Reviews

In 1957, a movie was premiered that was the most awe-inspiring of its time. It was a massive project, involving a collaboration of several countries and the building of a bridge. It was the film that put director David Lean on the map and brought home Best Picture and six other Oscars at the Academy Awards. Although Lean and producer Sam Spiegel later topped themselves with `Lawrence of Arabia' and their first film's flaws have since become apparent, `The Bridge on the River Kwai is still a landmark of motion pictures and still awes (Major spoilers up ahead).

`Madness! Madness!' The last words said in the film by Colonel Clipton can be used to sum up the film. Most of the major characters were mad in a way, but some more so than the others. Let's take Alec Guinness as Colonel Nicholson, one of his most renowned performances. Nicholson is a stiff upper lip officer, who believes that by building a ‘proper' bridge, he is helping the future and providing the prisoners with better work and self-esteem. He doesn't seem to take into account that this bridge will be used by the Japanese in Burma against the allies and that men are dying on the River Kwai. There are three other main characters in the story. Shears, played by William Holden, Colonel Saito, played by Sessue Hayakawa and Major Warden, played by Jack Hawkins. Shears, from what we can tell, doesn't want anything to do with the war or the P.O.W camp. He bribes officers and, when he escapes, tries to weasel his way out of going back. As an actor, Holden has always been, yet this movie will have us asking why. Hayakawa was 68 years old when he was cast as Saito, yet he doesn't look or act like it. Unlike Nicholson, he only builds the bridge because he has to. Like Shears, he does his duty because of what would happen if he did otherwise. The third character, Warden, is different on the other hand. He sees the war as a game, playing with his plastic explosives as if he's a kid with firecrackers. He also believes only in the mission, carrying around suicide pills should anyone have to be killed.

Speaking of the River Kwai, the actual story was worse than it is here and this is one of only two problems I have with the story. Hundreds, if not thousands, of prisoners of war died along this railway from causes such as malnutrition, dysentery, malaria, gangrene, beatings, exhaustion and torture. And some just wanted to die. This sugarcoating of the actual story is one of the most controversial parts of the movie, but what did you expect? This is a Hollywood Epic. This is where the film's only other problem comes in: It seems to have no major focus. We leave the Nicholson-Saito story just when we are to decide whether to cheer or boo Guinness so other events can be fitted in.

The Colonel Bogey March has become one of the most renowned scenes in film history. Originally, however, the song was almost not excepted because it had some rude lyrics. However, the scenes were the march is first used foreshadow other events to follow. The P.O.Ws march past `the graveyard' and the hospital were the sick are kept. They are like new recruits marching past battle hardened veterans as they go to war. Shears remarks to Corporal Weaver, `We're going to be a busy pair of gravediggers'. The second time the march is used is near the end, as the gang marches across the bridge just before the commandos strike. The march, as happy as it may seem, is an omen of what is to happen next.

`There's always the unexpected'. John Milius once said that the commando mission in this movie is the best he has ever seen on film. Why? Because everything that could go wrong does. The team parachutes off course, one member is killed, they have to take an alternate route and Warden gets injured in the foot. However, they continue on and on. They finally reach the bridge, marveling at the quality of the structure and the apparent comradeship of the prisoners with the Japanese. They think that, from there, it's easy sailing. However, nature has a way of toying with them and are they really prepared to fight and kill others if the need arises?

Ironically, the person who destroys the bridge is the same man who advocated its construction. Nicholson's actions, however, still spark debate to this day. Many believe that he would never do such a thing and that he must have been knocked unconscious we he did what he did. However, what about his last line `What have I done?' In my view, though he loved the bridge like it was his own child, he realizes the enormity of what he has been doing and that he must kill his child.

