Movie Review Summary

I did it! I set out to watch a list of movies at the start of the year and that is exactly what I did. Along the way I was disappointed with some movies and pleasantly surprised by others. I stopped writing reviews quite a few months back so I thought I would do a couple of summary reviews now that I have finished. Sit back and enjoy as I take you through a brief discussion of my journey -

Casablanca
It was so long ago now that I watched this movie. Best to read my original view though in hindsight I may have given it a higher rating than the 6.5/10 I did at the time. Out of all the movies this is the first one I will watch again.
Original Score: 6.5/10
Watch again? Yes I will
My fav scene:


Fight Club
This was one of the movies that disappointed. I had heard so many people rave about this movie so it was a shame to me that I hated it (see my original review for the reasons why)
Original Score: 3/10
Watch again? No

Gone With The Wind
Now this is a long movie and was quite enjoyable. See my original review for this movie.
Original score: 6.5/10
Watch again? probably not - it is too long

Breakfast at Tiffany's
Another classic movie which I enjoyed. It was my favourite of my list for quite a while.
Original Score: 7.5/10
Watch again? Yes

Goodfellas
I had no expectations for this movie and it was ok. I have no more to say than what I said in my original review
Original score: 6/10
Watch again? unlikely

Fargo
I wanted this movie to be better than what it was. It was over the top black humour which is what has made it so popular to the public. It didn't impress me much.
Original score: 5/10
Watch again? I probably will

Citizen Kane
This is an Orson Welles self indulgent bore-fest. I really can't say much more than I wrote in my original review. In hindsight I would give it a lower score.
Original score: 2/10
Watch again? not even if I was paid.

The Godfather
Having previously read the book, I may not have liked this movie as much as I would have.
Original score: 7/10
Watch again? if it was on TV

The Godfather: Part 2
I was disappointed with this one but maybe that was because I didn't have subtitles for the Sicilian parts.
Original score: 4/10
Watch again? Yes with the subtitles next time

The Godfather: Part 3
Universally regarded as the worst of the 3 Godfather movies and very different to the other I found. It was ok.
Original score: 4/10
Watch again? no

Jaws
I liked this movie much more than I expected. I did a full review when I watched it.
Original score: 7.5/10
Watch again? yes but not in summer

Some Like It Hot
Not a bad movie. It certainly had it's funny moments. Maybe I rated it a bit too high though.
Original score: 7/10
Watch again? yes

The Maltese Falcon
I just didn't get into this movie at all.
Original score: 3/10
Watch again? maybe to see if I was just in a bad mood when I first watched it.

The Usual Suspects
Now this movie I did enjoy.
Original score: 8/10
Watch again? yes

The Revenge of the Nerds
This was a fun movie. I didn't say much about it in my original review and I don't have anything to say about it now. I did enjoy it though.
Original score: 7/10
Watch again? probably

Singing in the Rain
This movie is a lot of fun. Lots of singing and dancing and an enjoyable story.
Original score: 8.5/10
Watch again? absolutely
One of my favourite scenes -


To Kill a Mockingbird
A really good movie that deals with racism. I can't remember much about this movie now but I did give it a good score at the time.
Original score: 8.5/10
Watch again? I will

Trainspotting
This is a tough, gritty, dirty movie about drug addiction. i did enjoy it.
Original score: 6/10
Watch again? probably

Schindlers List
This was the movie I put on my list that I really didn't know whether I would be able to handle it. I had read stories about the holocaust and they had made me angry and depressed, so I wasn't sure whether this movie would do the same. Schindlers List is great because it does make you angry and scared and sad and outraged, but it is also uplifiting and gives you hope. it got the highest score of all the movies I reviewed (equal with Ben-Hur)
Original Score: 9/10
Watch again? not in a hurry even though it is great

Silence of the Lambs
Another movie which I had previously read the book. I really enjoyed the movie, particularly the acting by Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal.
Original score: 7/10
Watch again? some day

Life of Brian
I'm not really a Monty Python fan so I was never likely to give this movie a high rating. It has it's funny moments but overall it wasn't my cup of tea.
Original score: 5/10
Watch again: not anytime soon

Rambo First Blood
This is probably the movie that surprised me the most. I expected it to be a killfest but the body count for this movie is only 1. The story was much more involved than I anticipated and Stallone was surprisingly good as an actor.
Original score: 7/10
Watch again? yes

Rambo First Blood Part II
I expected this to be an implausible let-down after the first, but again I was pleasantly surprised. More killing in this one but the story was still good.
Original score: 6/10
Watch again? yes

Rambo III
Again I expected this to be the weak link in the series and again I was pleasantly surprised. The story is good again, and importantly it is plausible.
Original score: 6/10
Watch again? yes

Raging Bull
About the only thing I remember about this movie is that the characters do a lot of arguing and yelling at each other. I found it a bit boring.
Original score: 4.5/10
Watch again? no

A Streetcar Named Desire
I found this movie to be completely boring and useless. Nothing ever really happens, none of the characters are likable or memorable and as such I was disappointed with it.
Original score: 3/10
Watch again? no way

Aliens
Unbeknown to me at the time, this is the 2nd movie in the series, so I watched them in the wrong order. I spent ages looking for Aliens 2 without any luck. I then realised the first one is called Alien and the 2nd is called Aliens. The movie itself was ok but the horror genre is not favourable to me.
Original score: 5/10
Watch again? not likely

Alien
This was my favourite of the 3 Aliens movies I watched. Again, not a movie genre I like but it was ok nonetheless.
Original score: 6/10
Watch again? probably not

Alien 3
Stayed true to the series and was less scary than the others if I remember correctly. It was ok.
Original score: 5.5/10
Watch again? only if I watched the others again

Casino
Violent movie and an engaging story which is based on a true story.
Original score: 7/10
Watch again? yes

The Deer Hunter
I found this movie to be pretty boring. The first hour is just a waste of time. Really the only good bit of this movie is the Russian Roulette scene. It is hard and unnerving to watch. Here is the scene -

