Review of The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985)

Have you ever dreamed of being a movie star? Ever wonder what it would be like to live out one of your favorite stories from the movies? It's an interesting question that I'm sure plenty of people answer in the affirmative. Of course I wanted to be Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, or Wonder Woman. It's one of the reasons why people go to the movies in the first place. To live vicariously through someone else. And The Purple Rose of Cairo digs into those feelings. It is a romantic comedy set in the 1930s. It was directed by Woody Allen and stars Mia Farrow along with a cast of others including Jeff Daniels and Danny Aiello. The film was released in 1985.

The film is set in Depression era New Jersey. The action of the film revolves around Mia Farrow's character's obsession with films. She is a struggling waitress at a diner with Aiello as her abusive, unemployed, drunkard of a husband. Suddenly her life changes when Jeff Daniels' character comes down of a movie screen and declares his love for her. Cecilia is taken aback. Eventually there is a furor over what to do about Daniels' character Tom Baxter. The theater manager, the producer, and Gil Shepard (the guy who played Tom Baxter from the movie) all come together to try to fix the situation. This forces Cecilia to choose between Tom, who is from movie land and Gil who is the actor that played Tom.

I really liked Tom Baxter. The scenes with him caught in the real World and having no idea what to do were very funny. Jeff Daniels did a great job playing both parts of the Tom Baxter/ Gil Shepard character. Mia Farrow did a quality job in showing the hard life that Cecilia lived. I thought it was somewhat hard to believe as she suffers at her waitress job. And the film was so short, it runs only about eighty minutes, that the characters are only mere sketches. The film isn't too deep like a drama it is a short comedy that doesn't go too deep into any of the roles in the film.  It just doesn't have a strong character that has an internal conflict to really move the film forward. There is no Alvy as in Annie Hall or Isaac in Manhattan. Even Owen Wilson's Gil was a stronger lead then any characters found in Purple Rose.

The film is like other Woody Allen films. It is minimalist. There is some great use of mise en scene like in the theater when they show people getting their tickets and finding their seats in the movie house. The settings are great. It really seemed like I was in New Jersey in 1935. The row houses, the big factory buildings, and, of course, the movie house with it's posters, marquee and move screen. Those elements create a romanticism for the glory days of Hollywood. When people went to the movies more. Before the rise of TV and the internet.

Infusing the setting and the plot was a soundtrack based around jazz and other classics that fueled the nostalgia for a simpler time in the past when people were mired in unemployment, poverty, and the Depression. It rekindles the feeling of that era. The Jazz Age. The Big Band sound. It was all quintessential Woody. It made the film watchable even if it was a little slow and boring. The montage at the end of the film could have been better. It was rather boring. I'm sure all of the great nightclubs of that era were great, but couldn't there have been a better way to show it? Rather than glossing it over with names in neon and Cecilia and Tom dancing?

The idea of the film was unique. I can't think of a film with a similar setup. And it goes right into the theme of the film. What is the point of watching films? Is it to find love? A better World? Is that why people go to the films? There are many opinions on why people like movies or why there should be movies period. Some people don't like movies. And I think the film shows that side of movies. Filling people up with false expectations. Leading them to dream rather then live life as it is. It's too bad all of us can't be movie stars.

I found the theme of The Purple Rose of Cairo to be similar to the theme in Midnight in Paris. In Midnight Gil wants to leave his boring life as a screenwriter and go back to the Paris of the 1920's. It's a similar dream that Cecilia has in Purple Rose. She dreams of leaving her simple, hard life in New Jersey and becoming a movie star. They both want an exit out of their lives. They wish for something else. And it's a sense of nostalgia and romance that drives them to dream. I suppose the film is a reminder that the Cinema serves a purpose. It allows us to dream. To think there is somewhere or some time which is better then where we are.

I didn't like Purple Rose as much as his early works like Manhattan and Annie Hall. Or even as much as Midnight in Paris or VickyChristinaBarcelona. It just isn't as funny or as romantic. I didn't laugh out loud. I like some of the situations, but they could have been better. I think Purple Rose is a precursor to a film like Midnight in Paris which I thought was one Woody's best. I'd recommend the film, but if you really want to see Woody at his best try another one of his films.

Review of Stranger Than Fiction (2006)

Stranger Than Fiction is one of the best written films I've seen that deals with writers. It delves deeply into the psyche of a novelist who must confront the question of what to do with her main character. The film is comedic and tragic at the same time. I enjoyed watching it, even though I thought the meaning of the film was muddled towards the end. Stranger Than Fiction was released in 2006. It was directed by Marc Forster and stars Will Ferrell, Emma Thompson, Dustin Hoffman, and Maggie Gyllenhall.

The film centers around Harold Crick. He's an IRS agent who leads a rather dull life. All he thinks about is numbers, audits, etc. It is only when he begins to hear a voice narrating his life that he wakes up from his banal life to the reality that it could be better. He suspects he might be crazy, but that is not the case. In a twist of fate he is actually a character in a novelist's new book. The major conflict becomes a question of whether Harold should live. Will Emma Thompson's character kill off Harold? Or will he end up happily ever after with Maggie Gyllenhall?

There are four major characters in the film. I enjoyed all of the roles. They fit just right. First was Will Ferrell who was known for his impression of George W. Bush on Saturday Night Live. I thought he played the role of Harold admirably well. He is a comedic actor thrust into the very dour and unfunny world of auditors, the IRS, and bureaucratic dullness. It follows the playbook for comedies by putting Ferrell who is incredibly funny into a setting which is undeniably boring. When he changes into Harold by the end of the film it brings about a positive change in his character. It is well written and well thought out.

I thought the casting of the film was great. Emma Thompson as the author with writer's block was excellent. I could see this role growing out of her period piece dramas like Howard's End and The Remains of the Day. The same could be said for the character of Professor Hilbert played by Dustin Hoffman. It seemed as if he was a grownup Benjamin from The Graduate. Benjamin having grown into the role of a Professor of Literature was an excellent choice. And Maggie Gyllenhall turns in a good performance as the punk girl from the bakery. It's too bad her role was rather tamped down from the script. In the script there is more mention of her sympathies for Socialism and punk rock.

I thought the film was very well written. The idea of the story was original and new. I haven't encountered too many films that deal with an IRS agent who is really a character in a novel. When I watched the film for the first time it reminded me of Kafka and his writings about struggles against bureaucracy. It seemed that Harold was a bug that could be squashed by an unknown power at any moment.

The other aspects of the film were rather minimal. The math graphics added a nice touch to show how Harold was seeing the World. Counting everything. Seeing everything as a diagram. The closeups were a nice touch. But there was nothing too great about the cinematography or editing or mise en scene. It was a rather straight forward, simple film. Special effects weren't really needed to tell the story which was the best part of the film. It's refreshing to know that you can still make a great film with a very good story without having to jazz it up with too much special effects or spandex.

I would have liked to see more of what was in the script about Ana Pascal. In the screenplay she is far more left wing then in the film. Perhaps the producers thought if they made her too anarchist then audiences would dislike her. I thought the contrary. It makes her falling in love with Harold that much more improbable and funny and sweet. To think that a Socialist Revolutionary would fall for an IRS agent is very madcap and I would have liked to see it played up more. The song Harold plays for Ana is great. But the song from the script, I thought, was better. It was a song about a punk rock girl. Not some girl from Tahiti which she was obviously not. It would have been better if they stuck with the script.

The film is laden with analysis. I suppose the major theme is about fate. Do we control our destinies? Is there someone somewhere writing our story and we are just following along? The film illustrates that theme well. And we have Professor Hilbert there to explain it all. In the scene where Harold and Professor Hilbert are talking about the end of the novel, Professor Hilbert seems to say that we do have a destiny and we have to play our roles even if it means dying tragically. It seems that Harold, like the Kafka story, is just a bug crawling around a World that he has no say in what will happen. It seems that we have no control over our fates. It is only by the sympathy of a higher power that we have any chance to live a happy and fulfilling life.

I read the screenplay and watched Stranger Than Fiction as part of a study about films that deal with writers. It is a good film. It's enjoyable to watch, but never gets that serious or deep. It certainly isn't as dark as Sunset Boulevard which is a film noir from 1950. There Joe Gillis deals with a similar question as to Harold Crick, who controls his fate? Is it Norma Desmond? Why doesn't Joe just settle for being her boyfriend and try to writer something on the side? Why isn't he honest? Stranger Than Fiction is decidedly different. Harold is extremely honest. So are everyone else in the film. Perhaps there is too much honesty and it's too much of a sugar coated film that doesn't deal with the dark side of human nature. Why doesn't Harold just kill Kay? Why doesn't he take control of his life? And further more how could he fall for the anarchist? Isn't that against his firm principles as an IRS agent? But this is a comedy! It is funny in parts, but it's not hilarious, laugh out loud funny. It's a light romantic comedy that seems to have been marketed to the date night demographic.

So if you are looking for a movie to watch with your hubby this one would probably be enjoyable. But if you are looking for something that has high drama this one is probably one to avoid. But of course if you are looking for a film that shows the struggles of a writer and how they deal with characters and stories Stranger Than Fiction is a watch.

Review of Sunset Boulevard (1950)

Sunset Boulevard was a groundbreaking film. It shows how the film industry moves quickly leaving to waste former stars and former glory only to move on with new technologies leaving groups of people alienated, disillusioned, and with only memories left to think about. Norma Desmond is the personification of the transition from the Silent era to the sound era. Just like the "wax works" that Joe Gillis alludes to in the film. Buster Keaton makes a brief appearance in the film. Keaton is still regarded as a great film director, but his career never reached the giddy heights of the 1920's again. Neither did Gloria Swanson's. She worked in TV and lived into old age and died in New York City. The film was released in 1950. It is still considered one of the best films about the dark side of fame and Hollywood. Sunset Boulevard is a film noir that was directed by Billy Wilder. It stars the aforementioned Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond and William Holden in a career defining film as the screenwriter Joe Gillis. Erich von Stroheim plays the butler.

