Scorsese's Latest Film is Fantastic

Martin Scorsese is easily one of my favorite filmmakers. He's made such classics as "Goodfellas" "Raging Bull" and "Gangs of New York". Many of his films, such as two of the films previously mentioned, center around mafia and/or gang activities. Finally, several of his films portray realistic, gritty and unabashed violence. While "Shutter Island" certainly has it's share of violence, it does not center around the story of mobsters or gang members. It is, however, an excellent film, full of twists, turns and surprises.

The film is set in 1954, at Shutter Island's Ashecliffe Hospital for the criminally insane. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Boston investigator Teddy Daniels. He finally gets an assignment he's been yearning for, one investigating the disappearance of a patient from the infamous hospital. He and his partner Chuck Aule, played excellently by Mark Ruffalo, arrive on the island to the seemingly cooperative head of the hospital, Dr. Cawley, played by the equally excellent Sir Ben Kingsley. Teddy and Chuck begin their shrewed investigating, examining file after file, and begin to uncover clues that lead to some very unsettling activities and practices by the staff. After being stranded on the island for days by a storm, things of Teddy and Chuck's lives begin to present themselves in such a way that keeps the viewer riveted to their seats. The excitement culminates into a series of twists that will keep the viewer watching in awe.

Typically, I'm not a fan of DiCaprio's roles. Frankly, I think, at times, he can go somewhat overboard in a role, and it comes off as forced and overacted. However, this was a much more subdued role. At times, there were moments of overacting that made me a little less impressed, but it would quickly redeem itself. Two of the many bright spots in the film were the excellent acting by Ruffalo and Kingsley. Having never seen Ruffalo in many roles, I really didn't have his other roles to which to compare this one. But his acting is not contrived, as DiCaprio is sometimes guilty of. His acting is somewhat one-dimensional, but in a good way. While Teddy has many layers of his persona that unveil themselves throughout the film, Chuck's personality helps to reel in the sometimes outlandish antics of his partner. Secondly, Kingsley's performance, while technically being one of the antagonist, is so subtle that the viewer is not led to believe that this is a bad man, but simply the head physician of a hospital for the insane. Kingsley is so good that he doesn't need to act. He can simply memorize his lines, and the rest comes naturally. He's also an actor that will lose himself in a role, as evidenced by his Oscar winning role as the title character in "Gandhi".

I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The acting, writing, and the twists and turns of the plot all made this film a nail-bitter from start to finish.

"Robin Hood" is Wildly Entertaining

While watching this film, I sat with wonder as to when the stories we've all heard of Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, would present themselves. However, in continuing the long line of recent prequel films, this new film of the legendary archer evolves so that we may better understand the inner workings of the man in the hood and his group of merry men.

Russell Crowe stars as the title character, known in the film as Robin Longstride. Along with his loyal followers, Will Scarlett, Alan-a-Dale, and their muscle, Little John, they return to England after a long battle in France, one that has cost them the life of King Richard. Upon their return, they encounter a dying man named Robin of Locksley. Locksley begs Longstride to return to his village, Nottingham, with a gift for his father, Walter. Once there, an aging Walter convinces Longstride to pose as his late son in order to save Nottingham from royal seizure by the newly crowned king of England, Richard's brother, John. While in Nottingham, he meets and falls for Locksley's widow, Marian (played by another Oscar winner, Cate Blanchett). She appears to be skeptical of his actions at first, but quickly realizes his intentions are pure. On top of that, the evil English Baron Godfrey infiltrates the King's inner circle under the moniker Earl Marshal. He begins to terrorize villages under the false pretense of collecting royal taxes. Longstride must save his new village, the woman he loves, and defeat the Baron, the French, and the evil tyranny of the crown.

The film was directed by Ridley Scott, brother of Tony Scott. Whereas Tony Scott is mostly known for his film work as director, Ridley has been behind the camera for several television shows, and served as producer to several Tony Scott directed films. His filming style is similar to that of his brother's. He employs the use of hand held cameras, which is what gives these films the jerky, choppy camera movements. The use of sound, be it the arrow of the expert archer flying through the air, or a crackling fire, adds to the poignancy of the film. Russell Crowe does an excellent job in such a seemingly large and intimidating role. Crowe is a very intense actor, bringing everything to any role he's in. Blanchett plays her role as she does others she's cast in. She comes off, firstly, as a bit cold, someone who would not give a man the time of day. As the film progresses, she begins to open up into a warm and compassionate woman. As with any other film, the supporting cast is just important as the main cast. This film is certainly no exception. All the way down the line to the young children of the village, the casting is excellent. However, I did find Oscar Isaac's portrayal of Prince, or rather, King John, to be a little over the top and sporadic. In one scene, he would be a dastardly, maniacal ruler, and in another, he would be throwing out one-liners with biting sarcasm. As with any of the Scott brothers' films, the action sequences were excellent. While they were, at times, bloody (as you would expect war to be), they add another level of drama to a film rife with many other dramatic components.