Original score: 4/10
Watch again? not likely

Apocalypse Now
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning". I didn't like this movie as much as I hoped I would. Many well known and very good actors appear in this movie (Martin Sheen, Robert DuVal, Marlon Brando) but I just didn't take a shining to it. I did have the redux version which includes many extra scenes which made it longer and a bit more tedious.
Original score: 4.5/10
Watch again? perhaps

Taxi Driver
I did write a full review on this movie, just read it.
Original score: 7/10
Watch again? I would but I'm in no hurry to

It's a Wonderful Life
This is the kind of movie I hoped I would come across when I started out. It is an old black & white movie, character based and a feel good story. It did get slightly bogged down at times which is why i didn't rate it higher.
Original score: 8/10
Watch again? yes

The Exorcist
When it came out in the 70's this was regarded as the scariest movie ever. What appealed to me was the storyline. As I have said, horror is not a genre I like to watch so this rated well considering.
This was my favourite scene though it didn't really fit into the rest of the movie because she didn't leave her bedroom at any other stage.


2001: A Space Odyssey
I wrote a review on this movie because it is so incredibly boring. I found a clip for the ending. 9 mins it goes for but don't worry, you can watch it without it giving anything away, it has nothing to do with the rest of the movie. It is just plain weird. I dare you to watch all of it -

Original score: 0/10
Watch again? only if I find the right drug to accompany it

Scarface
"Say hello to my little friend". I liked Scarface quite a lot. There are no boring bits and I ended up absolutely hating the character played by Pacino.
Original score: 8/10
Watch again? I'm sure I'll watch it many times again

Psycho
Not as good as what I expected. Having said that I knew nothing about the movie before I watched it. I had known about the shower scene but not much else about it. The thing I didn't expect is that the movie starts out in a completely different manner to which it ends up. Suspense is kept up throughout.
Here is the famous scene -

Original score: 5.5/10
Watch again? probably not

The Philadelphia Story
A good character based movie with a few twists and turns. Not the most exciting or enthralling story but it was enjoyable.
Original score: 5.5/10
Watch again? probably not

Lawrence of Arabia
This is another long movie but it was enjoyable. The story kept me interested all the way through which is a good thing for a movie that goes for well over 3 hours.
Original score: 7/10
Watch again? only if I have enough time

Ben-Hur
And yet another looong movie. The effects and stunt work were quite brilliant in this movie. It reminded me of an old version of Gladiator. It was a little bit gay I thought at the time of watching and when I read about it afterwards it was mentioned that the 2 lead characters were supposed to have been gay lovers in their teens. They hadn't mentioned this gay character undertone to Charlton Heston because they figured he wouldn't have agreed to play the part of Ben Hur if they had.
Original score: 9/10
Watch again? maybe in instalments

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
I think this is the first movie I have ever seen that stars "The Duke". It is also the first movie that he calls people "pilgrim". The movie was ok, wasn't boring anyway.
Original score: 6/10
Watch again? I probably won't

Great Expectations
To be honest my expectations for this movie weren't all that great. It is a Charles Dickens story, and a good one at that. I enjoyed the posh talk and ye olde language. My 2 big gripes with this movie is that we see the young Pip (the main character) as a kid, then it says 6 years later and he looks like a 40 year old man. That's because the 21 year old Pip is played by the 38 year old John Mills! The other gripe I had was that the movie was flowing along nicely and then it just seems to end really quickly, like in 10 minutes. It's almost as if they ran out of money so just ended the movie as quickly as possible. I literally thought to myself - that can't be the end, it is just getting interesting. It is for these reasons I gave the movie a poorer rating than what it could have received.
Original score 6/10
Watch again? not for a while

Dave, my mind is going... I can feel it.

Well it has finally happened. I was actually hoping it would happen, and with only a handful of movies left to go, I thought it may not happen, but it has.

This weeks movie is 2001: A Space Odyssey. Made in 1968, directed and produced by Stanley Kubrick and winning an Oscar for best effects in 1969.

So what am I so excited about? This is the first movie I have reviewed that I am going to give a big fat zero. A duck egg, donut, nada, zilch, zip, nothing, nought. It is hands down one of the worst movies I have ever seen. After 10 minutes I thought I should turn it off and give it a score of one. I give it a zero because I really wish I had done just that. The first 5 minutes of the movie is just a black screen, the next 25 minutes is monkeys running around making monkey noises. Then we have 20 minutes of watching space ships. Then 20 minutes of normal movie happen, then it just gets weirder and weirder. I actually left the movie playing and went off and did other things several times, including writing this review. I felt like I needed to be on drugs to watch it but I wasn't sure which one I needed. Probably the same one Stanley Kubrick was on when he made this rubbish. The movie itself could be described in terms of being a drug. The first 3rd was a sedative which made me sleepy, the 2nd 3rd was valium and the last 3rd was LSD or acid. I had no idea what was going on.

The story is basically in real time, so when they are preparing to get into the pod to go out into space, we follow them down the hallway, down the stairs, get into the pod, buckle up, start the incredibly slow pod launching mechanism and then drift painfully slowly into space. This all takes 25 minutes. That is no joke. You think to your self -WHY?

Never at any stage, while watching this movie, did I think -

• this is a good movie
• I can't wait to see what happens next
• this story is building to something big

Ok, I will now look at the positives. The effects for the time (1968) are actually quite awesome. The space scenes, spacecraft and interiors would actually still hold up today in a movie. The screens and monitors in the movie would actually have been more advanced than they really were in the year 2001. So Stan had excellent foresight. Unfortunately those positives aren't even a spit in the ocean compared to the negatives.

The Rating -

2001: A Space Odyssey - zero gravity

You talkin' to me?...