The film centers around Joe Gillis and Norma Desomond. Gilis is a down on his luck screenwriter who is desperate to find money to pay his rent and car payment. In an accident he stumbles upon Norma Desmond and her macabre existence with her butler, her giant house, and wealthy lifestyle. All is not well, however. Norma still lives in a fantasy World where she is still famous. Still sought after for big pictures like when she was young. The conflict between Norma who is increasingly unstable and Joe who is conniving to use Norma and still find success as a screenwriter is what drives the action of the film. It all plays until a dramatic ending that ends up with Joe shot three times and floating in a swimming pool.

The film has been called the best film noir ever made. Sunset Boulevard is one of the few films that shows the life of a screenwriter. William Holden is exceptional as Joe Gillis. He hits every line of dialogue with genuine inflection. At the time William Holden was up and coming so he could identify well with the struggles of young writers, directors, and actors. Gillis is hapless and naive. He willingly goes into the deal with Norma and doesn't see himself losing the deal. He can't bring himself to accept his status. And Norma is just as stubborn. She sees herself as the center of the World. She still thinks she's a huge star that can command box office like she did when she was hot. Joe and Norma are memorable characters. They will go down as one of the greatest couples in film history. Forever remembered in a film just as a great.

I was totally taken in with the character of Norma Desmond. I felt sympathy for her lonely, forgotten existence. I kept asking myself, did Joe really have it that bad? All the suits, the big house, etc, etc. Why pass it all up? Looks like he struck it rich. But then again this is a Hollywood story. And in Hollywood everyone thinks their going to be famous. The next big thing. And Joe is just as naive to think that he's got what it takes to be the next big writer. He is long on ambition and short on reality.

I liked Holden in this film. He reminded me of Bob Hope. He is steadfast, good looking, with always a witty comeback in his dialogue which he delivers with snobby self confidence. It is a similar character that Holden became known for. Throughout the 1950's Holden played the smart, handsome, playboy who had the World by the tail. Love is a Many Splendored thing, The World of Suzie Wong, Sabrina, and Paris When it Sizzles. All great films that show how great an actor William Holden was. Like Norma Desmond, Holden faded and tragically died before he grew old and was lauded with honorary awards. It's too bad he didn't see the day. He deserved some form of recognition.

Sunset Boulevard is a film noir. It is very dark with a lot of play with shadows and macabre settings. The Mansion is festooned with tapestries, a dark staircase, and a chandelier. It reeks of 1920's extravagance. And it is so well done. Not a bad shot, not a bad edit. The editing is a little dated. The newspapers flying over one another at the beginning is rarely used nowadays. But in 1950 it worked well. It evokes the same technique used in films like Citizen Kane.

The shots of Norma Desmond show her glamour. As she slowly deteriorates into madness we got shot after shot of her becoming less and less glamorous. In the phone scene where Betty is getting harassed by Norma, there is an excellent use of deep focus. It shows Joe silently opening a door. Then walking in, grabbing the phone, and telling Betty to come to the Mansion. It ignites the tension in the third act and starts the film towards it's wild, sad ending.

The film is laden with meanings that could be over analyzed. Technology versus labor? The old versus the new. The young against the aging. The great wave up against the establishment. The film shows the dark side of Hollywood and is a message for every aspiring screenwriter; Hollywood is a business and it will chew you up and spit you out. As William Goldman says in his iconic book Adventures in the Screentrade; Hollywood is a gold rush business. Very rarely does anyone last for more then a decade. Sunset Boulevard is a testament to that message. Norma a fading star. Joe a struggling writer. Why does anyone want to be in pictures after all?

If your looking for a happy ending this film is one to avoid. It is similar to Citizen Kane or Casablanca. Its in black and white. There is no up ending. And its message is dark and disturbing. After all the books I've read about screenwriting and the struggles that go into even breaking into the film industry I've become immune to the negativity. I try not to think about all that much. Sunset Boulevard is a film that confronts you with what you fear. You will remain anonymous or you will fade from memory, the machine that is Hollywood devouring you and laying waste to your sanity and sense of reality.

Review of Shakespeare in Love

I decided to study this film as part of research into films about screenwriters or writers in any media. It does touch on some aspects of the writer’s process. The parts where Will has writer’s block and is looking for a muse are certainly part of writing anything. Inspiration comes and goes. And sometimes doesn’t come at all for weeks at a time. The current films at the cinema shows how many films are made without much contemplation. I’m not interested in any of them. Either they are too adolescent or are marketed like a brand ready be eaten or put on. Shakespeare in Love isn’t one of those. It’s a large Indie film that was made for 25 million and grossed nearly 300 million at the global box office. The cast is great and the story interesting. It won 7 academy awards and upset Saving Private Ryan for best picture in 1999. That seems like another age. I wonder if a movie like Shakespeare in Love could even get made with audiences the way they are these days.

The films major conflict is a love story of star crossed lovers. Will and Viola are just like Romeo and Juliet. They are doomed. Never to marry. Their relations illicit and, perhaps, illegal. Will risks certain death by pursuing Viola. The love triangle is complete when Lord Wessex negotiates to marry Viola. Things get more complicated when Viola learns Will is already married. The show must go on. Will continues to write drawing inspiration from Viola. He writes and writes until he completes the play that has come to be known as Romeo and Juliet. In the final sequence the play is performed for the first time to a rousing reaction from the audience. And the Queen plays the role of savior to the playhouse which has violated laws against having women on stage.

I thought the acting was good enough. Gwyneth Paltrow turns in an award winning performance. She shows how conflicted and repressed women were in Pre-Modern England. She is forced into a marriage which she had no choice. Only to find love with Will, but to learn he has a wife and was cheating with her. She is merely a pawn or a mistress. And Paltrow makes those emotions known as the film progress to when she accepts the role of Juliet. Until that point Juliet is down and out. The play was canceled her marriage a phony and Will already betrothed. That she comes back from that to play Juliet, then accept her fate makes a classic heroine who shows how far women have come in gaining equality. Maybe next up is equal pay?

The supporting cast around Paltrow is great too. Colin Firth, Joseph Fiennes, Geoffrey Rush, and Judi Dench all turn in solid performances My heart jumped a beat when Judi Dench spoke. Especially in the last scene where she comes to rescue and makes her statement about life in a man’s job. There were also other actors in the film that did a solid job as well. The film seems to be a stepping stone for some actors like Geoffrey Rush who went onto to star in The King’s Speech with Colin Firth who was also a role player in Shakespeare in Love. Ben Affleck also gives a supporting role as Ned Allyn.

The film is beautiful to look at. I was in deep admiration of the settings and costumes. The period detail is like something from a major museum exhibit brought to life. The streets of London in 1593 are brought resoundingly to life. Every little detail presented to give the illusion that Pre-Modern London still exists. I was especially taken with Queen Elizabeth’s costumes. She looked so very regal in her outfits. The golden sheen and peacock feathers were something to be admired. Similarly were everyone in their goatees, swords, and period costumes. I felt like I was seeing Rembrandt paintings come to life.

The fight scenes were a little weak. They seemed to me too fake. Not real enough. They did provide a heightened intensity to the film as it progressed to it’s grand finale. The writing was extremely well done. The characters are presented realistically. The subplots grow into a cohesive narrative that finishes well with Paltrow walking on a beach somewhere in the New World. The dialogue was well written with Shakespearean poetry blended into the Elizabethan influenced English.

There have been many films to tackle historical, period piece dramas and many of them have failed miserably. A few like Shakespeare in Love were successes. There is a whole treasure trove of films from the Pre-Modern days. The latest one to reach major distribution was Tulip Fever, likely to be Harvey Weinstein’s last film before he was scandalized this past year. Tulip Fever also deals with forbidden love in a time much different from our own. Similar to Shakespeare it is long on period detail and shorter on substance than Shakespeare in Love. Shakespeare in Love blends myth and a classic play to much greater effect than I’ve seen in recent films. It reminded me of the film Bird Man for it’s behind the scenes look at how a script gets made and all the pressures a production faces as it moves towards a stage or in front of a camera.

The film’s hero is Paltrow and with her comes one of themes. There is a distinct current of feminism. It is revealed in the conflict that Viola faces; will she find true love in a world dominated by men? Is it better to submit than to fight? She struggles with this conflict and we see that the World is the villain in this picture. For it is the World of class relations which keeps Viola in a subordinate position. She cannot be an actor, a playwright, or a poet. She can only be property in an exchange of money between her father and Lord Wessex. Viola can do little to fight against a society so stacked against her. All she can really do is submit and hope to survive with poetry in her heart.

Similar to another film, The English Patient, the heroine is conflicted, but seems to have no choice but to be a pawn in a man’s World. Tulip Fever is also about two conflicted lovers that are doomed to oblivion. And of course the play Romeo and Juliet is, perhaps, the classic tale of lovers against a World that will not permit them to live in love with each other. Made almost twenty years ago and now scandalized because of it’s affiliation with Harvey Weinstein, the film should be commended for showing the World through a woman’s eyes in the character of not just Viola, but the Queen too.

Along with other films that deal with the Pre-Modern historical period, Shakespeare shows us a World only accessible through art, history, literature, and best of all films. I was a European History major so I may be overly biased for films that deal with History. Shakespeare in Love along with The Girl with the Pearl Earring, Tulip Fever, and Cromwell, among others are a testament of how powerful a medium like film is. It can present a World that is gone from the earth only to be re-imagined in film.