I was never bored watching this film. While some films be long and tedious, this adaptation of the classic story was never dull. I highly recommend it.

Gilliam's "Imaginarium" Suffered Tradegy, and is Better For It

Terry Gilliam is known for being a co-founder of one of the most influential comedy teams in history. His Monty Python troop was, at the time of its inception, and is now the epitome of satiric wit and dry British humor. Of late, he's been known for his visually spectacular, if not odd, style of filmmaking. His latest film, "The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus" is a story of morality, love and imagination.

Christopher Plummer stars in the title role. He is the leader of a traveling troop who offers people the option of stepping into the "Imaginarium", a world that is powered by his mind, and offers it's inhabitants two choices, absolute happiness, or certain doom. Dr. Parnassus is cursed with a dark secret. He claims to be over a thousand years old. Years ago, he made a deal with the devil, known as Mr. Nick, and he is now immortal. But there's a catch. He begs Mr. Nick to give him his youth, so he may father a child. Once the good doctor becomes a father, his child, upon his or her sixteenth birthday, becomes the property of Mr. Nick. The doctor's young daughter, Valentina (played excellently by the stunning Lily Cole) is nearing her sixteenth birthday, and the doctor, who has been dreading this decision for years, realizes that Mr. Nick cannot pass up a bet. He decides to bet the devil that whoever collects five souls will take Valentina and claim her as their own. Along their journey, with a midget named Percy (played by Verne "Mini-Me" Troyer) and Dr. Parnassus' assistant Anton, they discover Tony (played by the late Heath Ledger), who has had an attempt on his life by the Russian mob. Tony joins the traveling group, and falls in love with the beautiful Valentina. But in his jealousy, Anton vows to uncover Tony's past and win back Valentina.

Typically, Gilliam's films are not that appealing to me. As I began watching this film, I had the same feeling. But what makes this film different is the casting. As everybody may know, Heath Ledger met his untimely death while filming this movie, prompting Gilliam to fill his role. Ledger was absolutely a gifted actor who was well deserving of his posthumous Oscar win as the diabolical Joker in the latest Batman film. This film is set in the present day. During the parts of the film in the present day, the role of Tony is played by Ledger. As he enters the imaginarium, scenes which were filmed after Ledger's death, his role is filled by three equally gifted actors (in order of appearance), Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell. This added a whole other layer to an already multi layered and complex film. While it may have not been the filmmakers' original vision, it made it all the more interesting to see the transition between imagination and reality. Each actor played his respective role differently, yet effectively, despite being the same character. Depp plays Tony very lightly, with his signature brand of off-beat comedy. Law is slightly more diabolical, perhaps tapping into more of Tony's past. And Farrell represents Tony as he's falling in love with young Valentina. His performance is a combination of the two former, yet his own is heartfelt.

I highly enjoyed this film. Despite being marred by a tragic death of a incredibly gifted actor, the filmmakers and actors perservered and each turned in excellent performances. Gilliam is a great director with a unique vision. This film is not for the young kids. There are some disturbing images, but for the older kids, I highly recommend it.

"Good Night and Good Luck" is an Excellent Example of Story Telling and Acting

In the 1950s, there was a air of paranoia running rampant through America, caused by the people's fear of Communism. To make matters worse, Joseph McCarthy, a senator from Wisconsin rose to fame by perpetuating this fear. Upon his induction to the Senate in 1946, he introduced a list of 205 supposed Communist sympathizers, many of whom weren't actually part of the Communist party. The practice of "McCarthy-ism" is using personal threats as a type of character assassination, which is exactly what he did. Many of the people whom he claimed to be Communists were not, hence their personal and professional relationships were ruined.

