and is a little too sexy for the nuns liking. A Young Indian Prince (Sabu) comes to the Convent and pleads for the nuns to take him in and educate him. Dean fears that there may be issues with Kanchi and the Prince.

The Prince does indeed catch the eye of Kanchi, who seductively gazes at him and indulges in his scent. His scent is a cologne from England called "Black Narcissus." Narcissus is a species of plants which includes Amaryllis and Daffodils. The smell does not only affect Kanchi, but it also takes hold of Sister Superior Clodagh who begins to reminisce of her days before taking to the habit. Apparently in 1949 these scenes were considered inappropriate by the Catholic Legion of Decency and were removed for the film's showing in the United States. While they seem completely harmless, I would imagine at the time this was released the Catholic Church did not feel it appropriate to see nuns as anything other then spiritual and holy. My guess is that they did not a nun to be perceived as a typical woman longing for romance, jewels, and wealth. In remembering her past, Sister Superior Clodagh seems to miss some aspects of her previous life.
The memories are generally triggered by Mr. Dean and the Prince.

But Clodagh is not alone. The other sisters become swayed in their thinking. They begin to long for other things in life. They become confused about what they want and what they are there for. With clouded judgement, one begins to have impure thoughts about Mr. Dean, another requests a transfer thinking the place is having a negative impact on her thoughts, others lose their compassion, and one sister kills a sickly newborn baby to prevent him from a slow death. The death of the child was also the death of the convent. The villagers fled the convent and abandoned the nuns.

Sister Ruth (Kathleen Byron) eventually snaps. She defies the sisterhood by failing to renew her vows, then donning a somewhat sexy red dress, applying make up and hunting Mr. Dean down to confess her love. She sees red and blacks out in a crazed frenzy. When she awakens Dean sends her back to the convent and she attempts to murder Sister Superior Clodagh. It is a brilliant and suspenseful scene - the pinnacle of the movie.

Black Narcissus won 2 Academy Awards. One for Cinematography and one for Art Direction. That was no surprise as the landscapes shot in both the Himalayas and Ireland are of sweeping landscapes. There is a stark contrast between the two and each is beautiful in their own way. The imagery is bright and bold throughout the film and colors are used extensively through murals on the temple walls and clothing of the Indian people.

The film is worthy of the list and should be watched. It is suspenseful and dramatic. The musical score carries the plots and changes quite well. The dynamics between the nuns and the changes they go through is exciting. Initially I was not expecting much from the film. Seriously, how entertaining could a movie about some nuns be. But this is far more then a movie about nuns. It is about how these women deal with and respond to their environment and their suppressed desires. The breakdown of Sister Ruth is climatic and clearly an influential scene in the development of film as far as portraying and conveying a mental collapse. The film transcends from a film about nuns to a film about one woman's insanity. Everything changes in the film at that point. The angles from which the film is shot to the colors, sounds and music. Tension is heightened flawlessly. For this scene alone it is worth watching, but you should watch it as a whole of course to fully capture the emotion.

The Apartment (1960)

The Apartment (1960) ★★★★★ 5/5

Absolutely love this movie. It is one I have seen before and was thrilled to find it as an upcoming movie on the DVR. Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine make a dynamite onscreen duo in this fantastic film. Lemmon plays C. C. Baxter, an corporate employee of an insurance company who makes his way up the corporate ladder by loaning his apartment to senior executives who use the pad to carry on affairs with their mistresses. When he is given the promotion, he finds out his boss, Mr. Sheldrake (Fred MacMurray), is wanting to take advantage of the apartment himself. The first day of the promotion, Baxter plans to go home and sleep off a cold. But instead, Sheldrake gives him tickets to see "The Music Man," so Baxter tries to take advantage of it by asking out the cute elevator girl, Fran Kubelik (MacLaine).


Although the story is quite complex as to the dynamics and relationships between the characters, the setup makes it easy to follow along and anticipate what will happen before it actually occurs. The audience knows before it even happens that Kubelik won't show up for the date. They also know that the girl that Sheldrake is going to meet is going to be Kubelik. In spite o the predictability, the film holds up amazingly because they seem to be setting the viewer up for the character's emotional reactions rather then the actual event happening.