Review of True Grit

True Grit is a rather small tale of adventure in The West. It reads almost like a young adult fiction novel. It is mostly benign and very clean about anything to do with violence or sex or any adult themes. I thought it was a good film with another memorable character from John Wayne. Without his persona the film would be of little value or entertainment. The film was released in 1969. It was directed by Henry Hathaway and is based on a novel by Charles Portis. The film stars a John Wayne who was reaching the twilight of his acting career. The supporting cast is rounded out with a young Robert Duvall, Dennis Hopper, Glen Campbell, and Kim Darby.

The premise that drives the film is the murder of Mattie Ross's father by Tom Chaney. From there the action escalates to a showdown between Rooster Cogburn and Ned Pepper. Along the way Glen Campbell joins the forces for good. The film is a battle between law and order and bandits set in the Indian country. It is a rather simple story that is slow to develop, but ends up satisfying with a big ending.

The characters of the film are believable. Mattie Ross is convincing as the teenage girl looking to bring in her father's murderer. John Wayne won an Oscar for his role as Rooster Cogburn. Deservedly so. His attitude and swagger are distinct traits of his acting persona. As in his many other roles in Westerns the John Wayne persona is on full display for lovers of The Duke. He is frank, violent, and swigs a whiskey bottle for all to see with no regrets about his actions. It would seem Rooster was invincible and Wayne could continue to make films forever. It is films like True Grit, The Searchers, and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance that created the myth of John Wayne. A myth that will go down in film history as one of the most popular onscreen personas ever to grace the screen. Quality performances were had from Dennis Hopper and Robert Duvall as well. This must have been a stepping stone film for them.

The film doesn't have many gimmicks or special effects. It's straight forward, rough riding film that pulls no punches. In fact, it was obviously low budget. It looked like most of the scenes were shot on location. There was good use of mise en scene in the cabin scene and some shots of the great West added to the allure of the film. Save to say this wasn't an art film or looking to break any rules. The writing was well done. In parts it seemed to reflect it's literary basis as the words were well written and well spoken. There was nary a cuss word or any display of vulgarity that wasn't played to light comic effect.

The film starts out with a bang. The killing of Mattie's father and then the hanging of three men in the square as Mattie watches. The action reaches a lull as things develop. The ending is clearly the best part of the film. The inclusion of the pit with the snake added a twist that places a time constraint on the rest of the film. It added suspense and intensity and created a moment of relief when Mattie is safe and healthy. She offers Rooster a place for him to buried which was a nice touch.

The ending was not Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch or any of the Leone films with Clint Eastwood. Perhaps that's why the film is not considered one of the best Westerns ever made. It is comparable to Seven Men From Now, Ride the High Country, and other Westerns that tell simple stories about the Old West. True Grit is far from a bloodbath of a shootout or an orgy of violence and debauchery. It adds a story to the myth of the West as righteous, courteous, but insistent and courageous.

The message of the film like many Westerns is that good triumphs over evil. And that persistence and courage will lead to victory over the forces of evil. It seemed to take the stand that human nature is evil and there needs to be a strong hand to keep it from devolving into chaos. There are many references to Federal authority, Judges, and Rooster Cogburn as a Federal Marshall. The point was well made and obvious. In the face of authority the bandits had no chance.

If you like films that are based on literature, you may like this film. If you are looking for a film that delves deep into the darkness or violence you will probably be bored by this film which was made before or in opposition to the New Hollywood of the late 60's and 70's. However, if you are a big John Wayne fan this one is not to be missed. His performance is great and adds to the myth of The Duke. That was the main reason I watched the film. As I've mentioned before Wayne won the Oscar for best actor for True Grit. And it was a good decision by the Academy to award him with the statuette.

Review of Dances With Wolves

Dances With Wolves is one of the saddest films I've seen in recent years. Th ending is as melancholy as the ending from Gone With the Wind. I was asking myself at the end of the film; why did he have to leave the Sioux camp? Couldn't he have stayed? I guess not. After all that was said and done Dances With Wolves had to leave the camp and go his own way. If not he might have caused undo harm to the tribe. Still, I asked myself weren't they all screwed in the end? Couldn't they have known that the Union forces were too strong and that they would be defeated? I guess not. The film was made in 1990. It won several academy awards. It starred Kevin Costner who was also the director and co-producer. The film is a Western. It was the first serious film I watched as a kid.

The premise of the film centers around John Dunbar and his quest to find himself. Dunbar attempts to kill himself in the first twenty minutes of the film. Instead of seeing this as an act of cowardice, a Union General thinks it's bravery. In reward for his bravery Dunbar is given a horse and allowed to pick his post. He chooses to go out West to prairie country. There he befriends a Sioux tribe and becomes a member. In a final sequence he saves the tribe but is apprehended by Union soldiers and sentenced to be hanged. The Sioux tribe conducts a raid and frees Dunbar. In the final sequence he says he must go on his own way away from the tribe.

The acting was top notch. I really believed Costner's character. I thought he showed how a White man would behave in a similar situation. I thought his actions and words were genuine and his acting thoroughly believable. The other actors also came across as genuine. Wind in His Hair and Kicking Bird made me believe that they were plains Indians to the core. I never doubted for a minute that they were anything but real Indians able to speak the language and act the parts given to them.

Kevin Costner was the big star associated with Dance With Wolves. He turned in another great performance. After Untouchables and Field of Dreams, Dances With Wolves is another great performance for the ages that will last as examples of acting excellence in the 80's of American Cinema.

The film couldn't have been better with regards to film techniques. The editing, cinematography, everything was top notch. I couldn't get over the great shots of the plains. They were of overwhelming beauty. The canyons, the prairie, it made me want to visit there soon. Also top notch was the costumes. The Indian attire was totally believable. I felt like I was in that World. The Indian Village became alive with color and setting. So much so that I forgot about where I was and became immersed in the period decor of the film. The film was near perfect. The score was uplifting, the settings were unforgettable, everything was what an epic of The American West should be.

The film heralds a new kind of Western. It is particularly unique. It is a World away from The Searchers which demonizes Native Americans unfairly. The two films are similar in some technical ways. They both show the beauty and grandeur of the American West. The stories and characters of the two films are vastly different though. Dance With Wolves develops in its viewers an overwhelming sympathy for the plight of the American Indians. It is a thoroughly realist portrait of an experience of the American West totally unlike Sergio Leone's Spaghetti Westerns. It is perhaps familiar with Robert Altman's McCabe and Mrs. Miller. Both are very realist portraits of experiences of The West. The only difference is that Dances With Wolves has a very recognizable opinion about Western Settlement. McCabe and Mrs. Miller is less subtle in it's expression of theme and conflict.

The message of the film comes across very clearly. With it's depictions of White settlers and soldiers as wasteful and brash there is no doubt that the Native American way of life, at least in some ways, is portrayed as better than how the Whites live. This develops a deep sympathy for the Native Americans who populate Dance With Wolves. It also upends decades of thought that White Settlement of The West was a good thing. It raises serious questions about how The West was won and how the Native American were treated. The film reveals its theme in even the most minute of details. It so ingrains its theme deep into the film that it becomes unquestionable that the Native American way of life was to be cherished and lamented at its passing.

Dances With Wolves is a revisionist film. It is much different from other films like The Searchers or other films that demonize the Native Americans unfairly. I remember back to Middle School Social Studies when we watched numerous movies about the Native American experience. In these films about Chief Joseph and others. a deep sympathy was created for the Native American experience. Dances With Wolves puts forth a new theme about Western Settlement. It destroys prejudice and breaks down barriers between Native American and Settler and only begins to ponder the amount of suffering that Native Americans endured while there lands were taken and their way of life was destroyed.

Dances With Wolves is a great film. It is different from other films from before the late 1960's when film started to change and themes were treated differently. I can only compare this film to The Searchers and how different it is from that film. In The Searchers the Native Americans are portrayed from a biased point of view. In Dances With Wolves the entire film shows how the Native Americans lived and survived without the help of the whites. The deep empathy which develops after repeated viewings of the film for Native Americans eliminates bias and prejudice and creates room for new narratives about The West. I would highly recommend this film to anyone with an interest in films about The American West. 

Review of The Wild Bunch

The final shootout of the film is incredible. It's the best shootout in the history of Westerns that I have seen so far. After it was over I asked my "do you think you could do something as good in a film you make?" I had to say no I couldn't. It was that good. The film is as good as the best of the Leone Westerns. I drew a comparison to The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly and, in my opinion, it ranks in the same class as that film. It has all the elements that The Good.. does. More on that later. The films was released in 1969. Directed by Sam Peckinpah, it stars William Holden and Ernest Borgnine along with Robert Ryan.

The film follows aging bandits out for a last heist before they move South to Mexico. But all is not easy. Bounty hunters are hot on their trail, anticipating their every move. The plot thickens when the bandits meet up with a Mexican warlord out to get guns and become a power in Northern Mexico. The bandits commit to the general. They plot to steal guns from an American arms shipment. The bandits steal the guns and defeat the bounty hunters. But they still have to get payment for the guns from the general. This they do, but when one of their own is taken prisoner and tortured it's one step to far. The Wild Bunch stands up to the general and dies in a hail of bullets killing the general, his top men, and themselves in a great, final shootout.