Well it has been a while so I thought I'd have a go at writing another review. The movie I will review is Taxi Driver, starring Robert De Niro, a very young Jodie Foster, Cybill Shepherd and directed by Martin Scorsese. The movie was released in 1976 and was nominated for 4 academy awards and didn't win any. It is about a taxi driver (no surprises there) played by De Niro who drives around and picks up people, takes them to where they want to go, and collects a fare for it. The End. So that is the simple plotline and really about as in depth as I will go with it. Apparently Travis Bickle (the taxi driver [played by De Niro]) is a Vietnam Vet and he suffers from loneliness and insomnia. The weird thing about this movie is that not a real lot happens but I never got bored. In fact I actually wanted the movie to go longer which is really weird for me. As it is it runs for just under 2 hours. I think the reason I liked it was because I kept on thinking to myself - "something is going to happen". The Travis Bickle character is a loose cannon and the chances were that he was going to do something interesting at some stage, other than drive a taxi. In the back of my mind was the fact that I fell for exactly the same thinking in the movie Citizen Kane where that "something" never eventuates. In Taxi Driver it does eventuate. I won't give anything away but it becomes violent at the end. I got the feeling that the movie was just getting interesting when it ended - that is why I wanted it to go longer.

In summing up, I think this movie is more likeable by people who look for depth in movies, in this case how a man struggles with loneliness and alienation. If you read some of the other reviews about it they go in depth about such things and how the movie contains hidden meanings and metaphors as a reflection on how a man can be lonely in one of the biggest cities in the World, blah blah blah.... For me I like a movie to be entertaining. If I have to think, I'm probably not being entertained. If I have to search for the hidden meaning in a movie then I pretty much definitely am not being entertained. However, this movie had enough in it for me to be entertained and I think it would probably be my favourite De Niro movie (other than Meet The Parents - a movie where I could leave my brain at the door when I watched it).

I read that De Niro is a "method actor", meaning he immerses himself in his character when he plays them. For this he apparently drove taxis 12 hours a day for a month to prepare for the role. Personally I think it was a waste of time (though he probably made some good pocket money). Though he does drive a taxi for a lot of the movie, it isn't what it is focussed on. The taxi driver character is just a metaphor for the struggles of man juxtaposed with the bright lights and hussle and bussle of .... blah blah blah. I think I'm becoming a real movie critic!

The Rating -
Taxi Driver: 7 taxis

note: ratings are becoming a little bit difficult now as I compare them with previous movies I watched. I was going to give this 6.5 but noticed I gave Casino a 7. I enjoyed this as much as that so that is why it gets a 7. I probably didn't enjoy it more than Casablanca, but as it was the first movie I reviewed perhaps it now deserves more than the 6.5 I gave it at the time.

Should I continue?

I will try to continue watching one movie per week but the reviews are taking too much of my time. If you want me to continue writing reviews let me know and it might motivate me to write a review every now and then.

We've got bush

I watched The Revenge of the Nerds. I liked it. I could relate.

The Rating-

Revenge of the Nerds : 7 pens in my shirt pocket

Who is Keyser Soze? ...

I have my theories on that, but more later.
This week I review The Usual Suspects, made in 1995 and winner of 2 Academy Awards in 1996 - Kevin Spacey (best actor in a supporting role) and Christopher McQuarrie (Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen).
First thing I have to say is that I really liked this movie. I also have to say that this was the first of my movies that I watched during the day. In fact, I watched it early in the morning so I wasn't tired and gave it my full attention. After watching it I immediately wanted to watch it again to see if I could pick up anything new or anything I might have missed in my first viewing. I am still thinking about that movie now, a day after I watched it.
The plot is a little bit complex for me to try to explain so I will give the basics - 5 men come together to do a few jobs together and are then ordered to do a hit by the almost chimerical Keyser Soze (now that is very basic). Nobody knows if Keyser Soze actually exists, but everyone fears him nonetheless.
I will now talk about some of my theories ... if you haven't seen this movie you should STOP READING this review now!! It will contain spoilers and will completely ruin the movie for you. But do watch it and come back ....


ok so only people who have seen the movie are now reading? ...



I will continue then.
There are quite a few discussions around about who Keyser Soze is, or if he is even real. My theory is that he is real and he is Verbal Kint (Kevin Spacey). The biggest clue to this is right at the very end when the fax image comes through and it looks like Kevin Spacey. We also find out that he is not really a cripple as he has made out, but fully able bodied. At some stages I thought that Keaton may be Keyser Soze but we know from the start that he gets killed by Keyser Soze (not that I remembered it was Keaton at the start).
My other thought was - did verbal Kint make up the whole story? We could never really know if his story is real or not as we are seeing it all through his eyes anyway - that is the way he wants the police to see it. But the thing that suggests to me that his story wasn't made up was the fact that Kobayashi picks him up in the car at the end. So we know that the Kobayashi character is real so it is safe to assume that the rest of his story was real or mostly real. But then again the cop who interviewed him notices that the names he gave him were all on labels on items in his office. He realises that the story he just heard was all made up and that he had been "outsmarted". Argh so much to think about, and that has been exactly what I have been looking for in these movies. Very well written, and even better without a clear conclusion so that I can analyse this movie until they put me in a mental home.
Would love to hear what everybody else thinks?

The Rating -

The Usual Suspects - 8 men in a police lineup

Another Bogey...

This week I review The Maltese Falcon, whose main star is Humphrey Bogart. I had heard of this movie before I started doing my reviews, but I didn't know who was in it and wondered who would play the role of Mario Fenech. I just realised that most people who read my reviews probably wouldn't get that little joke ... Mario Fenech is a former rugby league player who comes from Malta. His nickname is "The Maltese Falcon" or "Falcon". The movie was made in 1941 and was nominated for 3 Academy Awards and came away with nought. The plot is rather complex and I probably still don't completely understand it so I won't even bother to try to explain it. It is one of the things I didn't like about this movie, but only one. Humphrey Bogart, to me wasn't a very good actor. It seems to me that he is like Hugh Grant and Matthew Perry when they act, they don't actually act, they are just themselves. Bogey talks tough, acts tough and smokes cigarrettes - just like he did in Casablanca. There is no acting here. Humphrey Bogart plays Sam Spade who is based on Humphrey Bogart. The pace of the story is too fast for my liking, the sets are forgettable and the characters are just ok. The female in the movie is talked about as a glamour girl, so shouldn't they casted one for the role? Mary Astor, to me, is nothing special to look at at all. The amusing thing for me in both Humphrey Bogart movies I have seen is that if he has a love interest you hardly know it. You know how much Bogey loves a woman by how much he hits her. If he only hits her a few times then you know he's found a keeper.

