The Toasty Critic's Top 5 - Fifth Film

Reviewing my top 5 Movies of all Time

Day 5 – Vertigo

Thanks for reading the top 5 list of favorite films.  Obviously every critic and every person has their own top 5 list.  There is no magical thing that makes your list better than any others, as each person has their own set of standards.  But for those who consider Keanu Reeves to be a top 5 actor, all I can say to them is: “I hate you!  I hate you! I hate you!” We all have reasons for why we choose one picture to be better than another.  There are the sci/fi geeks who insist that 2001 : A Space Odyssey be on the best films of all time.  While I think it is an amazing film, it lacks the ability to maintain its brilliance across platforms, and the acting in a good deal of it, in my humble or not so humble opinion, is really dull.  And to be honest, with some rare exceptions, many of Kubrick’s films seem to have characters that walk around lifeless.  2001 exists as an extreme example of lifeless characterizations for me.  There are those who will argue with my last pick, insisting that Hitchcock has directed better films, or even that if I am going to pick brilliant directors of the last half century, I should be picking a film of Howard Hawks because he seemed to be able to adapt to whatever genre he was directing, putting together a compendium of work that was amazing in every single genre and not merely in one.  And if we were discussing my top 5 favorite directors of all time I might see the point of that argument. 

But I am looking at my top 5 films.  Some of you may say that the films on my list are skewed towards the classic genre.  Well I grew up a huge classic movie fan, so: “duh!”  Classic films existed in a time where less was more (something today's Hollywood directors should take into consideration).  They knew how to tell a story and infer things for much greater impact.  Now films shoot for being all about experience and little about story.  It’s sad that the best stories in film now are often cartoons because they exist with the same limitations that the Hayes code placed on cinema in working with that medium.  They have to develop their stories.  But that doesn’t mean that you have to believe that.  I am totally ok with all of the disagreement.  In fact, I encourage it. 

Given these reasons I culminate my list of top 5 films with a Hitchcock classic: Vertigo.  Hitchcock ranks up there as one of the best directors of all time.  He is as an auteur.  His films had a uniqueness about them that made them distinctly Hitchcock.  When anyone watches a Hitchcock film, they know that they are watching such a film.  Given my affinity for Hitchcock and feeling like one of his films had to be up here on the list, I started thinking about what was the quintessential Hitchcock film.  He had his suspense movies like Rear Window, Rebecca and North by Northwest.  He had his horror films like Frenzy and Psycho.  And then he had his forays into comedy like The Trouble with Harry.  So I had to make a rational choice.  I eliminated the comedies; because while fun, they were generally not what one would think of when they thought of Hitchcock.  Certainly we see him as a master of suspense and I could go with that but I landed on Vertigo because I think it perfectly blended elements of horror which would be a hallmark of his later films, with that which was merely suspenseful.

Vertigo begins with a detective named Jimmy (James Stewart), up on the rooftops of San Francisco, chasing after a criminal.  While up there he doesn’t quite make a ledge and ends up holding on to the edge of a building for dear life.  When a fellow police officer tries to help him out he ends up falling to his death.  This shock sends Jimmy into a panic and making him realize that he has acrophobia.  This phobia produces in him vertigo, or a dizziness that is produced by the heights to which he has a hard time handling.  He is forced to retire because of his condition, and tries to figure out what to do with his life.  His ex-fiancée tries to help him out, but fears that only another shock would produce the kind of circumstances to conquer his fear. 

At that point an old friend steps in, Gavin Elster (Tom Helmore), asks him to tail his wife because he is concerned that she is going to do something drastic to herself, because she is being haunted by some distant family member called Carlotta Valdes.  While skeptical, Jimmy tails Madeleine Elster (Kim Novak) to make sure that she does not do anything drastic to herself.  But he cannot help but get involved the more he tails her, and they end up making a connection and falling for one another.  But Madeleine appears driven to do something outrageous to herself, and she climbs to the highest tower of mission San Juan Batista and jumps to her death.  Jimmy tried to tail her to the top of the tower but his acrophobia and vertigo prevented him from reaching there and stopping her.  He walks away from the incident in a daze, not even calling the police.  The investigation rules it as a suicide, although with some culpability making its way to Jimmy.