I have to say upfront that I'm a big William Holden fan. So anything he does I'm biased for him. This was his last major role. And I thought he pulled it off well. I bought into him as the aging leader of the gang with baggage. His near apprehension with Thornton. His ongoing rivalry with him. The flashback to his lost love. Killed by her husband and severely wounding Pike. Holden is no John Wayne or Clint Eastwood. He is older, scarred, and looking for a way out. Like Holden, Dutch (Borgnine) wants a way out. He plays his role well as the trusted sidekick. I couldn't get over his little chuckles or his crazy eyes at the beginning of the shootout. Both put in solid performances.

The film uses creative techniques to tell the story. In particular the use of slow motion was effective and gruesome. Every time the slow motion effect was applied there was a gruesome death depicted. The use of fast cutting, close ups, and deep focus revealed the film in all it's glory. The palette of a filmmakers tools were all used in The Wild Bunch.

A strength of the film was it's violence. The shootouts at the beginning of the film, and in particular the end of the film, were excellent. They coordinated actors, guns, and cameras in a final sequence that was memorable. Perhaps too violent for some people, the shootouts were clearly influential on other filmmakers. Quentin Tarrantino for one, and, I'm sure, others delved into the horrific portrayal of violence shown in The Wild Bunch. The spurting of blood, the slow motion falls, the close ups on the guns, the faces, and the fallen bodies were a montage of violence unrivaled in film up to that point. Of course there have been similarly violent sequences in films after The Wild Bunch, but to my knowledge, none before it equaled it's depiction of blood and guts.

The film is true to it's name. The group of bandits stays close to one another. In the end they decide to rescue their friend. They take the side of the underdog. They throw away everything and fight for what they believe is right. The films message isn't too preachy or some kind of high minded narrative about human nature. It is simply that fighting for what's right at the cost of death is the right thing to do. Sticking close to the American Revolutionary slogan of "give me liberty or give me death" the group of bandits sticks it to the general in the final sequence.  They die an honorable death in the cause of freedom.

The Wild Bunch is a rather unique film. It reminds me of Shakespeare in the way that everyone dies. But they do die honorably. In past Westerns it is almost always that someone lives to collect the gold. In The Good... Clint Eastwood is left standing to collect his gold. In The Searchers John Wayne has put aside his racial hatred of Indians and embraced his niece. In The Wild Bunch there is no one left standing to collect the gold. Thornton is left to resume his life as a bandit. He is no richer and is a rather minor character in the film.

The film ranks as one of the best Westerns ever made. Alongside The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly and The Searchers it upped the ante for filmmakers to out do what Peckinpah did with the use of violence, camera techniques, and editing. It ushered in a new era of Westerns like the films of The New Hollywood. It is brilliant and beautiful. I would highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in film.

Review of The Outlaw Josey Wales

The Outlaw Josey Wales is a good film. It is rather slow. It takes it's time to progress from one scene to the next. The film starts out with an action opener. Wales' wife and kid are savagely murdered by Union "Red Legs" soldiers. This starts Josey on his quest for vengeance which is ultimately satisfied when he kills the Union Commander with his own saber. The film is a Western that falls into Clint Eastwood films as a category. More on Clint's Western films later. It was directed and stars Eastwood as Josey Wales. There are several other characters who play the old Indian man who acts as a mentor and comic relief to Josey's serious demeanor. Fletcher is also a decent role for John Vernon. The film was released in 1976 and did quite well at the box office.

Like other Eastwood films; The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Unforgiven, and others the film is driven by the structure of abuse, recovery, and vengeance. Josey Wales is no different. Wales is abused by Union soldiers who kill his wife and son and burn down his house. It all happens within the first ten minutes of the film. Over the next thirty or so minutes Wales goes on a journey to get satisfaction for how he has been wronged. First he joins a Confederate guerilla unit, then goes it alone, then makes allies along his journey, and finally in a big shootout kills of the Union soldiers in pursuit. As the end credits roll, Wales rides off into the sunset.

Clint Eastwood turns in a quality performance. It's what you would expect from a Western with Clint starring. He is invincible. He shoots everyone dead. He is the righteous vigilante out to right wrongs, save the innocent, and stand up to the bad forces of society. In the case of this film it's the Union army who has won the Civil War. The other minor characters are defined by the Civil War. Fletcher who turns out to be an ally of Wales' at the end of the film is a character which creates sympathy for the Southern cause. The other minor character is the old Indian man Chief Dan George. He adds comedy and humanism to a film that sorely needs it with all the violence, shootouts, and brutishness of the other characters.

The film comes off as authentic. There are no errors in costume or cinematography. The settings reflect the period of the time. Yet the film could have been more creative. It is a straight forward film without much risk taken in the presentation of the film. Perhaps that's what Eastwood wanted. The edits of the beginning of the film into Josey's mind as he is taking his revenge add a surrealistic touch to an otherwise dull, realist film. The scene of the boat crossing is very slow. I thought it was boring and poorly written. Instead of showing where Clint and the kid were going we were told. The film really picks up steam with the raid against the pioneers from Kansas. The attempted rape of the white woman kicks up the intensity level. That carries the film into the negotiation scene with Ten Bears and the final shootout with the "red legs" soldiers.

The film has hints of being a great film, but it just doesn't get there. It is nowhere near The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. The dramatic tension never rises to a similar level and the characters are too thin. It's also not as good as Unforgiven. There is no deep psychology behind Wales. Only flashes of the tragedy that has befallen him. And the abuse is rather short lived and mild compared to what Eastwood goes through in his other films. Perhaps it would have been better if he had suffered more directly like in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly or Unforgiven. In those films he is starved or beaten almost to death. In Josey Wales he doesn't endure enough pain to develop a deep sympathy for his character. More sympathy is created for the South rather than Josey Wales.

The message the film conveys is like the message in Unforgiven. Everything is corrupt; authority, society, and human nature. The only righteous way is to take matters into your own hands and settle things through a shootout. It plays on the fears of conservative America. That the Civil War was a mistake and Southern American culture and way of life are under siege and need to be defended to the death. That 's the moral high ground that the hero Josey Wales takes in the film. He is the equalizer, the defender of what is right. And he can not be defeated. Like in Unforgiven where everyone seems to be morally culpable, Eastwood stands on the high ground of morality. He saves the Indian girl from rape, he saves the white settlers from exploitation and slavery, and he finally does what every Southerner wishes they could do; he defeats the Union army. It is these fantasies that are the message of the film.

The film is like Buster Keaton's The General or Gone With the Wind. The cause of the South was a noble one, but it ended in defeat. Like the many films that re-fought the Vietnam War in the 80's this film re-imagines the Civil War where the South had the moral high ground. It ignores the brutality of the Slave system. And misrepresents the Union army and the righteous cause of re-uniting the country and ending slavery.

The Outlaw Josey Wales is a good film. If you liked The Man With No Name trilogy starring Eastwood and directed by Sergio Leone, you will like this film. However one sided or historically biased the film is. Perhaps you like a film where the South has won.

Review of Unforgiven

I never tire of seeing Unforgiven's ending. I've seen the film five times now and it hasn't gotten old. The tension, the darkness, the rain, the whiskey bottle, and Munny's rising rage all make a great ending that will live as one of the greatest endings to a Western in Cinema history. The contrast presented between Clint Eastwood and Gene Hackman is so stark. Like two heavyweights slugging it out to the end with Munny prevailing in cold blooded murder. Unforgiven was released in 1992. It was directed by Eastwood and is the last Western he has made. It would be great if he made another Western, but I think that is only wishful thinking. The film stars Eastwood, Hackmand, Richard Harris, and several other character actors.

The film has several lines of engagement. First is the direct and open story. A prostitute has been cut up by an angry Cowboy. The Sheriff refuses to punish the cowboys to the satisfaction of the group of prostitutes, so they post a bounty of 1000 dollars for the killing of the two cowboys. This leads to English Bob coming to Big Whiskey. He is run out of town by Little Bill (Hackman). The script proceeds along another story line concerning William Munny (Eastwood). Munny is a reformed drunkard and killer. He only grudgingly takes on the bounty hunt. Over the course of the film Munny turns back to his old ways and brutally kills Little Bill. The story of William Munny is intensely engaging. The story follows similar Eastwood Westerns like Pale Rider and The Outlaw Josey Wales. They all follow an abuse, recovery, and, finally, vengeance format. This film is no different and the ending is a cathartic release of emotion finally vented on Little Bill and his posse.

I thought Eastwood did a great job. It was typical Clint. The cold stare. The unwavering killer instinct. it was what you would expect in a Western starring Clint Eastwood. There were several scenes when he really showed his age. The script said Munny was in his thirties, clearly in the film he is much older. I liked the almost surrealist dream descriptions of Eastwood's near death dreams. He is totally believable. It's an evolution of his character from previous Westerns. It is deeper with darker psychological aspects. Along with the usual invincible character traits that define his Western persona.
The actors turn in high quality performances. Hackman is great as Little Bill. So is Morgan Freeman and "the Kid." I didn't think for a second that the film was cliched or unbelievable.

The cinematography was great in the film. The dark sequences of the posse riding in with Ned captured and the final scene of Munny riding in to kill Little Bill were done incredibly well. The mise en scene should be commended too. The scene with Munny and Delilah were expertly done. They showed her in the foreground and Munny in the background showing them talking. The same goes for the shots of Munny is sitting at the table and Little Bill harasses him. The revealing of Eastwood's face with dim light was a nice touch. The light revealed his face, then his eyeball only for a second, then his whole face was shown in a pale light through the window. It was all well done and brought out the emotion of the scene showing Munny as a vulnerable character that added to the sympathy we should feel for him.

The film is flawless. Everything works well; the acting, the writing, the shooting, the editing, all great. Unforgiven might be the best Western ever made. It certainly seems it's the best Western of the last few decades. Name one to rival it?