Maybe I should watch these movies in the morning because even though I started watching this movie just after 8.30pm I was fighting off the sleep by 9. Even at the end, when I thought there may be a plot twist or something exciting happen, my eyelids gave in on me and I had one of those micro sleeps. Maybe I did miss something exciting but I don't think so. The only good thing about this movie was that it only goes for 90 minutes. The bad thing is that even that was too long for me.

To the ratings -
The Maltese Falcon : 3 falcon statues

Nobody's perfect...

This time I review the movie, Some Like It Hot, starring Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon and Marilyn Monroe. Made in 1959 and winner of 1 Academy Award (Best Costume Design, Black-and-White) and nominated for 5 others, it is a comedy and rates quite well on IMDB.

This is the first time I have watched a movie that starred Marilyn Monroe and from what I read she was a real menace while making this movie. Always at least 2 hours late and getting even her most basic lines wrong. Apparently it took her 59 takes to get the line "where's the bourbon?" right.

The plot is about 2 men (Curtis and Lemmon) who are witness to a mob killing. They dress as women and tour with all female band, partly for the money and partly to hide from the gangsters. There are some genuinely funny moments in this movie. I found the funniest parts when Curtis dressed up as a millionaire oil tycoon to win the affection of Marilyn Monroes character.

There are some silly things that happen in the movie but because it is so lighthearted I was prepared to let them go and just enjoy the movie for what it is - and that is a bit of fun.

The ending was short, a little silly, but at the same time it made me laugh and wasn't a let down. It is also where I got the title for this blog post.

The Rating -

Some Like It Hot: 7 female band members

We're gonna need a bigger boat...

This week I review Jaws. It was made in 1975, was directed by Steven Spielberg, nominated for 4 Academy Awards, winning 3 (Best Film Editing, Best Music, Best Sound).

The story starts with a girl going for a late night swim and getting taken by a shark. The policeman (played by Roy Schneider) wants to close the beach but the Mayor won't allow it because it will keep the tourists away. This sounds a bit like what is happening in Sydney at the moment! Anyway a couple more people get eaten by the shark so a team is put together to get catch the shark. The rest of the movie is totally about the 3 men trying to catch Jaws.

I expected the special effects in this movie to be a bit cheesy but I was pleasantly surprised in the first half of the movie. Apparently because the mechanical shark (nicknamed Bruce by Steven Spielberg) kept breaking down, he couldn't use much footage of sharks. Instead we see swimmers from the sharks perspective and I think it is a good effect. The first time we see Jaws is on it's third attack and he actually looks realistic. I was impressed. Later in the movie it is clear it is a mechanical shark, especially when it decides to climb into the boat and practically make itself a cup of tea. I actually laughed at how pathetic it looked and how absurd it was that he was even willing to get onto a boat to kill people.

The movie is a thriller of sorts and it certainly isn't boring. The plot is as basic as you could get and I only got a fright once, when the deadmans face sudenly appeared in the boats porthole. So it wasn't all that scary but it will be a few days until I have the courage to have a bath again.

The Rating -

Jaws : 7 people eaten, 1 leg chomped

The last offer ...

At last I have watched all of The Godfather movies. This week was the 3rd and final instalment, and what is publicly regarded as the worst of the 3 movies. It was made in 1990 and was nominated for 7 Academy Awards, winning none. My expectations were low for this movie and it turned out to be not as bad as I had expected.

In this movie we have an aging Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) trying to legitimise his business dealings and facing his past demons. His young nephew, son of Sonny, becomes his apprentice. Strangely I found this movie to be less confusing than the others. Even though all 3 movies were directed by Francis Ford Coppola, with this one he seemed to elucidate what was happening more so than the others. Speaking of Francis Ford Coppola, he managed to slip as many of his family into this movie as he could. His daughter plays the character of Michael's daughter Mary, and his father did the music, and his sister played the part of Connie Corleone. Really somebody should have stepped in and said a big fat "NO" when he suggested his daughter play the part of Mary. She is clearly the worst actor in a series of movies that is great for it's acting talent.

I can see why fans of the first 2 Godfather movies wouldn't like this one. It really is nothing like them. The focus isn't really on the business dealings of the family, or struggle against other Mafia groups. Even Michael is completely different in this one. In the other 2 he was very quiet and had a steely cold look in his eyes. That has all gone in this movie. It is almost like it was a cash in on the popularity of the first 2 movies, much the same as Karate Kid 3 and Terminator 3.

It is the shortest of the 3 Godfather movies but is still too long for me at 2 hours 45 minutes or so. I found I was fighting the sleep from just over 1 hour in. The storyline didn't exactly dance around in front of me to keep me awake.

The Rating -
The Godfather: Part 3 - 4 popes

I'll make him another offer he can't refuse....

I remember when I started this movie review saga at the start of the year. I would get excited and really make a big deal about watching a movie and cooking something nice. Unfortunately now I am starting to think to myself - "Oh no, it is movie night again". Watching The Godfather: Part 2 has not helped. Probably for the first time I started watching this movie with an absolutely clear mind, no expectations, no idea what happens in it and I was in a good mood. 30 minutes into the movie and I felt like I was about to experience the equivalent of running a marathon. I was already fighting the sleep. Like running a marathon I was tackling the movie in small segments at a time - just another 5 minutes, you can do this, must try to concentrate.
I can't believe The Godfather: Part 2 won 6 Academy Awards. Let me list them -
* Best Actor in a supporting role
* Best art direction-Set decoration
* Best director
* Best Music, Original dramatic score
* Best picture
* Best Writing, Screenplay Adapted From Other Material

For me this movie was just more of the same. And at over 3 hours in length, it failed to capture my attention. It probably didn't help that my version didn't have any subtitles and probably 20 to 30 minutes of the film is spoken in Sicilian. So for all that time it was like watching the Italian news on SBS. I had to look at the pictures to try to figure out what was happening.