The characters in this film are so likable, yet at the same time so vulnerable that you want to reach into the screen, shake them and tell them what to do. It is an interesting take on married business men and one that has been examined in film so often that it seems as if in 1959 that the notion of having a mistress was nothing out of the ordinary. They have a boys club. They have their mistresses and work very hard at scheduling in their affairs and congratulate each other on their conquests. The workplace in the film was so sexually charged. There is ass slapping, there are secretaries who are love interests and there are no female employees with high paying positions. Kubelik and her relationship with Sheldrake is so stereotypical, but at the same time still common in media and news stories today. The married man sleeping with a young, beautiful woman, but constantly telling her that he loves her and is going to leave his wife. He strings her along and in doing so MacLaine gracefully conveys what effect that has on a woman. Her vulnerability leads her to a suicide attempt. It leads to loneliness, self pity, self loathing, self depreciation and confusion. We see the whole thing played out and it plays out brilliantly in her face alone.

Lemmon as Baxter shows the same emotion and same vulnerability. He unwillingly loans his apartment out to the unfaithful executives. He is forced to sleep outside, stay at work late, and wander the streets because his home is in use. However, he can't build up the courage to say no because he needs his job. When he makes the connect that Kubelik and Sheldrake are having an affair, we see how hurt and alone he is. When he finds Kubelik overdosed in his bed on Christmas Eve, he takes the blame for that - as he did with constant noise complaints his tenants would make. He is a martyr of sorts for the boys club and you just want to grab hold of him and tell him to stop.

By the film's close, Baxter and Kubelik both make personal changes. These changes help make the movie even stronger. There is nothing more satisfying in a film then when the main characters overcome adversity and there is an evolution as to who they become. As the film ends, and the couple play gin on New Year's Eve, there is a solid sense of closure and a rewarding feeling that the main characters did stand up to their biggest challenges. For Baxter is was reclaiming his apartment. For Kubelik it was accepting that she did not have to settle for a married man who used women.

An excellent film and a deserving winner of the 1961 Oscar for Best Picture. Shot in black and white, the film is timeless. Great movie! And keep an eye out for a very young, and very nice looking Ray Walston.

Duck Soup (1933)

Duck Soup (1933) ★★★★★ 4/5

Duck Soup starts immediately with an extremely current topic. The government of the fictitious Fredonia has gone Bankrupt and is looking for funding from alternative sources. In this instance, the extremely wealthy Mrs. Teasdale (Margaret Dumont) plans to donate millions of dollars, but only if the current leader steps down and allows the country to be run by Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho Marx).

The leaders of Fredonia agree that the present leader should step down and soon Firefly, along with his assistant Bob Roland (Zeppo Marx), is heading the country. While the budget issue is resolved, there is a new threat of war from a neighboring country of Sylvanian lead by Trentino (Louis Calhern). In an effort to gain the upper hand as the threat of war approaches, Trentino hires two spies. These spies, Chicolini (Chico Marx) and Pinky (Harpo Marx) are completely incompetent. Eventually they become associates of Firefly and when battle ensues, they help Firefly win the war.

The plot of this movie is nothing more then a stage for the Marx Brothers to use witty dialogue and fast paced gags. The movie is quick. Constant movement and play on words comprise the bulk of the movie. It's a film you can't look away from because you might miss something. Chances are even if you are watching you will miss something. One liners delivered through the film are play on words that in some cases are so subtle that you might not get them until after they have been slung. Poor enunciation of several words is used to further bring along dialect unexpected. Many times I was actually throw back as to how sexual in nature some of the comments were. While today, sexual dialogue in movies is nothing new, the implied meanings of some of the lines seem quite bold for 1933. Clearly, this film was years ahead of it's time in the medium of film.

Physically, the comedy is a combination of what the Marx Brothers learned in their Vaudeville days with a new twist as a result of editing. Smooth choreography and constant motion allow for antics to be performed throughout the film. Chico Marx and Harpo Marx work well together in scenes where they antagonize a third part. There are two scenes in particular here. One involving their report to Trentino on Firefly's activities. Another involving a lemonaid salesman
(Edgar Kennedy) who the duo annoy beyond belief. Amazingly, Harpo Marx does it without speaking a work . . . or even blinking. Halfway through the film I realized Harpo Marx never blinked. I then became fixed on trying to find a moment where he blinks. I failed to find that.

There are subtle things throughout the film which help to make it a classic in the sense that you will never see the same film twice. Everytime you watch it you will pick up on something new. Whether it be a missed one liner, a subtle physical movement or the references. Throughout the film, the music used comes from other sources. It is a primitive form of sampling and for those of you who know music well, you should be paying attention to what is playing in the background during different scenes. The music picked correlates to the scene. Another thing you may notice the second time around is the costume changes. This holds particularily true in the war scene. I also couldn't help noticing how fit Zeppo Marx was.

