Full Metal Jacket (1987)

Full Metal Jacket (1987) ★★★★★ 5/5


This is the first time watching this movie for me and upon reading over the case to the movie I found myself immediately resistant to it. Not because of the content involving the Vietnam War, but because of one of the actors starring in the film. Vincent D'Onofrio, best known for his role as Detective Goren on Law & Order: Criminal Intent. In my opinion he is one of the worst actors to ever appear on television. I cringe with every line he delivers and he annoys me so greatly that I can not even watch 5 minutes of the show. Seeing him as a main actor in this film immediately made it a challenge for me to even put in the DVD player.

I love the opening of the film. The Marine recruits are getting their heads shaved as Johnnie Wright's "Hello Vietnam" plays in the background. I love it when a film opens with a song that is reflective of the time being addressed. I think this type of opening establishes the time, setting and mood of a film better then any other introduction. Immediately, we are thrown into the training of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman's (R. Lee Ermey) recruits. Private Leonard Lawrence (D'Onofrio) is immediately singles out by Hartman and given the nickname Gomer Pyle. He is driven harder and treated more cruelly then any of the other recruits. Private James T. "Joker" Davis (Matthew Modine) is assigned to mentor and train Lawrence. Lawrence seems to improve in his military skills, however he gets caught with a jelly doughnut in his footlocker. Enraged by this, Hartman decides to punish every member of his platoon whenever Lawrence makes a mistake. As retaliation, the platoon beats Lawrence with bars of soaps wrapped in their pillow cases one night. Lawrence noticeably changes. He becomes isolated. He doesn't recite chants. He talks to his gun like it's a friend. Davis becomes worried. Before you know it, Lawrence snaps. In a suicide murder, D'Onofrio delivers an amazing performance.

In his short time on scree, D'Onofrio manages to completely defy everything I had once thought of him. His character goes through such amazing transformation. From a giddy, insecure private who clearly doesn't belong and raises empathy from the viewer to a growling, menacing murder. The performance is movie gold. Sadly, it does not make me like anything about his performance on Law & Order: Criminal Intent, but now I may at least be able to acknowledge that his acting is not reflective of his abilities, more more so of a poorly written character.

Following the death of Lawrence, we are taken directly into Vietnam where Joker is now a Corporal. He has become a journalist of sorts and travels through the country gathering stories. Private Rafterman (Kevyn Major Howard) is assigned to assist Joker and travels with him as a photographer. The two come across the realities of the war. Joker takes interest in the slaughter of civilians. Footage of war is shot. Commentaries by the soldiers are recorded. Journalism soon turns into combat and the platoon finds themselves ambushed by a single sniper who begins to take the men out one by one. After nearly killing Joker, the sniper is shot, but not killed. The surviving members of the platoon gather round and Joker kills her to put an end to her suffering. At that moment, he no longer has any insecurity about his existence as a Marine. The film ends with the army marching onward singing the theme song to "The Micky Mouse Club."

Initially I had not seen this movie because it was a war movie. I have nothing against the visuals or war movies. I had always had the preconceived notion that there was little difference from one war movie to the other. Two sides fight, they cope with their loses and celebrate their wins. How much different could they be from one film to the other with the exception of the year it took place and the color of the uniform. This movie is much more then that. While it takes place during a war, it goes beyond the war. The film portrays the mindset of American soldiers in one of the most controversial wars in American history. The views of the soldiers further prove that the men serving there didn't have any idea what they were fighting for other then to win. It also serves as a character analysis of Joker. He conveys the dual nature of man through his dress and his actions. He wears a peace button while his helmet reads "Born to Kill." He is there to fight, yet is clearly disgusted by death. In the scene, when Joker kills the sniper, he stares at her as "Born to Kill" prominently fills the screen. It is a deep message. Is that the moment for which he was born? Was that the kill he was born for?

Oh, let's not forget that this film also gave us these classic lines:
"What is your major malfunction?"
"Me so horny. Me love you long time."

Adam's Rib (1949)

Adam's Rib (1949) ★★★★★ 4/5

Amanda Bonner (Katharine Hepburn) and Adam Bonner (Spencer Tracy) are a husband and wife team who find themselves on opposing sides in a trial where a woman (Judy Holliday) has shot her adulterer husband (Tom Ewell). Amanda takes interest in the case when she reads about it in the paper and feels that the woman is being treated as a criminal while if it had been a man in her position the woman would still have been viewed as the criminal. Adam is a prosecutor and the case lands on his desk. It is his job to prove her guilty.