The movie goes back into the past to show how a young Vito Corleone (played by Robert De Niro) got into the ganster business. These were the scenes that were totally in Sicilian so they were useless to me. The story then comes back to the present with Michael Corleone running the family business and having troubles. The story revolves around business deals, killing people who get in your way, revenge killing, stuff that I have seen already in the first movie. Now to be honest I went on the IMDB website to find out how certain characters double crossed others because I couldn't work it out. To my surprise, nobody else had worked it out either. So are people liking ths movie on the premise that if it is confusing, then it must be deep and profound and therefore it is great? I must also admit that I still have over an hour of the movie still to watch! I pulled up short of the finish line in my marathon, I was fatigued. I may watch the rest of the movie at a later date but I really have no desire to do so. I can already predict what will happen - killings, some revenge killings, some business negotiations, and more killings.

The only positive I have about this movie is the acting. I think Al Pacino is great. I've even placed him on my list of favourite actors along with Tom Hanks, Humphrey Bogart, and Yahoo Serious.

Next week I watch The Godfather: Part 3, the movie that is universally agreed as being by far the worst of The Godfather movies. If that is the case it should get my lowest rating so far,and that is not such a bad thing for me. I love to whinge, complain and ululate about a movie. Mind you, I can't wait to see a really good one.

My rating -
The Godfather: Part 2 - 4 bullets

I'll make him an offer he can't refuse....

This weeks movie is The Godfather, ranked number 2 on IMDB.com highest ranked movies. It was made in 1972 and won 3 Academy awards - Best leading actor (Marlon Brando), Best Picture, and Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium. Now I must say, first of all, that I have read this book a few years ago and I absolutely loved it, so I will probably make a lot of comparisons between the book and the movie. I must also say that I nearly always like the book much more than the movie that is made from it.

Well The Godfather sure has a cast of who's who in acting. We have Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, James Caan and Diane Keaton. So one thing I can't complain about in this review is the acting. Damn it! The cinematography, lighting, and music are also great so no complaints there. In fact I am glad The Godfather got nominated for an Oscar for Best Music, Original Dramatic Score. I mean who doesn't know the theme from The Godfather?

The plot revolves around the Corleone family, an Italian family living in New York who specialise in the gambling and stand over industries. The head, or Don, of the family is Vito Corleone (played by Marlon Brando) and he has 3 sons, Sonny, Fredo and Michael. Michael is the only one of the sons who is not interested in being part of the family business. That is until his father has an assisination attempt on him, so he decides he will be the one who kills the organiser of the assisination and the chief of Police, who is also in on it. The Godfather survives the assisination attempt and as in all gangster movies, revenge killings then take place.

The thing I like in the book was the emphasis on how strong the Corleone family were as a unit and how great they were in running their business. This doesn't come across so much in the movie. I remember when reading the book I really embraced their family values and thought how their business structure could be used in real life. Sure, not the revenge killings and stand over tactics, but their strategies and strength.
I don't know what it is about these gangster movies, but I always get confused by who is who and who is allied with who and then who has been a traitor to who. I don't recall being confused when reading the book so it must just be the movie. I guess they can't dwell on each character for too long, especially when the movie goes for nearly 3 hours anyway. Speaking of the length of the movie, I think they could have shortened the wedding scene at the start. I suppose it develops the Godfather character and how important he is but I still think it dragged on for too long. Another thing that annoyed me was the bag of cotton wool that Brando had in his mouth. Sure it gave his Godfather character an edge but I also felt like I needed subtitles sometimes just to understand what he was saying. If it was a real life conversation it might go something like this -
Godfather: I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse
Other person: Huh? what did you say?
Godfather: I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse
Other person: I'm sorry I couldn't understand you, Can you say it again?
Godfather: I said I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse
Other: You're gonna make me an office in Santa Cruz? Huh?

It kind of loses it's impact.

It is actually really hard for me to rate this movie. I knew the storyline because I had read the book. That also gave away a lot that would happen, in particular who would double cross who, and who would get killed and by who. So in a way a lot of the movie was spoiled. The book is one of my all time favourites so the movie was never likely to live up to that. So I have to enjoy the movie for what it was, and for what it was I can't really fault it. As I have stated, I felt it was a little too long, though I didn't find myself looking at the clock while watching it. I guess the movie is as good as it could be. The book, like any book, allows much more character development than the time constraints of a movie. Therefore the rating of the movie is going to be less than the book.

I offer you these ratings -
The Godfather: 7 horse heads

Rosebud...

What does it mean? You know, at the start, in the first 5 minutes, I actually wondered. Actually cared. It didn't take long before I regretted putting this movie in the DVD player. Actually I'm really starting to wonder if it was a very good idea to watch these so called "classic" movies.
This week I am reviewing Citizen Kane. Released in 1942 in Australia and winner of an Oscar for best writing in an original screenplay. All I can think is that it was in the war years, so it must have been the only movie made that year. It was nominated for a heap of other Academy Awards but didn't win them, which still makes sense. It is so bad that even if there was no competition, the Academy still wouldn't be able to give them the awards.
Citizen Kane was co-written by Orson Welles and he also played the lead character. I don't know much about Orson Welles and after seeing this movie I don't care to find out much about him. Except to say that if I see another movie that is written by or starring him I will run screaming for the nearest bomb shelter, deserted island or Armish community. Any place that a TV can't be found. I can actually take heart that I read the following on the trivia section on IMDB : "Despite all the publicity, the film was a box office flop and was quickly consigned to the RKO vaults. At 1941's Academy Awards the film was booed every time one of its nine nominations was announced. It was only re-released for the public in the mid-1950s." If only they'd left it in
the vault and then tested atomic bombs over it.
[The next bit contains spoilers]
Anyway, enough whingeing, the plot is about a media mogul, Charles Foster Kane (played by Orson Welles) who has just died. His last word before he dies is "Rosebud". The story then retells his life story because a journalist at his paper interviews key characters in his life to try to find out what Rosebud means. This idea I think is clever, and if executed well, it would be great. But the story is so incredibly boring that I don't know how I didn't fall asleep. I mean there would be no such thing as insomnia if everyone in the world owned a copy of this movie. You could come home from a stressful day at the office, all wound up, not able to sleep, pop Citizen Kane on and in about 10 minutes you'd be punching out zeds. I'm sorry, I'm whingeing again, I can't help it. So the story plods along and by now I couldn't give a rats what Rosebud means and my mind starts to wander, and I start thinking about why glue doesn't stick to the inside of the bottle. True story. Anything to keep myself awake. Then we find out what Rosebud means and because I had already given up caring about it, I wasn't disappointed that it was the name of his sled when he was a boy and not the love of his life or anything remotely important. Then that's the end and I am tinged with happiness and sadness. Happiness because the movie is finally over and sadness because I just realised that is 2 hours of my life I will never get back.
What else can I mention about this movie? The camera angles were quite arty. I also found it weird that the characters often talked over the top of each other. It was a little bit off putting. The makeup was pretty good because it made Orson look believably old and young.
Brace yourself for the ratings. As you could imagine this won't be pretty. I have actually left some room because I have seen movies that are even worse than this one, believe it or not.