The theme of the film seems to be that no one can be trusted. Everything is up for grabs. Authority is corrupt. Little Bill stands as a big bully who refuses to do the right thing. The only thing left to do is put out a bounty that vigilantes will satisfy. I recently was talking about Unforgiven and I said it was a Post-Modern Western. And I stand by that. The characters are jaded. There is no clear right and wrong. And the subject matter has evolved from the staid Westerns of the 50's and 60's, even Sam Peckinpah's films don't deal with subject matter dealt with in Unforgiven. The movie tells a story about abused prostitutes, when has the ever been done before? I can't think of any other films that show how sex workers suffered in the Old West. It does stick to the old cliche of Westerns; the dead eye who can't be beat. It's a myth of the West, but let's face it the Western as a genre thrives on myth as the film makes clear in the inclusion of the WW Beauchamp character.

Unforgiven is a great film. It's the best Western of the 1990's. Aside from The Assassination of Jesse James, it's undeniably the best Western that's been made in the last few decades. I have yet to see Eastwood's other films that deal with his format of abuse, recovery, and vengeance. These include Pale Rider and The Outlaw Josey Wales. Perhaps Eastwood's format has grown tiresome? Maybe that is why he quit Westerns? I guess we'll have to wait to see why Clint gave up the Western genre. Is it really that bad to be the next John Wayne?

Review of Once Upon a Time in the West

The ending of Once Upon a Time in the West is one of the worst endings I've ever seen. To believe that Jason Robards is fatally wounded at that point in the film takes a leap of faith. And that the person who shot him was the cripple from the train is an even further illogical plot twist. The film has it's moments, but I was disappointed. It just lacks the magic of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly or the other two films in the Man with No Name Trilogy. The film was directed by Sergio Leone and stars a cast of characters that include Charles Bronson, Henry Fonda, Claudia Cardinale, and Jason Robards. It was released in 1968 on the heals of the success of the Man With No Name trilogy also directed by Leone.

The film centers around the slaughter of a frontier family. The story twists and turns until it is made clear that Red McBane, the man who's family is brutally murdered, bought land that runs where the railroad will go. He stood to make a lot of money when it was time to build the railroad further. Henry Fonda is the lead villain executing the orders of Morton. Morton is a railroad Baron who wants the land for his railroad empire. It all leads up to a shootout where everyone dies except Bronson and Cardinale.

I found it hard to believe Henry Fonda as the villain. The bloodshot eyes and coarse looks add to his villainy, but I still remember him from his previous work where he was the good guy. His voice and demeanor just don't mix well with his villainous character. Charles Bronson comes off as a tough guy of little words. He has a relatively easy role. He doesn't have to do much except look tough and shoot down the bad guys. It was nice to see a woman in a Leone film get more then a subsidiary role. Even though she was abused and the treatment comes off as misogynistic, her character endured the abuse and was left standing with the railroad at the end. Throughout the film I also had my doubts about Jason Robards. In previous performances I had seen him only in theater productions. So to see him in not just a film, but a Western, was a different view for me. And to see him as an action star was hard to believe.

The film is technically solid. It comes off as just as good as other Leone films. The giant expanse of the West is shown in beautiful cinematography. There are many good edits; hard cuts from gun barrel to train, from a shot of the town to the inside. The mise en scene also worked well. The shot compositions with Robards and Cardinale were a portrait of domestic life that doesn't get shown in many other Westerns. It was also innovative in that in didn't rely too much on deep focus as so many films do.

The best part about the film, really of any Leone film that I've seen, was the combination of the musical score with action. Ennio Moriconne does a good job. Maybe not his best effort, but still a great soundtrack to the action. I didn't know how well Opera music would work in a Western, but it adds an Italian touch to the film. The film is good, but not great. It certainly doesn't have the magic of other Leone films. Perhaps it's lacking Clint Eastwood or Lee van Cleef who are so good in the Man with No Name trilogy. The story and writing are far better in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. I thought the dialogue was too simple. It could have been more complicated. With more memorable lines.

The theme of the film isn't too complex. It seems that it's message is that good will triumph over evil. Eventually someone will get you. The scheming of Fonda and the Railroad Baron eventually leads to their demise. At the end of the film all I could think of was all those dead bodies over a railway station. Couldn't they have found a solution? A compromise? Like in Altman's McCabe and Mrs. Miller, the corporation is presented as evil. A greedy, lethal force that let's nothing stand in it's way. It is up to individuals to stand up to greed and murder and see that good prevails. It does in the Once Upon a Time in the West, but doesn't in McCabe and Mrs. Miller.

McCabe and Mrs. Miller offers a good comparison to Once Upon a Time in the West. McCabe and Mrs. Miller is an unfailingly real portrait of the West. Leone's films are not. They are often too hard to believe and overly stylized. The music and action scenes being stylistic flourishes that border on Surealism. In the Man With no Name trilogy it works well. In Once Upon a Time, it doesn't. The ending is illogical and the standoff between Bronson and Fonda is too theatrical. It is built up too much. I did like the dream, but would there really be time for a dream when you are in a duel? Again it becomes Surreal and too much of a stretch for me to believe.

If you liked the other Leone films, you would probably enjoy this film. As a film in itself, it's probably not worth seeing. I would say it is for fans of Leone and his style of Western. I can't help saying that the film will probably leave you disappointed.

Review of Ride the High Country (1962)

Randolph Scott's performance in Ride the High Country might be his best performance. In fact it was his last performance. His personality in the film adds humor and interest in an otherwise placid depiction of life in the West. I couldn't help thinking during the film that it was a film from my grandfather's era. I'm sure he would have remembered Randolph Scott as the representative of Westerns in his era. Ride the High Country is an interesting film. It was made prior to the revolution in Cinema that happened with the dawning of the New Hollywood. And it shows. There is little gratuitous violence and no sex. The most scandalous thing that happens in the film is when Mariette Hartley shows her naked back to the camera while changing into a pink dress. Altogether the film shows the evolution of the Western from this film to the Sergio Leone epics onto recent films like Unforgiven and Hostiles. The film is only for those with a keen interest in Westerns. If you don't have a keen interest in Westerns the film will be boring and placid.

The film revolves around two plot lines. It's difficult to say which is more important; the marriage of Elsa or the attempted robbery by Gill and Heck. In any event they come clashing together in an ending that leaves nothing open. The marriage is broken and the gold deposits are taken. What will happen to the gold? Will it get stolen by Heck and Gill? Or will they give it to the bank? That question is left open. Otherwise the story is built around the job of transporting the gold from Coarse Gold back to Hornitos. Along the way the plot twists with Mariette Hartley's quest to find love and leave her boring life on the farm which is controlled by her stern father. The film progresses neatly from situation to situation with the stakes rising to a boiling point in the last twenty minutes.

The film is interesting to watch. The role of stolid cowboy with unbending ethics is well done by Joel McCrea. He symbolizes so many values that conservatives hold dear. The dedication to the good fight, his unbending morals, and his care for women as exemplified in his care for Mariette Hartley's character. Randolph Scott turns in a good performance as well. He is a con man from the start. It is only in the last segment of the film that he is redeemed and returned to respectability. In the early parts of the film he is mostly comic relief. His unforgettable quip to Heck during the fight scene makes a nice sound bite for the trailer. Yet the film is clearly for two older actors. They take up most of the screen time and provide the driving force of the plot. There is a lack of psychology in the actors which causes them to come of as rather light. Ethan from The Searchers is a much more complex character. The only sense of the past we get is from Joel McCrea's character's frayed cufflinks. I would have liked to see more complications in the actors psyches. There is little more to their motivations than economic necessity.

The film is rather straight forward. There are no big effects scenes. The best use of montage comes from the scene where Mariette Hartley makes her way into the bar to get married. It becomes almost surreal the blending of laughing faces as she stands before the judge to get married. The whole scene of her marriage and the ensuing chaos is well shot and well cut. It creates a sense of anxiety in the viewer and raises questions that push the story in a direction that wasn't easy to predict. It also portrays the Hammond boys as scumbags who have no nobility.

The film doesn't take chances. It doesn't delve into extreme close ups like a Leone film. In fact it might use deep focus a little too much. Some of the shots are so far up that the characters become almost obscure. The gun fight scenes seem like an episode of Bonanza. Too much like TV, not enough like film. It's realism is commendable, but it's no where near a film like The Searchers. It just doesn't grab you emotionally enough. It is too light in it's treatment of death and the struggle to survive.

The film's theme seems to be a morality play. If you follow the Bible than your life will be secure. Mariette Hartley's character shows that. She craves for a life outside of the farm and her scripture quoting father. In her choice to run away she brings death and carnage to the good people in the film fighting for her right to choose. Her father is killed by the Hammond boys. And Judd is killed in the fire fight all so she can first run away from the farm, and then second, run away from her marriage to Billy Hammond. The resounding message is to not go against scripture. To stay on the farm and bad things will not happen. The Lord's way, the way of the Bible, is the way you should choose. Choosing otherwise will only bring on evil and ignominious death.

If you are to see this film, I would suggest that you have a deep interest in Westerns. Otherwise the film might be a bore. I watched this film as part of a study of Westerns. I have seen several Westerns and this film is good, but not great. Compared to Seven Men From Now, another film that starred Randolph Scott they are not that much different. Neither film takes many chances. They are both rather straight forward in terms of techniques and story. This film is from a different era. By contemporary standards it would be a TV show, rather than a feature film.