Of course the most famous scene in the movie is the mirror scene. In this scene, a giant mirror is broken. This happens while Groucho Marx chases Harpo Marx. In having no place to hide, Harpo Marx goes on the opposite side of where the mirror would have been and mimicks Groucho Marx move for move. A very well done and entertaining scene.

The influences of this movie can be seen even in comedies of today. Whether it is playing music related to a scene, editing in/out props, slapstick, one liners, gags, or whatever, this movie really did have an impact. Let's not forget that each of them played a character and stayed true to that character from film to film, and even from film to television. While true it is not a great movie in terms of story, it is a fine exmple of why the Marx Brothers were such a powerful force in entertainment from the 20's to the 70's. This movie solidifies their existence as major stars. Every movie buff and pop culture junkie knows who these brothers are. Admittedly, if it wasn't for this book, I probably never would have seen this movie. I am glad I did because it helps to see why the Marx Brothers are held in such high regard. You must see this movie to appreciate how the Brothers transformed from Vaudville to Film, as well as how comedy was intially presented in the medium.

Return of the Jedi (1983)

Return of the Jedi (1983) ★★★★★ 3/5

Once my favorite of the original trilogy, it has been removed of that title. Not by time, but rather by George Lucas himself. Because of his meddling in the film over time, it has completely ruined it. While in music it is a fairly common practice to remix and revise songs as time progresses, this practice does not hold true for movies. Upon their creation and release, the audience has the choice to either embrace it or disregard it. When Return of the Jedi was released, I embraced it. Now, I disregard it because of revisions made to the movie.

Over the course of time, George Lucas has altered the film repeatedly. Whether it be sharpening the imagery, adding effects, or worst of all completely altering scenes, his actions after initial release have ruined everything about the film.

The story is that of Han Solo's (Harrison Ford) rescue from Jabba The Hut. The entire cast reunites in the beginning of the film for an epic battle involving beasts, bounty hunters and odd creatures. However so much has changed. There is a ridiculous dance/music number by Sy Sootles and a bunch of other superimposed new characters. There are wide panning shots in the exterior with herds of mythical creatures. The shot looks so incredible animated and fake to begin with it doesn't even belong in a film. It looks like it should be in a video game. The Sarlac Pit where Solo and Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) are sentenced to die is a bizarre pink color and suddenly has a head that looks like it was borrowed from Little Shop of Horrors. I had no idea what I was watching.

With the help of C3-PO, R2-D2 and Chewbacca, Solo, Skywalker, Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) and Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams) are saved. The group teams with the Rebel alliance to help destroy the newest Death Star being built. The main action occurs on the Ewok's planet Endor. On the ground, Solo, Leia, the driods and Chewbacca work with the Ewoks to battle Imperial troops on the ground in a effort to disarm the protective shields around the Death Star. In air, Calrissian and the Rebels attack the Death Star. Meanwhile Skywalker is on the Death Star battling his Father Darth Vader (James Earl Jones & David Prowse) as the Emperor (Ian McDiarmid) cheers for the Dark Side of the Force.

In the overall experience of the full 6 part series, Return of the Jedi does a wonderful job of closing the story line. The first 3 films in the series (which actually follow the release of Return of the Jedi) really do a nice job of tying in the characters and bringing us to the point where we see Palpatine go from a corrupt Senator to an evil Emperor. If this movie would have been left in it's original state and not tampered with, I would have easily given it 5 stars. There is too much damage done though and the film does not allow viewers to savor the originality of the film. Furthermore, the final scene has been altered to the point where it can not be fixed. As the Rebels celebrate, a ghostly image of Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness), Yoda (Frank Oz) and Anakin Skywalker (Sebastian Shaw) smile onward. It is a beautiful conclusion and all is well. Or is it? In the new version of the film, Anakin is shown in his younger years as played by Hayden Christensen in the recent prequels. He doesn't fit at all. It looks awkward in every way possible. This alteration made me feel sick. It completely ruined a fine and tender moment in the trilogy. Horrid.

George Lucas has cheapened and ruined his film. His alterations do far more damage then good and I can only hope that no other director or producer decides to go back and take such liberties with other films. Complete disgrace!