Here goes -
Citizen Kane : 2 faded old newspapers

Based on a true story...

Actually it isn't, but more on that later. The movie I am referring to is Fargo, written, directed, produced edited (and probably even catered) by Joel and Ethan Cohen in 1996. It won 2 Academy Awards - best actress in a leading role (Frances McDormand) and best original screenplay (the Cohen brothers).

The movie starts with the text: "THIS IS A TRUE STORY. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred." This in itself is an excellent move because as the story progresses, and more disturbing things happen, you have in the back of your mind that those things probably really did happen. There are quite a few well known actors in this movie, Steve Buscemi (a personal favourite of mine) William H Macy (another favourite) and quite a few others I have seen in TV shows or other movies. The plot is about a car salesman (William H Macy) who schemes to have his wife kidnapped (by Steve Buscemi and his accomplice). They are to split the ransom money that is to be paid by his rich father-in-law. Things start to go wrong when the kidnappers are pulled over by a state trooper for not displaying the correct registration plates and they kill him. Things start to go horribly wrong for William H Macy's character too as his father-in-law wants to be part of the negotiations, potentially ruining his plans. The saviour in this film is the pregnant local police woman, played by Frances McDormand, an extremely likeable, smart and calm character. The way she handles crime scenes in a non-plussed, relaxed manner, not at all affected by the gruesome scenes she witnesses is actually refreshing and welcome. It helps to balance out the violence. Personally I didn't see anything in her performance that would warrant an Oscar though, but then again who am I to judge these things.

This movie is disturbing and violent and warrants it's MA rating. I personally think it is more deserving of an R rating than Fight Club. It is a black humour though and possibly because some of it is so visually disturbing, it is hard not to laugh. The setting of the movie (actually none of it was shot in Fargo) adds to the mood of the film, as does the music.

As far as I know, I have only seen one other movie made by the Cohen brothers and that is The Big Lebowski. I actually enjoyed that more than Fargo. Both movies feature Steve Buscemi and in Fargo he plays the role of the "funny looking" man. When they say in the movie - "how is he funny looking?" I asked myself the same question. It is his teeth. He has a face full of crockery that looks like he picked up off the floor of a Greek wedding. I actually wondered how he would feel about being portrayed that way but it couldn't have been too bad because in the end he was chipper. Boom tish!

So, is it a true story? No. Any research done on the movie will tell you that. In fact, at the end of the movie they have the standard disclaimer about the story being ficticious etc. The Cohen brothers wrote about crimes they had heard or read about, so I guess in a sense, it is partly true.

Now comes the time for me to think about giving it a rating. I didn't dislike the movie, but then again, I wouldn't hurry to watch it again. The story is told well, the cinematography was great and the characters were very good. It just seems to me that any movie that is disturbing or violent automatically becomes a hit with everyone. That isn't enough for me to give a movie a high rating. It is more about enjoyment for me and I must admit I enjoy movies that make me laugh like a comedy would. This movie made me chortle but the kind of chortle I would make when watching a kid fall off his bike on Australia's Funniest Home Video Show. Not really a belly laugh.

Here is the rating :
Fargo - 5 woodchippers

As far back as I can remember, I've always wanted to be a gangster...

Well not me, that is what Henry Hill (played by Ray Liotta) says at the start of the movie. Goodfellas was made in 1990 and is the first of many gangster movies on my list. And here I was thinking it was a story about the Salvation Army.
I haven't seen many, if any gangster movies or shows, that is why there are so many on my list. One thing I do know is if you are making a gangster movie you need the following ingredients -


1. Robert De Niro
2. Joe Pesci
3. Killing, lots of killing and then revenge killing.
4. Guns and knives (see point 3)
5. A respected character (see point 1)
6. A crazy character (see point 2)
7. Cigarettes and cigars
8. Italian suits
9. Lots of swearing
10. Martin Scorcese as director

Goodfellas is based on a true story and I have a vague memory of seeing a documentary about it. It follows the life of Henry Hill, played by Ray Liotta as I have mentioned, as told be him. He gets involved in organised crime from an early age and befriends Jimmy (played by Robert De Niro) and Tommy (played by Joe Pesci) and works for Paulie (played by Paul Sorvino), the mob boss. Later in life Henry starts dealing in drugs and becomes addicted to cocaine, his marriage suffers and he is in fear of being chased by police and in fear of his mob connections. After a massive heist with Jimmy and Tommy, amongst others, they all start getting paranoid that the others will "rat" on them, or lead the police to them. The solution: kill them.

This movie has confronting violence, that is why it gets an R rating. The killings are shocking which is the way they are meant to be. Joe Pesci's character is particularly disturbing. He is a maniac who kills people just for making fun of him. The lack of distress he has with the notion of killing somebody, chopping them up, and disposing of the body is chilling. Joe Pesci won an Oscar as best supporting actor for this role. Even though Henry Hill is a majorly flawed character, drug addict, violent, corrupt etc, I still found him to be likable. The same can be said about Jimmy, Even if they were crooks they were mostly fair and kept the violence mainly to fellow mobsters or people who deserved it.