The movie starts off fast paced and fun. The two are seen at home, happy and in love. They have an ideal marriage and are quite happy in their lives. Their playful banter transcends time and is very easy to relate to even 70 years after the film's release. Even the themes of the movie hold relevant 70 years later. Equality between men and women has not changed all that much when it comes down to how each sex is perceived. While there have been changes in women's roles in voting, politics, work and so on, double standards still exist.

When watching the film however, some differences between 1949 and 2012 are nearly forgotten. Hepburn is well known for her feminist position in life. She was an avid sportsman (or sportswoman) and this is touched on in the film. She advocated woman's rights and demonstrated that women could do anything. In this case, she demonstrated that women could also hold prominent positions in the working world. During one scene in the courtroom, she brings other women on the stand to further prove the prominence of women. One was a renowned scientist, another a circus performer with the strength of a man, and a third with multiple degrees. This aspect of the film defies the notion that women of the 40's were confined to homemaking.

The tension of the case and the difference of opinions regarding the case begins to affect the couple and they almost end up losing each other. It doesn't help that their neighbor, Kip Lurie, (David Wayne) is in love with Amanda and writes a song that ends up being a huge hit on radio. Kip is most unlikable and obnoxious.

Hepburn and Tracy are delightful in this film, but Holliday is magnificent. She plays the blonde bombshell beautifully. One of the highlights for me in the film was when Amanda first met with her. Her naive attitude and retelling of how she shot her husband was flawless and far more gripping or smoothly portrayed then anything you would see on a current episode of CSI or Law & Order.

This film is worth seeing and is a fine look at the social dynamics of men and women in 1949. The story is well done and enjoyable.

Gangs of New York (2002)

Gangs of New York (2002) ★★★★★ 4/5

New York, 1846. The city is wrought with tension. Much of the tension stems from the immigration of Irish into the city. There are the Irish and the American born and they come together to fight for power. "Priest" Vallon (Liam Neeson) leads the Irish. Bill "the Butcher" Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis) leads the natives. The battle ends with Cutting taking the life of Vallon. As Vallon dies in the street, his son clinging to him.

16 years later we catch up with Vallon's son Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio). It is now 1862 and the city is in no better shape then it was when Amsterdam was a child. The Civil War has the city divided politically. Geographically the city is divided by nationalities. The disdain between the groups is so strong that it even resonates in the municipal workers. The firemen are corrupt, the police are corrupt, and the city is lawless.

Amsterdam befriends Johnny Sirocco (Henry Thomas) and finds himself in the midst of Cutting's underworld where he quietly awaits to avenge his father's death. Cutting does not know who Amsterdam is and quickly takes him under his wing.

Amsterdam also comes across Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz). To call her a pick pocket is to say the least. She is a professional thief. Sly and cunning. Her performance is delightful and in my opinion she steals the film. How she was not nominated for an Academy Award is beyond me. To see her step away from romantic comedy and take the risk of appearing in serious drama was quite surprising. While I did not expect anything spectacular from her, I found myself captivated by her performance every moment she was on screen. Diaz wasn't the only treat in the film either. Henry Thomas, best known as Elliot in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, put on a worthy performance as Sirocco. Of course it goes without saying that Day-Lewis and DiCaprio deliver.

The film intensifies as Sirocco becomes jealous of Amsterdam's ability to win the affection of Jennie. Sirocco betrays Amsterdam and informs Cutting that he is in fact Amsterdam's target. He also reveals Amsterdam is the son of "Priest" Vallon. Shortly after this revelation, Cutting and Amsterdam have a showdown of sorts. Amsterdam is quickly taken down and mutated by Cutting. Cutting labels him worthy of being in P.T. Barnum's circus as the only man allowed to live by hand of "The Butcher." After the mutilation, Jennie takes him to the underground caverns and cleans him. Once well and better, he begins to plot revenge. Before long Cutting and Amsterdam are striking at each other by murdering those who were close to the enemy.

In addition to the acting, the sets and costumes are meticulous. Every detail is attended to from the stitching of a dress to the wall paper in the brothel. The task of recreating New York in 1862 was not taken lightly. It is a fine look at American life in New York during the Civil War. Not often do we get to see the impact of that event in films unless it is on the battlefield or if it is examining a family directly affected by the war. Here, the war is not central to any main character in particular, however it's political implications do have an immediate effect on society and how these gangs are further divided based on their beliefs. It also is reflective that the civil unrest is not limited to just the country, but tears the city of New York apart. I love the historical aspect to the film and how it is depicting life in America at that time and expanding on the beliefs of the public. Also intriguing is the actual look into New York at that time. The heathen lifestyles, the disregard for those who are different, the entertainment of the time and the interaction of the groups.