In the end, the bridge is destroyed, but for what cost? Everyone involved is either dead or doomed to die. Their fates have been sealed. On the other hand, life has survived. The first shot we see in the movie is of a bird floating around in the sky. This represents nature's tranquillity, before it is disrupted by the machines of war. The last shot we see is of the same bird and once again is tranquillity. Only this time, it is a return to peace. Men may have kicked aside life in their quest to build and destroy a bridge, but they are only temporary visitors. Nature is a permanent resident.

In June 1998, on a much-publicized list, the American Film Institute named `Citizen Kane' America's Greatest Movie, sparking a controversy that rages to this day. Since then, when people watch `Citizen Kane', they've been analyzing it and dissecting to see why it made the list. They completely have forgotten what made it so great (Minor spoilers).

I, for one, am one of those who think any greatest movie list is ridiculous. I believe a person should have several favorite movies and if they are asked what is their favorite, they can name one of those. But they need to know why. `Citizen Kane' is one of these I would name because it's so creative. Every scene is a delight to watch in terms of cinematography, lighting, sound, writing, music or acting. Almost everyone was in their film debuts: Orson Welles, Joe Cotton, Everett Sloane, Agnes Moorehead, Dorothy Comingore, Ruth Warrick, Ray Collins, Erskine Sanford, William Alland, Paul Stewart and George Coulouris are all excellent in their debuts and most would have long careers. It's difficult to name who is the best, but I think that Cotton, Sloane and Moorehead were the best in all their scenes. Welles and Coulouris would be the runners up.

There are other elements that make the film work: The script of Welles and Herman Mankiewicz (Strangely, the film's only Oscar winner), the music score of Bernard Herrmann, the photography of Gregg Toland (The only major team member with previous film experience), the film editing of Robert Wise (Who would have a great career as a director), and the sound created by Bailey Fesler and James G. Stewart. Blend all these elements together, allow to bake and you got a great movie.

Film Critic Pauline Kael once called Rosebud a gimmick. Indeed, this is correct. At first, it seems to explain everything, but it also explains nothing. The movie has such a great story because it gives us the inside on the life of a rich and famous celebrity, the kind we are always interested in. Rosebud is the key of newsreel reporter Jerry Thompson (William Alland), as well as ours, to unlocking the life of Charles Kane. We really never sympathize with Kane since he is a jerk. He uses people to his own advantage and he kicks anyone around who gets in his way. Nevertheless, the life is fascinating. The screenplay was also one of the first to take liberties in the plot. It doesn't have a linear narrative, but rather jumps from interview to interview, from event to event. Event after 60+ years of age, the movie is still as fresh and entertaining as though it were made yesterday, just as it will be 60 years from now.

If you decide to watch the movie for the first time, do not expect it to be the greatest movie you have ever seen. Rather, don't expect anything. Expect just another movie and you will get your money's worth. On the cinema mountain range, there are few on the same height as `Citizen Kane' (Dr. Strangelove is the only movie I would place on Kane's level, for its brilliance, its acting and its creativity). Unfortunately, many of today's future directors aren't getting raised on films like this. In fact, when I told someone about it recently, they said `Citizen Kane? Is that a movie?' That's a shame, for the filmmakers of tomorrow need better inspiration than the disposable movies of today.

I have not seen the movie Pearl Harbor since it first came out in theaters back in May. But after a recent experience, I could not help myself from writing a review.

Recently, in my history class, we were discussing about how Hollywood changes events in history to make movies more entertaining and commercial. One person brought up Pearl Harbor, asking if Hollywood messed up the history or not. If I weren't so in control of myself, I would have gone off on that person! I asked him that why should an important and violent event such as the bombing be toned down for a PG-13 rating and why we pay to see a three-hour love story that should have been a war movie. Being in a classroom full of MTV Generation morons who wouldn't know good movie making if it smacked them in the face, I was told by several people to shut up. But whose has the last laugh.

Pearl Harbor, admittedly, is entertaining. But should this awful event in our history be turned into a duel by the visual effects artists for the explosions? Considering the time period this movie was made in and the filmmaking techniques available today, this could have been as realistic and brutal as Saving Private Ryan. Also, since it was unrealistic towards the attack, it defeated another purpose of the producers; to encourage young people to study more about the attack. If that student in my class had read a book on the attack, he might not have asked if the movie was unrealistic. He would have already known.