Trip to the French Film Festival at Lincoln Center

Today was a long day. I finished work on Sunday morning and didn't sleep a wink until my father and I hit the expressway heading through Pennsylvania. I slept close to two hours, then I was wide awake. I took in the great shots of the skyline coming in from New Jersey where my uncle lives. The sun was bright. No rain or snow. Just a clear blue sunlit sky. We got into the the city without much trouble We took the Henry Hudson Parkway down to 50 something street and circled back to Lincoln center via 10th Ave. We parked the car and were momentarily lost in the underground parking lot. We found our way to the Metropolitan Opera house and were pleasantly surprised when we reached sea level with a perfect view of the fountains. Such a beautiful campus. The lights, the buildings, the posters, the lack of noise, so great. Unlike anything in the city and rivaling anything in the World.

We crossed the Lincoln Center campus to reach our first destination. It was a Starbucks nestled around the corner from the movie theater which was showing all the films. I ordered two Caramel Machiatos and two croissants. My father and I ate them and watched the crowd roll by. We finished our drinks and made our way to the Walter Reade Theater. I visited the ticket window and got our tickets. I looked over the tickets the cashier gave me and noticed that the all day pass for Monday was missing. I went back and sure enough, she forgot to give me the all day pass because I forgot to mention that I ordered the all day pass which includes a free bottle of champagne if I go to all four films. I think I can make it through all four films. I know I can. I've done it before. I'll do it tomorrow. For sure.

The first film we watched was Petit Paysan which translates as Bloody Milk. It's a story about farmers in France who are pretty small time. It focuses around one farmer who has a rather small herd. And before you know it, his cows are sick with a mysterious viral illness. He tries to cover  it up, but can't keep the secret hidden. The farmer is eventually found out and his whole flock must be slaughtered. It's a searing drama with plenty of nature shots. I was particularly astounded to watch the farmer bring in a new calf. It was one of the most graphic animal delivery sequences I've ever seen. It showed in incredible detail the birth of a young cow.

It ends very sadly with the rather young farmer having to kill off his herd and presumably sell off his land.

The second film we watched was a thriller that centers around family strife. It is told from a variety of viewpoints. Firs the ten year old boy, the second the stalker, the third the battered woman. The film builds suspense step  by step  until it finally explodes in it's last thirty minutes. I knew the ex-husband would do something bad, but I didn' t see him having a shotgun blasting through the front door. The tension was built incredibly well. The shots showing the ex-husband as a nasty brute. The pushing of each buzzer sound to let him into the building. Until the final cathartic pounding on the doorway. I kept hoping and hoping that the police would arrive. And that hope was held out to the last possible minute when they finally do rescue the wife and her son.

The third film we watched I fell asleep in. I was so tired from working and not sleeping at all the night before that I nodded off during the first hour of the film. I was so tired that we decided to skip the fourth movie and go back to the hotel.

Then we went out to dinner. We searched around for a good place to eat and finally settled on The Playwright. Was it a tourist trap? Maybe. I had a Ceasar salad and two Bombay Saphire Martinis. I was well into the my second Martini as my father and I talked about old movies many of which are not known today. I mentioned William Holden and his glory days of Sabrina, The Bridge on the River Kwai, and Paris When It Sizzles. All great films from a great actor. We also talked about the James Bond franchise. My father says he likes the Sean Connery Bonds better than any of the others. He may be right that they are the best bonds. I brought up the topic of Bond being a misogynist. I don't think my father knows what the word mysogynist means. He was good company though. Even if he is old fashioned. He paid the bill an he ate a slice of Key Lime Pie I couldn't help but overhearing a French couple talk in the background. I wish I were fluent so I could hear what they said. What do you know a French Film Festival and a French couple near us at dinner. There were plenty of French speaking people at the Festival. I'm looking forward to tomorrow. My goal is to get that bottle of champagne. A bien tot!

Review of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The three way stand off at the end of the film is the best stand off that's ever been recorded in Cinema history. The tension, the anxiety, that builds and builds. The fast cutting from faces to guns and to just the eye movements of Tuco, Angel Eyes, and Blondie make the sequence unforgettable and unrivaled in the history of stand offs in the Western genre.

If you watch the film for the first time the tension rises steadily, steadily. And the question of what will happen; who will shoot who? Angel Eyes would shoot Blondie. And Blondie would shoot Angel Eyes. But who will Tuco shoot? Would he shoot Angel Eyes who had him tortured? Or would he shoot Blondie who nearly had him hanged by the noose? It's a tough decision. But Tuco decides to kill Angel Eyes. The question doesn't get answered as his pistol is empty.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is a strong case for the best Western ever. It has all the ingredients of a great film. A strong story, a strong cast, and a World that makes the viewer nostalgic for the Civil War. And the War may be the best part of the film. It looms like a storm over every crucial scene. Starring Clint Eastwood as the man with no name, Eli Wallach, and Lee Van Cleef as the trio of bandits hunting the 200,000 in gold, the film was released in 1966 to great acclaim. The film is the capstone in the trilogy of films by Sergio Leone. Eastwood starred in all three as the dead eye who can't be beat.

The cast is all around great. Every performance notches a solid grade. From the guy who faces the camera at the beginning of the film to the farmer that Angel Eyes murders in the first segment of the film, each character contributes to the film.

I was taken in by each of the three main characters. Angel Eyes especially. He is so evil and so cold-hearted. He kills without remorse. Always getting his way until he is finally put down by Blondie. Blondie is the other character that comes off as an extension of John Wayne. He can't be beat. He makes the precise shot every time. He conveys no emotion. No deep psychology. He keeps going until the good fight is won. He stands as the symbol of White, Christian, settlers out on the range battling with everyone else to win. And win he does. He is like the myth of the greatness of settlement. He is the good.

Eli Wallach however is the ugly. And it shows. He fights for scraps trying to outwit Blondie and Angel Eyes. The film really is the story of Tuco. Without him the story doesn't move forward and isn't as good. Otherwise we would just have a standoff between Blondie and Angel Eyes. There would be no search for the 200,000. The character of Tuco is not as perfect as Blondie. But he has appeal. He is funny and obscene. In the scene where is introduced he has a bottle of liquor and a chicken leg in his hand while being pursued by bounty hunters. It is comical and shows the nature of The Wild West. Tuco is a great and memorable character. The final scene when he screams at Blondie is one of the best endings in a Western ever filmed. I wanted to see that scene again the minute it was over.

The techniques in the film are incredible. It far surpasses any Western in terms of battle scenes or cinematography. It makes ample and expert use of the close up. From the first shot of the film to final showdown, the cameras zoom in on just the eyes. The darting, insecure eyes, reveal all. Who will get shot? Who will die? The battle scene with the Union soldiers going against the Confederate soldiers on the bridge is incredible. I asked myself as the scene played out, how much did it cost? All of those canon ball shots, the close ups of the canons shooting off, how much did they cost? Such good film making. No other Western that I've seen rivals it. Not up until the point of the release of the film. Dances With Wolves does have some great shots too. But that wasn't until the 1990's.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is easily the best Western of it's generation. Sergio Leone is clearly a genius at creating movies in the Western genre that restore it to it's greatness. Seven Men From Now may have been entertaining to the crowd of the 40's or 50's, but compared to Leone's Spaghetti Westerns they look old, tired, and obsolete. Perhaps The Searchers can measure up to a film like The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

The Searchers is deep and complex. It deals with issues between settlers and Native Americans. It raises questions that Dances With Wolves deals with in the most complex way I've seen yet on screen. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly doesn't deal with any issues related to colonialism. In fact there are no Native Americans in the film. It does create a sympathy for The South like Keaton's The General or Gone With the Wind. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly may have been the peak of Leone's work. Made at a time when film and culture was changing it shows that new ideas for The Western are a good thing. The reinvention of genres reveals that film will live on in different, better forms.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is a film that should be watched several times. In Clint Eastwood there is the legend of the unbeatable cowboy. Quick with a gun and short on empathy. Along with Leone they create films that are legendary. They will live on in film history far past the death of the director or Eastwood himself. I've seen the film at least four times and every time I'm watching the final battle scene into the showdown with rapt attention. Every time Eastwood's tension filled eyes draw me in to see how he will strike down his enemies with cold precision. Like an act of God he kills with exactitude. Yet, I reflect, is it all just a myth? Was there anyone really that good?

Review of The Searchers

Was John Wayne really that bad? Over the course of his film career he made himself into an icon of The Western. In Film History you can't study The Western without considering John Wayne. He made so many Westerns that were of such quality that he is a legend. Whatever his politics are. The Searchers is a Western that many people consider his best work. Working with John Ford it addresses so many questions of The Western; settlement by White pioneers, the one sided portrayal of Native Americans, the archetype of the Western gunman which is so ingrained into American culture, and the defense of White, Christian culture against outsiders.

For me it brought up questions about the very broad issue of Colonialism. The Western frontier ended sometime in the 20th century. Yet, Colonialism affected not just North America, but also Asia, Africa, and South America. Whatever your opinion about Western settlement, The Searchers is a canonical film which raises questions for debate and is indispensable for studying the West and Colonialism. Like Huckleberry Finn and Gone With the Wind, The Searchers is a film which shows life as it was in those days. However Racist, one sided, and White Supremacist it might be, we should allow films like The Searchers to show how life really was before revisionism and political correctness took hold. Times have changed. But I'm not for white washing History just to show how far we have come. For it is only when we know where we are from that we know where we are. And if you forget your past, you are forever condemned to repeat it.