The true highlight of the film is the final scene. The riot is brilliantly depicted and we watch New York crumble as the news wires are delivered. We see looting, murdering, lynching and finally Union troops slaughtering the mob. Cutting and Amsterdam end up face to face in a silent moment, and Amsterdam is finally able to find the closure he has sought for 16 years.

The film closes looking over New York ablaze. There seems to be a hopelessness and that perhaps the city might not recover. However it does. We see the skyline transform bit by bit until we end looking upon the Twin Towers with U2 singing about the hands that built America. Interestingly enough, this film was released the year following the fall of the towers. This leads to thinking about not only those who sacrificed their lives in opposition of the Draft Riots, but those who were taken in modern times by the hands of terrorists. It serves as a reminder that even in the bleakest times there is still hope. It also tells us that the legacies of those who sacrificed will be remembered.

Chariots Of Fire (1981)

Chariots Of Fire (1981) ★★★★★ 1/5

There seems to be, at least for me, a period in film that seems familiar, yet completely distant at the same time. Chariots Of Fire is one of those films for me as are so many from the early 1980's. I was at the time 8 years old. I do recall watching the Academy Awards and being completely confused at the unknown movies nominated for awards and could not possibly understand how a film like Chariots Of Fire could win over Raiders of the Lost Ark. It made no sense. Who would even watch a movie like Chariots Of Fire? The 80's would continue to confuse me with the winning pictures. Movie that were slow and boring. They were all about dead people! Amadeus, Gandhi and The Last Emperor were some of the winners. Of course I was too young to understand and sit through these types of movies at the time. Somehow, as I grew older I never went back to them. So for me, this book is a great opportunity to see what I missed. Chariots Of Fire is the first of the serious 1980's movies that I am getting acquainted with.

Sadly, after watching this picture, I still do not think it should have won Best Picture. However I no longer think it should have gone to Raiders of the Lost Ark either. I think of the nominees that year, the most triumphant and deserving film from that group was On Golden Pond. I found Chariots Of Fire to be excruciatingly slow and tiresome. It hardly enthralled me or captivated me. The score was absolutely horrid, yet somehow that too won the Academy Award for it's category. I think this is probably because "Chariots of Fire: Titles" probably wasn't eligible for Best Song as it has no words. While I loathed the creepy synthesizer based score, I do like the iconic single and find that it was properly placed in the film - and properly parodied to this present day. On top of the score, which I feel would have fit better in a horror movie, was the odd editing style used. I found the edits and transitions used in racing sequences to be odd. They didn't feel right and I was not in tune at all with whatever the director was trying to relay.

The whole story of this movie revolved around two runners with a goal of making it to the 1924 Olympics. Eric Liddel (Ian Charleson) is a devout Christian and Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross) is of strict Jewish faith. Their racing techniques and goals revolved strictly around their religious beliefs. They run for God. Liddel runs to honor God and turns it into a huge deal when he finds out one of the races is on Sunday. Because of this, he won't race and has to switch which race he will run. Abrahams runs because he is "Jewish." Both win their races for the glory of God and the honor of their country.

Not impressed at all with this movie. There were some things I can give praise to. The costumes were great. Very well done. That was an Oscar the film was deserving off. With the costumes, they captured the spirit of 1924 and reflected the different styles from the different nations participating in the Olympics. I also like seeing Ian Holm as Abrahams' trainer. This was his only Oscar nomination in his career as of 2012. A long illustrious career at that!

But, my favorite part of the film was when Liddel met with The Prince of Wales (David Yelland). The reason I like this scene is because after seeing The King's Speech (2010) I had become quite enthralled with the history of the Royal Family during that period of time. The Prince of Wales would later become King Edward VIII, and leave the throne to marry Wallis Simpson. It is interesting, for me at least, seeing different historical aspects brought to life across various films. This also helps piece together history and create strong timelines. It will be interesting to see the movie W.E. (2011) and find where this falls into the historical timeline. This is part of why I feel films portraying historical events should stay true to being factual. It makes the viewing experience of not just that movie, but other movies dealing with the same characters or issues so much easier.

Other then the scene involving The Prince of Wales and the costume design, this film did nothing to spark my interest. even the scenes with the competition were not compelling to me. I feel that the characters were not very identifiable and I could not connect with them. For the first half of the movie I had a hard time keeping the characters straight. It was not easy to follow who some of the people were, or who was who. In many scenes the cast members looked very similar.

I understand this movie has topped favorite lists and is ranked with high praise. I am completely missing that and am not sure why I can not find why this movie is held in such high regard.

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.