At the same time as the famous McCarthy hearings, Edward R. Murrow, a broadcast journalist, and his producer, Fred Friendly made it their mission to exploit McCarthy and put a stop to his detrimental practice, whatever the cost was to their personal and professional reputations.

David Straithairn stars as Murrow, whose portrayal is excellent, well deserving of his Oscar nomination. George Clooney, who also directed and co-wrote, plays Friendly. The film also sports an excellent supporting cast, including, Tate Donovan, Jeff Daniels, Robert Downey Jr, and Frank Langella (who later was nominated for portraying another controversial political figure, President Richard Nixon).

Clooney is not only an excellent actor, he's an amazing director and filmmaker. The film is shot in black and white, very appropo for the era portrayed in the film. He often puts himself in small roles in his films, i.e., "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind." The best part of the film is Straithairn's portrayal of Murrow. His performance is such that, as you watch it, you believe that he is the legendary journalist. However, he doesn't have a large scale of emotion. In fact, he can be, at times, monotone. But it's not boring, as you would expect it to be. He doesn't have to be euphoric in one scene, then melancholy in the next. Straithairn has very expressive eyes, and they portray what he's feeling when his words may not. This role was certainly made for him, and he's mesmorizing in it.

I highly recommend this film for anybody who enjoys a historical drama, or anyone who just likes a great film.

"Logan's Run" is Wildly Inventive for it's Time

Imagine living in a post holocaust world where you are free to enjoy all the pleasures it offers. You don't have to worry about the sun or the rain, as your community is protected over head by a dome. However, there is a catch to living in such a place. You have implanted, in the palm of your hand, a life crystal. Once you reach the age of thirty, your life crystal blinks red, and for the reason of simply controlling the population and scarcity of resources, your life is over. Your death is witnessed by everyone in the city in a ceremony known only as "Carousel." If you so choose, you can run. As a runner, you risk being hunted by the "Sandmen" who's sole purpose is to track down runners and kill them. Made in 1976, directed by Michael Anderson, and written by the two authors of the novel by the same name, "Logan's Run" is a story of adventure, romance, betrayal, and is full of amazing special effects for the time.

Michael York stars as the title character. He is a sandman who, upon finding a symbol which controls the city's computer system, is given a special mission to find "Sanctuary" a city outside the dome where it's inhabitants have fled to avoid death. He is to pose as a runner, find Sanctuary and enact his duties as a sandman. However, in order to achieve this, four years are added to his life crystal, increasing his age to thirty. Now truly on the run, he and a beautiful young sidekick, known as Jessica-six, and with other sandmen on their tail, they escape from the dome and into an outside world. What they find there is very foreign to them, so naturally they have many questions. They end up in the ravaged city of Washington D.C, where they find an old holocaust survivor, who's only other interaction is to several feline friends. The three then begin their journey back, as part of a promise to the old man, who wants assurance that he's not the last man on earth.

There were many things that I enjoyed about this movie. The first were the special affects. Most people would consider them hokey and out of date by today's standards, which they are, but they were amazing for a film made in the early to mid years of the 1970s. Secondly, the story of a futuristic world is intriguing. This movie was made years after the first incarnation of "Star Trek" was seen. As in "Star Trek" this movie brought viewers into a futuristic world that fascinated and astounded them. It was different and cutting edge. This movie also garnered an Academy award for best special affects, which was very much deserved. Finally, the writing itself was excellent. York played a hit man of sorts. But he was a hit man with a conscience. All of the actors in the film played their roles with expertise.

Some comparable films have their moments of droll dialogue that may be superfluous to the main story line, thus making them hard to watch. This was certainly not one of them. I highly recommend this film to sci-fi and action fans alike.

"Bonnie and Clyde" is well acted, sloppily written

"Bonnie and Clyde" stars Warren Beatty, Faye Dunaway and Gene Hackman, and is directed my Arthur Penn, one of the most visionary directors of the 1960s. With Penn's excellent pedigree, I was expecting more of this 1967 Oscar winning film. However, for me, it fell short.