The acting, script, direction and pace of the movie are all very good. There is something about it though that I didn't like, but I can't put my finger on it. I think it was slightly too long and I got just a little bit confused at times with who was who (all those Italians look the same to me). The ending was not what I expected, which is a good thing. Maybe the thing I didn't like about it was how confronting it was. Maybe I should stick to Disney movies.

The Ratings -
Goodfellas : 6 stabs with a large kitchen knife
Spaghetti with home-made sauce : 6 tomatoes

Moon River, wider than a mile...

This week I watched the third of my must see well known movies, Breakfast at Tiffany's. I would categorise this in the most famous movies along with Casablanca, Gone With The Wind, The Wizard of OZ, The Sound of Music and Cool Runnings.

I wasn't sure what to have for dinner while watching this movie and then it hit me. I wouldn't have dinner at all, I'd have breakfast! So bacon, eggs, hashbrowns and pineapple juice it is.

Breakfast at Tiffany's was made in 1961 and won 2 Oscars (both for the music). Now, this movie could probably be classed as a chick flick, but I must admit I liked it quite a lot. To balance things out in my review then, I will mention a few blokey things every now and then.

Audrey Hepburn is a classic beauty and her role in this as Holly Golightly is probably her most famous role. Holly is a likeable character if not a little aloof. From what I have read she is a high class call-girl in the movie, but the hints weren't strong enough for me to pick up on. It is quite obvious though that Paul Varjak (played by George Peppard - who I only knew from the 80's TV show The A-Team, a very blokey show) gets paid to be somewhat of a gigolo. There are some quirky funny moments and I will admit I did get a little emotional at the end. Sure, not as emotional as Roger Federer after he lost the Australian Open final (tennis - a somewhat blokey sport), but a little emotional none the less.

The storyline revolves around Holly and Paul (or Fred, as Holly likes to call him) who live in the same block of apartments. Paul is a struggling writer who has a sugar Mumma to keep his head up, so to speak. Holly is a, well, we never actually know, but she is always dressed stunningly elegant, even when she is in her casual clothes. Maybe it is her hair. Yes I think that is why she always looks so beautiful. She gets caught up with a Mafia boss (very blokey) though this part of the story is really just a sideline, but contributes to the ending. I have heard the ending in the movie is completely different to the ending in the book, written by Truman Capote. I enjoyed the ending in the movie and thought that it was fitting.

The only negative I have about this film was the Asian landlord (who I found out later is played by Mickey Rooney). It is obviously an attempt at being funny, and maybe it was funny back in the days when a pie to the face was funny, but it just seemed way too forced for me.

The music in the movie fits it like Audrey Hepburns black velvet glove - perfectly. That is why composer Henry Mancini picked up 2 oscars for it. In fact, the song Moon River is probably the most famous quote from the movie. Excuse me, I just have to duck off to tune the engine in my monster truck.... there that's better, I was getting a bit sappy and sentimental there for a while.

So to summarise - I really enjoyed this movie. The character interactions, storyline and pace of the movie kept me interested. The length of the movie wasn't too long or too short, and heaven forbid I even loved the cat.
I think I'll watch a gangster movie next week, just to get my blokey quotient up.

To the ratings -
Breakfast at Tiffany's : 7 diamonds (from Tiffany's of course) and 1 stray cat
Bacon, Eggs & Hashbrown : 6 rashers of bacon, 1 egg
Chocolate cake made in a mug with ice cream and chocolate flavouring, and muggacino : 8 scoops of ice cream

Dinner - or is it breakfast?

Dessert - chocolate cake made in a mug, ice cream and chocolate topping

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn ....

Or do I? This weeks review is for the classic, Gone With The Wind. Made in 1939,in colour and winner of 8 Academy Awards. I'm glad I can say I have watched it, but I'm not sure if I would watch it again. I did like it though and I must say, I enjoyed the second half much more than the first. So what I am saying is that I enjoyed the last 6 hours of the movie the most.

Set in the American civil war, the movie follows Scarlett O'Hara (played by Vivien Leigh) and her ordeals. She is an interesting character and a more unlikeable, uncharming and annoying leading lady in a movie I haven't encountered since Nicole Kidman in Moulin Rouge. Well I find Nicole Kidman to be unlikeable and uncharming all the time, so that is unfair to Moulin Rouge. We have a charming leading man in Rhett Butler, played by Clark Gable. Actually, he may not be charming, but any man who wears a flash suit, a slicked back hair do, and one of those pencil thin cookie dusters on their top lip, automatically looks like he could charm the pants off any lady. Mental note: I must grow a pencil thin moustache.

I find a few things interesting about this move:- this is the first "classic" movie I have seen where nobody smokes. Even more strange considering smoking was cool when it was made, and the fact that apparently both Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable smoked 4 packs of cigarettes per day in real life. No wonder the kissing scenes were so lacklustre - they both probably felt like they were kissing a burnt out tree stump.
Another thing was that half the important characters in the movie got killed while trying to jump a fence on a horse. Civil War, Schmivel war, the most common cause of death in this movie was while show boating on a nag.
Lastly, the movie runs for just under 4 hours, yet Scarlett and Rhett get engaged, married, honeymoon, have a baby all in the same minute. 1 minute later and the baby is now 5 years old. Talk about glossing over the important parts of life!
I really liked how this movie had an intermission. At around 4 hours in length I actually used the half time intermission to stretch my legs.

Now for the things that annoyed me about this movie. The main one is the background music. It is as if the producers said - "Hey we paid for an orchestra to play the background music, so they are going to play the whole time, no matter what." Sometimes the musical score is so obviously inappropriate, it detracts from the movie. It sounds like the music they now play at the Academy Awards when they want to drown out a speech if it is going too long. Another thing that annoyed me - it is just too damn long. I'm sure they could cut at least an hour out of the movie, particularly in the first half. Originally I was going to say that Scarlett O'Hara is too unlikeable to be the main character but that is exactly the way she is meant to be and makes the movie more enjoyable as it goes on.