There are several other problems with the movie. One of the big ones is the reasons why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. In the movie, the only reason given was that the U.S cut off fuel supplies and trade. Japan decided to show the U.S not to mess with them. If one were to study up on the attack, they would realize that Japan was invading islands and lands in the pacific. Thus, the fuel that the U.S was providing would have been used for the wrong purposes. The Japanese, who launched the air strike and thus brought the United States into war don't even have a big role in the movie. Even the title place of the movie doesn't have a big part, being only the mere backdrop for two young lovers.

One might call me a hypocrite, for I trash a movie like Pearl Harbor for lack of combat accuracy and praise something like The Longest Day, which has some inaccuracies in its view of the D-Day landings. But one also has to know that these movies were made in two different time periods: The Longest Day came out in 1962, a time when censors had more control over film content and thus wouldn't permit Longest Day's producers to show a bloody D-Day landing (This was also the era of the war epic). Pearl Harbor, however, has been released in a time of more leant censors and could have been the definitive movie of December 7, 1941. Instead, it was only made as the ultimate M.M.M (MoneyMaking Machine). When will Hollywood learn to stop cashing in on the dead?

How has a good movie like The Scalphunters become largely unknown over the years while everyone knows what The Matrix is? With a fine cast lead by the legendary Burt Lancaster, Ossie Davis, Telly Savalis and Shelly Winters and with a lot of memorable dialogue and scenes, this is a great comedy western (Minor spoilers).

Joe Bass (Lancaster) is a fur trapper who has spent the whole winter collecting furs. When a pack of Indians lead by Two Crows take Joe's furs and leave him with Joseph Lee (Davis), an educated slave, Bass pursues the Indians to get his furs back. The two have a series of misadventures that also involves a party of Scalphunters lead by Jim Howie (Savalis), who take the furs from the Indians and also take Joseph Lee. Bass now has to get both his furs and his slave back.

The film works on many levels beside comedy. Some also might consider it a commentary on racial politics. The end of the movie, when Lancaster and Davis become covered in mud and are indistinguishable has some symbolism; the white and black man, while of a different color, are the same people.

Recently, I watched Ben-Hur for my first time. The movie got off to a slow start and there are quite a few minutes I would have considered editing out (The overture alone was six minutes). But, after about half and hour or so, this movie really got going. The story revolves around Jonah Ben-Hur, a Jewish prince who is arrested for attempting to murder a roman governor (Which was untrue. It was a mere accident) and forced into slavery. Ben-Hur is portrayed in an Academy Award winning performance by Charlton Heston. Some critics have complained in the years following the film's release that Heston is wooden in his role. While his performance isn't brilliant and does have some poor moments, he is excellent nonetheless. The rest of the cast is also good. The sets, cinematography and special effects are also excellent, which is probably why they won among the film's Eleven Academy Awards, a tally that wouldn't be equaled until 1997's Titanic.

I though at first that the opening scene of the film (The birth of Jesus Christ) had nothing to do with the movie. But Jesus was a main part in Ben-Hur's life, at least in his Hollywood life. He encouraged him to continue moving on when Jonah was a slave and also baptized him. When Jesus was dying at the cross, he performed one last miracle on the Hur family by curing Jonah's mother and sister of leprosy.

There is in this movie what is among the ten most celebrated action scenes in motion pictures: The chariot race. After more than forty years, the sequence has not lost its original excitement and is still inspiring directors today (See the pod race in Star Wars Episode One). What makes it so good is the way it was filmed. Sometimes, the camera angle makes it look as if we are spectators at the race. In other shots, we are chasing the chariots or even feel as though we are sitting in the driver's chair. The fact it was filmed in the 1950's before such a scene could be computer generated or filmed in front of a blue screen makes us appreciate it more because of the risks the producers took in filming it. Would such a scene be as great and realistic if filmed today?