The best qualities of The Searchers are it's plot and main character Ethan played by John Wayne. The plot commences with an idyllic setting on the Texas plains. Everything seems hunky dory until one of the farmers has his cows stolen. This leads to the defining moment of the film; when Ethan's family is slaughtered. This sequence was masterfully done by John Ford. I was reminded of the scene from the first Star Wars movie where Luke Skywalker returns to find his Aunt and Uncle slaughtered by Imperial troops. The scene from The Searchers is almost the same. The house is burning, the women have been kidnapped or murdered, and the men are dead. The reaction of John Wayne is memorable. His eyes are teary as he looks on. The only action is anger. Thus begins his long search to avenge his family.

It is the plot that keeps this film going. There is a debate about what should be the motive force in a film. Should it be the plot? Or character? This film moves along because of plot. Without the plot there would be no film. Beginning with Laurie's reading of Martin's letter the film moves from scene to scene up until the final thirty minutes of the film. Along the way there are minor characters and Ethan always figures into the action. But the plot, the sequence of events, keeps the film moving from scene to scene. Until finally, Scar is killed and Debbie is rescued from captivity.

The film would be nothing without John Wayne. The second time I watched the film it occurred to me that no one talks down to The Duke. He is always posturing and speaking from a position of superiority. The only person who can confront Ethan is the Commanche Chief Scar. The scene where Ethan and Scar meet is a taught scene filled with anger and tension and the one person who might be able to best Ethan. But John Wayne is never defeated. He doesn't kill Scar. In fact I thought the killing of Scar could have been done better. Scar gets three pistol shots from Martin and dies. Only to be disgraced by Ethan in a later scene. I thought they could have shown Scar's death a little more gruesomely. After all he does remorselessly kill many white settlers. I was hoping for more revenge.

The Western was John Wayne's best genre and produced his best films. The Green Berets, which so many people have criticized negatively, may have been out of touch and too propagandistic. But, you can't deny that some of Wayne's Westerns are not only entertaining, but critically address issues of the White Settler community. Perhaps they don't address the other side of the argument very well.

The Searchers will stand as a film which shows the perspective of the White Settler. It reminds me of arguments Niall Ferguson made about the British Empire. Would the World be a better place without the British Empire? The spread of Democracy, Capitalism, and the English language on the rest of the World, are seen by Ferguson as positives. The same could be said for the settlement of the Western United States. And I think The Searchers is representative of that argument. That settlement, the spread of Democracy, Capitalism, and the American way of life was a good thing.

Review of McCabe and Mrs. Miller

McCabe and Mrs. Miller is the most realistic Western I’ve ever seen. For all its shortcomings, it does not fail to portray the West as it was. Like Altman’s big breakthrough Mash, McCabe and Mrs. Miller gives audiences a view to a bygone era of American history. The film is replete with references to the Old West. And the ending is just as poignant as the entire film. It presents a view of the Old West from a saloon keeper and a gambler. It shows how the prostitutes lived. Instead of alluding to the situations of the Old West it takes you inside and shows how it was in all its glory.

The best part of the film is it’s World. It is a period piece of excellent quality. Everything is there; the boom town, the gambler, the madame, the prostitutes, the hungry miners, and the last desperate shootout to the death. All of the qualities are there for Altman to orchestrate into a film that dramatizes an aspect of the West which was rarely shown. Before it was typical Western. Cowboys versus Indians. Settlers being harassed in their mission to settle the frontier. Never before was the West of the gamblers, drunkards, and prostitutes given such voice as they were in this film. Surely the Western was never the same after McCabe and Mrs. Miller.

If the World was the best part of the film, the writing was a close second place. The characters and plot of the film keep the audience interested in what will happen next. And when the company men are introduced it seems that a criticism of American Capitalism takes precedence. Warren Beatty is a struggling small businessman who is given no choice but to fight for his life against the oppressive, tyrannical mining company. It presents the main conflict of the film; man versus the corporation. In the America of that time big business was unrivaled in America. And the worst aspects of that dominance emerged on the frontier. In the film the mining company owns everything. McCabe can only plead to make a deal to save his life. He knows it’s a losing struggle. And his death is the last gasp against the mining company’s control of the town, of the frontier, and of the country.

McCabe is a romantic figure in thinking he has rights. That he can go to a lawyer and have some kind of redress against the company. The final struggle shows that he doesn’t have any rights in opposition against the company which is the representative of Capitalism. The character of McCabe shows that free will is a fallacy. McCabe’s destiny is not determined by his own actions, but by the actions of a mining company. Freedom is an illusion.

The film is rather slow. It takes time to develop and only picks up steam when Julie Christie makes an appearance in the film. Without her the film would suffer badly. The scenes of the miners waiting for the hookers is rather banal. And Warren Beatty’s Western accent becomes hardly believable as the film progresses.

Still there isn’t much wrong with the film. The technical aspects are all top notch. It’s a film that reinvigorates the stale genre of the Western. Sergio Leone may have created a fantastical realism in his spaghetti Westerns. But those seem like fabrications of a West that never existed. Altman’s film feels real. Like I could have walked onto the set and felt like I was really in the West. It has a humanistic realism that is altogether lacking in the more popular, yet less meaningful films of Leone.

Review of The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Is the Western a dead genre? It would certainly seem that the Western as a genre has been dying for some time. Sure there are still movies made about the West, but clearly the frontier as it was called in the past has been discovered many times over. But legends still persist. And as long as interest in those legends persist the Western genre will survive. Not as gloriously as in the past, but as a genre with something to say about the large canon of works that center around The West as a mythology in American History.

John Wayne was obsolete by the New Hollywood. And Clint Eastwood made his last Western in 1990 with Unforgiven. It seems that no one has come along to take up the mantle of the quick on the draw, tough as nails, Western leading man. Some efforts have been made like Brad Pitt in Jesse James. Surely he has large boots to fill. Playing a legend is not so easy. Only a personality like Pitt could take on such a large role. He brings a deeper psychology then John Wayne ever had in any of his characters. And unlike Clint Eastwood he doesn’t vanquish his foes at the end. It is a different kind of Western leading man than has been portrayed in the genre.

The film is the story of Jesse James last two years of life. It’s starts out with a train robbery. There is much made about the life of a bandit in The West. It seems those were the glory days for cowboys. Sitting around a fire, talking about sex, getting ready to pull off a heist with the legendary Jesse James; only in the Old West could it have happened. I wonder how many young boys still dream about being a bandit and robbing trains or banks?

It is these fantasies that the film plays on. It is thoughts like these that have obsessed Robert Ford. Played by Casey Affleck, he is despised by almost everyone in the film. Right away he is scene as a coward to be detested for his dastardly act. The film plays out the rivalries among the James gang until we reach Jesse James’ hideout. On a fateful day Robert Ford shoots him from behind with his daughter, son, and wife close by. The film then wraps up by giving a brief history of Robert Ford’s ignominious fame as the assassin who killed Jesse James.

What really stands out in this film is the acting. The director and actors should be commended for their efforts in the film. The casting of Pitt against a smaller, weaker Casey Affleck is a stroke of genius. Their contrasts make the assassination scene that much harder to bear and more intriguing. In that scene alone there could have been another movie made. It’s almost like a film within a film. The tension, the extreme melancholy between the Ford boys and Jesse James is painstakingly depicted. I could almost feel a migraine or a bout of depression coming on as I watched Affleck wash his face, then sit in the rocking chair waiting to strike down Pitt with his new gun. The amount of restraint that was shown during the scene from each actor made it seem almost surreal. It seemed like time had ground to a halt. And all the World was contained in that room in the cottage.

The film feels like a novel with all the narration. Most screenwriters are instructed to not use too much voice over because it comes off as sloppy screenwriting. The rule is “show, don’t tell.” I’m not sure if I like all the narration. In some parts it was useful. In other parts it seemed like a show from the History channel which was tedious and boring. I suppose the intention was to give the legend some weight from what appears to be a secondary source in an omniscient narrator. The narration allows the film to jump from year to year and place to place. It’s especially well used at the end of the film to show how the Ford Brothers met their end after they had a brief stretch of fame.

The film aspires to what other classic Westerns aspire to; mythology. The West is it’s own mythology which has been portrayed in movies for decades. From the John Wayne and John Ford years to more contemporary films, films have created myths and legends like Jesse James which fascinate audiences. The Western is not dead. And this film is proof of that.

Review of The Godfather II

The Godfather II is the best movie sequel ever made. The series of films made in the 1980's don't even come close. Empire Strikes back or Indiana Jones are juvenile films that were successful commercially, but not as complex or dramatic as Godfather II.

In The Godfather II Michael Corleone consolidates his power over the criminal underworld by killing of all contenders to his throne. The film starts much like the first Godfather. A giant party scene celebrating a ritual of life for Michael's youngest son and heir to the Corleone family. The scene is set and all the major characters are there; Fredo, Senator Geary, Johnny Ola, and Frank Five Angels Pentangeli. It is from here that all of the conflicts in the film emerge and develop into high drama.

I read the screenplay and watched the film twice. It's a process I've followed from Graduate school. Comparing the film and the script show that several revisions were made. The scenes with Senator Geary were changed to include the setup with the mutilated girl. The attempted murder of Pentangeli was also moved up in the film. That would be my major criticism of the film. That it starts off too slow. The script read that way. It takes awhile to get from Lake Tahoe to Havana, Cuba. But when it does the film becomes a classic apart from the first film.

The scenes from the film of Cuba are great. It is one of the best sequences in all of movie history. It shows Michael leading the Corleone family to international status as a major player in the leisure industry. The film makes full use of the lively culture of Cuba. It shows people dancing, the flare for life that Latin cultures are known for. It creates a World that is a teeming with conflict and the conflict explodes in the final party scene where Michael confronts Fredo about his treachery against Michael. Against the family.