The film tells the true story of Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker, two people from different worlds who are brought together during the depression era of the late 1920s. As the film opens, Clyde is newly released from prison, a life that is all too familiar to him. I believe that his intentions are noble. He's only trying to make times easier for himself during hard economic times. It's the way that he goes about it that is questionable, to say the least. While passing through a small town in the mid-west, he attempts to steal a car. During his attempted heist, a small town waitress named Bonnie is watching him through her bedroom window. What ensues is Bonnie is swept off her feet by Clyde's charm (something that paralleled Beatty's own notorious personal, some would say womanizing life of the time) and the promise of excitement away from her droll, sleepy town and life. So begins a life of excitement and unpredictability. This eventually leads to small bank robberies. While their crimes may not be grandiose by any means, it adds the unpredictability that both crave. On the run, they use their ill-gotten gains for hotels, groceries, and gas for the various cars that they steal, seemingly in conjunction with every robbery. As the film progresses, the duo turns into a trio with the addition of a small town gas attendant named C.W., and finally into a quintent with the addition of Clyde's brother Buck (Gene Hackman) and his wife Blanche, the daughter of a preacher. When robbery turns into murder after a botched get away, and ensuing outings cause the death of Buck and blinding of Blanche, the law is hot on Bonnie and Clyde's trail. This adaptation of the true story of Bonnie and Clyde may be one of the more personal, brutally honest, not to mention violent adaptations of their story ever made.

As I was watching this film, I couldn't help but make comparisons to one of my new favorite films, James Cagney's 1949 "White Heat". In this film, the women (Virginia Mayo and Margaret Wycherley as Cagney's wife and mother, respectively) were strong willed, and I got the feeling that they could take care of themselves, and hold their own against their male counterparts. While Bonnie did her share of brutal slayings, she had her moments of absolute helplessness. Blanche was probably my least favorite characters in the film. Bonnie characterized her as a shrill angry shrew of a woman, something that I would certainly agree with. I couldn't help feeling that with every scene, I got stuck in a loop of deja-vu. Each scene began with a robbery, a moment of euphoria, then there would be the inevitable depression, and finally, nearly getting caught by the law close on their heels.

I went into this film with high expectations, only to finish disappointed. While the acting in the film was excellent (ironically the only Oscar win for an actor in the film went to Estelle Parsons, who played Blanche), the writing could have been more substantial. Instead, each scene was seemingly duplicated from its predecessor, only having slight details changed. This was a good film, not great.

"White Heat" is a Masterful Gangster Film

As you stand at the local video store, staring at the pleathora of old and new films, do you ever pick up a film, read the back of the case, and then decide to rent it? How many times have you come away sorely disappointed? When I found this film, I was skeptical. I had never seen a James Cagney film. I'd heard of his masterful work in the crime dramas of the 1930s and 40s, and then his academy award winning role as George M. Cohan in 1942's "Yankee Doodle Dandy", ironically, a huge departure from his most famous persona. 1949's "White Heat" is an excellent story of a group of gangsters who are looking for the ultimate pay off.

In the film, Cagney plays Arthur "Cody" Jarrett, a sadistic psychopathic gang leader who suffers from blinding headaches and an Oedipus complex. In order to escape the death penalty for a killing spree on a train robbery, he confesses to another crime in another state which happened simultaneously. While in prison, he comes up with a plan to rob a chemical plant on pay day. He also escapes attempts on his life by someone who was once one of his closest allies, one of his fellow gangsters working with a man on the inside. When he gets news that his beloved mother has been killed, he vows to break out of prison and kill her killer and take with him his closest friend in prison, who is, unknowingly to Jarrett, undercover police detective Hank Fallon. Fallon has been sent in to infiltrate Jarrett's gang, gain his trust, and bring an end to Jarrett's massive crime and killing spree. Along with Cagney, many great actors contribute to the film, including Virginia Mayo as Jarrett's wife Verna, Margaret Wycherly as "Ma" Jarrett and Edmond O'Brien as his closest friend in prison, Vic Pardo, aka Hank Fallon.

Along with Cagney's spine-tinglingly diabolical performance, the two women playing his wife and mother are equally strong willed, something rarely seen in films of the time. I've noticed some films that have won critical acclaim, while excellent, suffer from too much acting. By this, I mean that the actors try so hard to play their part well, that when it viewed by the public, it comes off as unbelievable and contrived. As I said earlier, I had never fully seen a Cagney film before, but in this film, his portrayal of Jarrett comes off as very natural. He plays a terrible man, but, as cliche as it is to say, he's a gangster that you love to hate.

If you want to see a gangster film, look up Cagney. I'm sure that our modern day gangster films took a page from Cagney's films. Just from seeing this one film out of the many crime-drama films he made, Cagney was the epitome of an actor portraying a gangster. This is, to put it simply, a brilliant film.