Three-hour epics such as this are what can be considered an acquired taste. They are long and slow at times and often with unnecessary scenes. But this doesn't mean they aren't worth watching. If you want to learn about the Roman Empire or if you just feel like watching a good movie, Ben-Hur is highly recommended.

General George Broulard (Adolphe Menjou) appoints General Paul Mireau (George Macready) to plan an attack on "The Anthill": An important German position that has been heavily fortified and deemed impregnable. The Regiment chosen to attack is the 701st, lead by Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas). Though it has been estimated that more than half of Dax's men will be killed, the 701st should be able to take and hold the Anthill until reinforcements arrive.

A day later, the attack begins. After a light bombardment, the first wave charges toward the Hill. However it is found to be merely a suicide charge. Many of the troops are either killed or wounded. The bombardment is so intense that some of the soldiers never even leave the trenches. General Mireau (Who was observing the battle from afar) deems the men cowards and orders a court martial with a sentence of death if the men are convicted.

Paths of Glory is a bold and powerful statement against the self-serving officers of all armies. General Mireau did not capture the Anthill. So, although the attack was impossible, he court-martialed and had killed some of the "cowards" who made him look "ridiculous". These Generals, although they must be geniuses to have risen to such high rank, also have no clue what some of these soldiers go through. They live and work and dine and drink in their spacious, nice, clean mansions while the soldiers who do the fighting and win the wars live in cramped, ugly, dirty trenches under the constant fear of death and disease. In one scene, as General Mireau inspects the trenches, he comes across a shell-shocked soldier. In a scene reminiscent of Patton, he hits the soldier who he then claims is a Baby. Maybe if he had been in the first wave of the attack on the anthill, he might have respected the men rather than court-marital them.

I will not talk much about the court martial, for there is not much to talk about. It is also more of a kangaroo court; The outcome has already been pre-determined and the defense is futile. The three men court-martialed are Private Paris (Ralph Meeker), selected because his unit commander has a personal grudge against him (The film shows why), Private Ferol (Timothy Carey), chosen because his commander finds him to be physically unattractive and Private Arnaud (Joe Turkel), elected to be court-martialed just because he drew a slip of paper marked with an X.

Paths of Glory has often been renowned as one of Stanley Kubrick's best films. However, despite wide critical acclaim, it was not a commercial success and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences denied it even a single Oscar nomination. This is a pity, for Paths of Glory is not only one of the best war films but is also one of the greatest movies of all time. Period.

Rating: 8.0 out of 10.0

The American Film Institute, after creating quite a controversy with their greatest movies list, was able to redeem itself with their Greatest Stars and Funniest Movies lists. Now, they present their latest: America's Most Heart-Pounding Movies.

The list is top-heavy with Alfred Hitchcock. The `Master of Suspense' has nine films, including three in the top ten alone (Psycho, North by Northwest, The Birds). Steven Spielberg has seven, including Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark in the top ten. The late, great Stanley Kubrick has five on the list, though none made the top ten.

The list, naturally, goes from number 100 to number 1. No complaints about Psycho being named the most thrilling movie of all time. It's also nice to see some of the movies that did not make the greatest movies list (The Exorcist, Deliverance, Dirty Harry, Jurassic Park, Goldfinger, etc.). I also thought the interviews with various stars and filmmakers were rather interesting and informative.

But, like every AFI list or Academy Awards show, there are things I did not like about this list. Here are four movies I was sure would make the list.

1. Apocalypse Now: Recently, I went on the AFI's website and checked the list of nominees. They nominated The Blair Witch Project, The General and even Ghostbusters. But not Apocalypse Now! Don't they know the First Air Cavalry's charge to Wagner's `Dance of the Valkyries' and Martin Sheen's battle with Marlon Brando is more thrilling than watching some girl videotape herself screaming?