Everything is there in Cuba. Great acting, cinematography, pacing, and editing. The acting of Lee Strasbourg as Hyman Roth was top notch. I really believed that he was a lying criminal who was Michael's rival. His speech about Moe Greene was full of anger towards Michael. Saying that it was "the business we have chosen." A great sequence that combines the politics of Cuba, the impending deal by the gangsters, and the familial conflict between Fredo and Michael.

The film then goes into one it's flashbacks to the young Vito Corleone. It is a character study of a rising Mafia Don who learns his lessons early in life and never forgets them. I guess it's true of Sicilians. You don't want to ever cross one because they will get revenge. Like the Roman Emperors and their struggles to keep the empire together and kill of rivals, Vito does the same. He builds his empire through calculated action; murder, theft, intimidation, nothing seems to be out of the question for Vito. But, when he gets home he is a family man. The intimate scenes of Vito and his young family in the small tenement are touching It's a theme that runs through the entirety of the film. Vito loves his family dearly. So does Michael. There is nothing more important to him then his family. It's the backbone of his empire.

The last hour after intermission brings all of the themes and conflicts to a boil. The Senate investigation where Michael is cleared of wrong doing, the abortion of Michael's son by Kaye, and of course, like the first movie, Michael's elimination of enemies and his consolidation of power. The murder of Hyman Roth was tamped down. In the script he is shot point blank in the head by Rocco. In the film he is shot in the heart. I couldn't help but admire Rocco's courage. As he was being shot by the FBI guys I thought "he took one for the team." It was different was Neri kills Fredo. Unlike the first film where I was cheering for Michael as he killed Barzini and Tatalia, I thought of him as cruel and evil in his decision to murder Fredo, the only brother he had left.

The film revolves around the character of Michael. It provides one of the classic characters of Film history. Why does Michael do it? In the last scene in the boathouse where Michael makes the decision to kill off Roth, Tom Hagen asks him "you've won. Do you really want to kill off everyone?" His response is as ruthless and his actions. "Only my enemies" he says. He knows killing Roth will cost Rocco his life. Yet he sends his most trusted assassin to make sure the job is done. In the final scene of the film the camera pans in to rest on Michael's eyes. I couldn't help but think, what is going on in his mind? Does he feel remorse after having killed not only his brother in law Carlo, but now his own brother? Does he long for more power? More money? More control? At the end of the first film I was happy that Michael had succeeded. At the end of the second film I felt nothing but revulsion and pity for him. I wished he would be brought to justice. That he would have to somehow atone for his ruthless grasping for money, power, and control. He doesn't confess his sins. He is the last man standing. Michael always wins.

The film is a lasting testament to the Italian American experience in the United States. The flashback scenes with young Vito show Little Italy and Sicily in a bygone era that will never return. Little Italy is getting smaller and smaller. And quite a few Italians are part of the afluent in the US. In New York the Governor is of Italian descent. So was his father who was Governor before him. So much Italian culture oozes out of the film. The scenes around the dinner table, in the Church, the bonds of the community, the scenes of the theater with Fanucci. The street scenes with the crowds and vendors. I couldn't help but recall Ric Burns excellent documentary of New York. Or that the actor in the theater piece looked like Fiorello La Guardia. The romance and the history pulls you into the World. It makes you able to excuse Vito's criminal actions because he is a romantic figure. The same was true of Don Corleone and Michael. It's what makes the film so great. It's an experience within itself. Better than anything at the theaters these days.

Review of The Godfather

As a capstone to my study of crime films I decided to read the screenplays and watch The Godfather and The Godfather II. I remember a painter saying how when he looked at the Dutch painter Franz Halls he said he felt like painting. But, when he looked at Rembrandt he felt like giving up because Rembrandt was so perfect. I would say the same for The Godfather I and II. I've seen some other films about the Mafia, but only the Godfather films attain a standard that will never be reached again. If Chinatown is a perfect film, the Godfather is beyond perfect. Everything with the film works so well. There aren't any faults in the film. The direction, the writing, the cinematography, the editing, the art direction, and of course all of the excellent performances by the all star cast. So much drama; love, hate, violence, tension, passion, and the back stories about the actors. Al Pacino was an unknown before The Godfather. He was living hand to mouth and living a vagabond existence in the Village before Francis Ford Coppola cast him as Michael Corleone.

The story is a straight forward one. The ups and downs of the Corleone family against the other mafia families. It is a romantic film, but mostly a thriller. It is always acting on the next question that it will answer. I was dying to know what would happen next. And every scene is varied or different from the previous one. The emotional range is varied which keeps me emotionally feeling the film. I was cheering for the Corleone family. I was cheering for Michael when he kills Solozzo and McCluskey. After all who likes heroin dealers and crooked cops? That scene in the restaurant is one of the best  scenes in Cinema history. It creates so much tension. Will Michael kill Solozzo and McCluskey? Will the gun be there? Will he get out alive? It is a thrilling ride until the final violent shooting.

I couldn't get over Marlon Brando as the Don. Was it his best performance? Was it his career peak? It would certainly seem so. He never did anything as great as Don Corleone again. Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now rivals the performance, but it isn't as good as Don Corleone. The Don is a much deeper character with much more to say and do than Colonel Kurtz. Every performance is great. Every character hits a note with the viewer. Sonny, Clemenza, Tessio, Fredo, even Moe Green comes off as an interesting character even though he has only a few lines in the film before he is killed.

And of course Al Pacino will forever be remembered for his portrayal of Michael Corleone. The transformation of Michael from care free college boy to Mafia Don is one of the best character arcs in film history. But what does Michael think? He is so cold hearted. And to think of poor Kaye And Connie. Women characters in the film get much sympathy. I was so glad when Carlo was killed at the end of the movie. The scene where Talia Shire is beaten in the bathroom is so revolting. The way the camera doesn't show the violence. We can only hear here screams of pain as Carlo beats her with a belt.

The film is non stop action from beginning to end. There is never a dull moment. Even the little reflection scenes of The Don are fraught with unspoken musings that are alluded to by the Don's face. Can you think of anyone playing Don Corleone but Marlon Brando? I can't even imagine someone else in the role.

The screenplay is about 120 pages. The last thirty or forty pages are such a quick read. It seemed like time stood still as I read those pages. I forgot about my problems and escaped into the world of the film. I forgot that I would die. And my life would end in obscurity and irrelevance. It's the greatest art that does that. Films attempt to achieve that, but so few really do. The Godfather does without reservation. After the film ended I was already lamenting the fact that I had to stop watching the film. Reality and mortality awaiting me like a giant chain that I'll never be free from.

But as Samuel Beckett says, "I can't go on. I'll go on."

Review of Zodiac

The Zodiac is a long and complicated movie that runs over two hours. The first hour and a half comes off as a Law and Order episode with some cinematography that uses the "God's eye" view in effective ways. I couldn't get over how much like Law and Order the film was. It's far too procedural for me. I liked the last hour of the film. The character of Robert Graysmith saves this film from utter oblivion. The beginning starts off with a lot of brutal violence. I couldn't help myself thinking, in the first murder scene, how much the zodiac killer looks like Joe Pesci from Goodfellas as he kills Samuel L. Jackson for forgetting to ditch the incriminating vehicle. The setup for each murder looks the same. Each using a pistol with a silencer. It even uses a rock song. The scene was brutal enough to invoke the emotion of fear that would grip San Francisco about the Zodiac killer. It is that use of showing brutal murders that creates the initial impulse to follow the film to it's conclusion.

The period dress and settings were remarkably done. The police station and the newspaper office evoked American conlformity from the sixties. The gray desks and chairs along with the haircuts and shirts created an ambiance that created a World in which to get lost in. Forgetting that those days were more than several decades past. In the first ten minutes all the particulars are established; the main characters, the atmosphere, and the conflict that runs throughout the course of the film. After the first twenty minutes or so the film delves into procedurals which left me bored and wondering when the film will end.

Robert Downey, Jr. carries the film forward, but the police investigation bogs it down. There is no action. Perhaps the film would have been better as a documentary? I wonder if there has been a documentary made about the Zodiac killer? Probably. The film aims for documentary realism and it succeeds mostly. But for a good solid hour there is little to no action. The film wasn't made for the fan boy audience. It's a serious film that attempts to be an awards contender.

The screenplay was a thriller. It runs a long 194 pages and is not too light on thrilling sequences. Especially thrilling is when Jake Gyllenhaal goes to the movie buff's house to see his secret canister of film. The scene is filled with nervous tension that grows out of the central conflict of the film; who is the Zodiac killer? According to the film it has never been resolved conclusively. It is too bad that the lead suspect didn't get justice. During the investigations of the Zodiac murders I found myself angry that they didn't indict Arthur Leigh Allen. Why didn't the DA act? Surely they could have brought him to trial and if nothing came of it, then he would be a free man and the investigation would continue. It's a travesty of justice that makes the film watchable for the last hour.  Was it sloppy police work? A judicial system too protective of criminals? That was the questions the film raised for me.

The screenplay also veered into documentary, perhaps too much for me. It used hard dates to emphasize how much time had passed. Maybe that was used in the Graysmith book from which the film was derived? It was a very newsworthy approach. Similar to Nixon which used specific dates in it's back and forth between time periods. I liked the use of dates to show the elapse of time. It really showed how much time lapsed between letters and kept me interested. After all the procedural stuff I could be brought back to the case with the use of a specific date. It made the film more cinematic rather than just another procedural like CSI or the previously mentioned Law and Order.

I wouldn't recommend this film to someone who isn't interested in serial killer films. It is far too detailed and procedural than a casual film goer would want to watch. Still I did find it better the Girl on The Train which had it's merits, but lacked the seriousness and gravity of Zodiac.