Ratings time -
Gone With The Wind : 6 I don't give a damns, 1 pencil moustache
Spaghetti and Mediterranean Meatballs : 7 balls of mince
Coffee and Tim Tams : 9 chocolate smudged fingers

The first rule of Fight Club....

is you do not talk about Fight Club. So that makes this review easy for me. I will talk about my home-made hamburger instead. It was nothing special actually. It was rather bland. The meat in it, the base of any good hamburger, was lacking in any distinct flavour. Funnily enough I could say the exact same thing about the movie. In fact, the hamburger was better than the movie. Quite a bit better.

This movie, was made in 1999, and was added to my list because it rates so well on IMDB (8.7). I just don't get how? I had no idea about the plot before I watched it, though I figured it would be about a group of men who form a "fight club" as an escape from their mundane lives. Partly right, though the movie doesn't go very far down that track to fully find what is going wrong in the men's lives to turn to this violent club.

* next paragraph contains spoilers *
The biggest problem I have with this movie is that it is a little bit of everything and a lot of nothing. I found the same with Pirates of the Caribbean. Is it meant to be funny? Is there meant to be a love story? Is it meant to make me think about my own life? Is it meant to take me on a journey? Well it didn't do any of that for me. It has a plot twist that, to me, was as easy to pick as a sunrise. I was sitting there thinking - "this storyline isn't very strong, what could happen that would be an attempt to boost it? Ahhh, Tyler Durdin and the narrator could be the same person!" So an hour and 30 minutes later in the movie when that humdinger is finally exposed, it was no surprise at all to me. But Edward Norton has already been in a movie where he had a split personality, Primal Fear. That movie did it much better and with a plot twist in the end that I never saw coming. If I wanted to watch a movie that was funny because somebody wore a fat suit, I would watch Mrs Doubtfire. If I wanted to watch a movie where men join a club to get away from their ordinary lives I would watch Old School. If I wanted to watch a movie for it's violence and semi nudity I would watch Sin City. All of those movies I have just mentioned, focussed on that one thing, and were all the better for it.

So now for the ratings. I base my ratings on a few things and it generally changes throughout the movie. I started with a 6 for this movie because I thought it had potential, potential to really make me think and soar to an 8 or 9. It continually let me down. A rating of 5 means I wouldn't watch it again. I ended up giving it a rating of 3, which means that even if it was on TV and the only other show on at the time was re-runs of Lassie, I would be cheering her home instead.

My ratings -
Fight Club : 3 punches to the face (which I would prefer over watching this again - at least it would be over quicker)
Home made Hamburger - 5 meat patties
Pure Blonde Beer - 8 green bottles

Here's looking at you kid...

So here goes my first review of my movie list and the first film I chose is the classic, Casablanca. I wanted this to be a special occasion so I settled in with a bowl of home made fried rice and a glass of Jacobs Creek Semillon Chardonnay.
The first comment I would like to make is that Casablanca is a classic movie (rated 8.8 on IMDB) and was made over 60 years ago. Yet after seeing it I realise that I had no idea what it was about or didn't know at any time what was about to happen. I read a lot and watch a lot of TV so I am not sure how that is possible. I am grateful for it nonetheless.

So, they just don't make movies like this anymore. No, not just the black and white aspect but the character based script, the mundane sets, the poor effects (well it was made in 1942), the melodramatic acting, the dramatic orchestral score that forewarned you of what drama was about to occur, the lack of billings gate language. If they did make a movie like this today it would be shot down in flames as being too cheesy. In fact the Cancer Council would probably have it banned. Talk about global warming - I now know what caused it - the amount of cancer sticks Bogey puffed through during this movie!

I liked it. Maybe it is the nostalgia that black and white film creates, maybe it was the likable character, Rick, played by Humphrey Bogart (a massive name in movies yet the first time I had seen him). Maybe because it was a romantic drama that didn't overdo the sentimentality. Maybe because it was the first romantic movie I have seen that didn't star Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan or Hugh Grant. One thing that did surprise me is that it actually made me laugh out loud, something that a lot of so called comedies don't do - Scary Movie, Beavis and Butthead immediateley spring to mind.
The plot kept moving at a steady pace and I was always guessing what the characters past were and what the future held for them. And classic lines, sure I didn't know what the plot was beforehand, but I certainly knew all the lines that come from it - "Here's looking at you kid", "Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine.", and "Play it once, Sam. For old times' sake." (not "Play it again Sam" like everyone seems to think is said).

I'll leave you with one last thought about the ending ... the french policeman, Captain Renault says earlier in the film about Rick - "Well, Rick is the kind of man that... well, if I were a woman, and I were not around, I should be in love with Rick.". The last scene is the same Captain Renault and Rick walking off together with Rick saying to him - "Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship". No wonder he let the girl go, he is a flaming homosexual.

My ratings -
Casablanca : 6 lit cigarettes, 1 unlit
Fried Rice: 7 spoons of MSG
Wine: 7 party wine goblets

2009 New Years Resolution

I'm not a big one for new years resolutions so I thought I'd give myself a fun one this year. I have a list of 40 movies that I have never seen yet are considered "classics" or "cult classics". I went through the top 100 rated movies on imdb.com and found ones that I felt I should watch. Some of the movies I am looking forward to viewing, some of them I don't want to see, yet I will try to watch them all. So in no particular order, here is my list -

• Casablanca
• Gone with the wind
• Breakfast at Tiffany's
• Scarface
• Goodfellas
• The Godfather 1 & 2 & 3
  
• Silence of the Lambs
• Rambo 1,2,3
• Jaws
  
• Alien (all of them)
• Revenge of the Nerds
• Schindlers List
• The Usual Suspects
• Fight Club
• Psycho
• Citizen Kane
• It's a wonderful life
• Apocalypse Now
• Taxi Driver
• Lawrence of Arabia
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• The Maltese Falcon
• Raging Bull
• Singing in the rain
• Some like it hot
• 2001: a space odyssey
• Fargo
• Ben-Hur
• The Deer Hunter
• Life of Brian
• Trainspotting
• Casino
• The Exorcist
• A Streetcar Named Desire
• The Philadelphia Story
• The Man who shot liberty valance
• Great Expectations

My resolution starts with Casablanca and I will write a review of each movie. My goal is to watch one of these movies per week, but ultimately to have watched them all by the end of the year.