2. Archnophobia: Again, it was not even nominated. The movie that made me afraid of spiders should have made the list for the heart-pounding battle between Jeff Daniels and the mother Tarantula.

3. The Hunt for Red October: Well, at least they nominated it, thought they selected other less thrilling films over it. The scene where the Red October `Disappears' in front of the U.S.S Dallas and the final battle against that other Russian Sub should have been enough for this film to make it.

4. Patriot Games: Also nominated, but not chosen. You have to love how thrilling the terriost attack on Buckingham Palace and the high-speed boat chase near the end are.

Honorable Mentions that weren't even nominated: Live and Let Die, Thunderball.

Like I said, You have to give the AFI some credit for choosing films that did not make the greatest movies list. But should have spent more time on the nominees and on the films that were selected. Worth watching, but not recommended.

The AFI's top ten:

1. Psycho 2. Jaws 3. The Exorcist 4. North by Northwest 5. The Silence of the Lambs 6. Aliens 7. The Birds 8. The French Connection 9. Rosemary's Baby 10. Raiders of the Lost Ark

Recently, I had the privilege of viewing the new directors cut of Apocalypse Now known as 'Redux'. It is simply a spectacular restoration of a movie that already was a masterpiece.

Almost an hour worth of new footage has been added in. The original always had the sense of being hurried. This new version gives the film more breathing space and develops characters more. They cover a second encounter with the gunboat crew and the Playboy Bunnies seen previously at the U.S.O show and A much-talked about seen at a French Plantation. There is also additional footage of the Air Cavalry and some more footage from the Kurtz Compound.

The best of the new footage is the added footage of the Air Cavalry and of Willard's Gunboat crew. The original cut never really explains why Captain Willard and his men leave after the attack on Charlie's Point so quickly; we assume it's to continue with their mission. 'Redux' explains why. I am not going to tell but this new footage shows more of the insanity of Colonel Kilgore and shows that Captain Willard is not the stone-faced, boring guy we assumed he was (He actually smiles!).

But this is no ordinary Director's Cut, which basically throws in new footage and does nothing else. Francis Ford Coppola and Walter Murch (One of the original editors) have remade 'Redux' literally from scratch. The `new' footage has been restored to match with the original. In addition, Coppola and Murch might have changed some of the existing footage. What I mean is that they have not changed the scene itself, but the camera angle where it was filmed. For example, when Willard kills Kurtz, first off Kurtz is reading an Air Force statement that is banning crewman from putting the F-Word on their planes. In the original, when he was killed, it only showed a forward view of him as he was stabbed. In this version, Kurtz turns around before he is attacked and then shows a struggle between Kurtz and Willard, leading to Kurtz's eventual death.

But even 'Redux' has its flaws. The encounter with the Playboy Bunnies, while harmless, doesn't really have anything to do with the film. It basically shows that people might get desperate enough in wartime to have sex in exchange for fuel. But the French Plantation is not as easy to sit through. Except for showing what the French think of American involvement in Vietnam (Negative of course) and more personality development for Captain Willard (He smokes opium and even has an attraction for a French woman), it has nothing to do with the film's plot. Some call this a trip through time and indeed it has an eerie feeling throughout (Largely because there is fog everywhere). However, I recently found an explanation for the plantation scene that makes sense; the whole journey up the river by Willard and the boat crew is a trip through time. They start off in the Vietnam War, then go to when Vietnam was a French Colony and then go to when it was ruled by savages. Also notice that before they arrive at the Plantation and after they leave it, there is a thick fog (A possible time warp?). However, the movie overall would not have suffered if this scene was left out and instead used as a DVD extra.

Overall, while deliberately paced and a bit tedious (Plus it has graphic violence and many uses of four letter words), Redux proves to be as good if not better that the original. I wonder if it can be eligible for Oscar contendership. I doubt any of other movies this year would be much competition. For me, watching this movie was an unforgettable experience that cannot be summed up in words. If you don't believe me, see it for yourself!