Jimmy goes into a tailspin and enters a psych ward because he is unable to cope with the loss of Madeleine.  We enter his world of vertigo, wherein he constantly feels like he spirals to his death.  His ex-fiancée tries to help him through this once again but she is rebuffed.  When he does exit the mental hospital he roams about the city listlessly.  He was unable to do his job as a policeman; and he couldn’t even do work as a detective.  His life seems to be a spiral downwards when he runs into Judy Barton, also played terrifically by Kim Novak.  In her he sees the image of the woman he had loved and lost.  It begins like this is some form of redemption for Jimmy, but slowly the realization creeps in about the true depths to which his mind has sunk.  All one can do is sit back in horror as Jimmy transforms this beautiful woman into the image of Madeleine.  First there is the clothes, and then the eyes and makeup, followed by the hair.  A long 360 degree pan and kiss transforms the beautiful Judy Barton, into the image of Madeleine Elster.  And Jimmy sits and stares with a wild look in his eye as his masterpiece in transformation is complete.  Nothing good can come from this, and there is the inevitable tragic result, which I will not divulge here for those uninitiated in Vertigo.

In Vertigo, like other Hitchcock films, there are elements that make them unmistakably his.  The first is the MacGuffin.  Hitchcock meant that this was some form of plot device that would drive the story forward.  In this instance we have Jimmy’s Vertigo that makes him seek other work, which makes him incapable of helping Madeleine, and which he was driven to fixing by the end of the film.  The second is the use of the innocent man.  In his early work there was always some innocent man who was sucked into some plot that he couldn’t escape until he worked it all out by the end.  The thing that makes Vertigo so unique in the Hitchcock cannon is that we do have the innocent man, although as the film goes on, we are less and less convinced of his innocence.  He seems to be more warped than any other person that is around him.  His maniacal glances in mirrors, his drive to change Judy into something she was not, and the ultimate conclusion to the madness does not indicate that Jimmy is innocent at all.  One cannot be sure what to think of him by the final frame in the film.  And while things do resolve themselves for Jimmy, we are not necessarily able to wrap up everything in a nice package by the end.  It’s classic Hitchcock, with a twist.

After The Wrong Man, when considering his next film, he saw the movie Les Diaboliques. As a result, Hitchcock was keen on filming something that was written by the French writing team of Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac.  He made sure that he got an option on the work D'entre les morts (From Among the Dead).  From there he took it to four different writers, although the final credits were given to Alec Coppel and Samuel Taylor. In each of the instances he had to be familiar with whoever the writer was, because despite whatever they put down in a screenplay, Hitchcock was going to make something that was quintessentially him.  He storyboarded every shot that he was going to take and would be intimately involved with every detail of the shooting.  Hitchcock had to approve whatever was being written, and the first draft of the screenplay Hitchcock felt was so bad that he requested that it be burned.  Whoever got final credit for the film or not, every frame of Vertigo screams Hitchcock.

As far as the acting in the piece, we have the incomparable James Stewart.  Some actors hated Hitchcock because they felt like he would treat them like cattle.  James Stewart did not seem to be among them.  This is one of four pieces he would make with Hitchcock, including Rope, Rear Window and a remake of The Man Who Knew Too Much. While he was not necessarily the first actor that would be considered for the role (some believe that Cary Grant was Hitchcock’s first choice), one cannot envisage another person playing the role.

James Stewart, when he began his career in the Hollywood system would be found in mostly comedies and romances, with the occasional forays into drama.  Although for those of you who remember his brief but humorous take as a murderer in After the Thin Man with William Powell and Myrna Loy, I applaud your dedication to film history.  Even in a movie like Destry Rides Again, an early western, we see Stewart as a kind of every-man who we can relate to.  By the time he had come back from being involved in World War II his films would take a decidedly darker turn.  After the war, with maybe the exception of It’s a Wonderful Life, Stewart wanted to broaden the roles he would take.  He had his first Hitchcock film, Rope (1948), loosely based on a famous murder case.  And beginning in 1950 with Winchester 73, Stewart did a series of westerns where he was hard-nosed and world weary. So by the time Vertigo came along in the late 50s, Stewart had broadened the roles and his appeal as an actor.

With Vertigo, Stewart was going to have to take all of that one step further.  In this instance he had to straddle the line between light and dark.  We had to relate to him in some way, because he needed to be Hitchcock’s every-man who was sucked into the darkness.  But this was different.  He not only needed to be sucked into the darkness, but it needed to change him.  He could love and lose, but then he needed to be brought right over the edge, and the audience needed to walk there with him.  The audience needed to sense his profound loss and the transforming effect that it would have on his character, such that when Jimmy meets Judy and begins to transform her, there needs to be the sense of understanding, and yet revulsion all at the same time.  It is this descent into madness that Hitchcock would fully explore two years later in his classic horror masterpiece, Psycho.  Stewart’s sensitive portrayal of Jimmy brings us just that, from connection to disconnect right until the very last frame.

The other essential role in the film is played by Kim Novak.  Novak had begun her career earlier in the 50s, successfully playing opposite some older men while only being 21 when she started.  Her breakout role would come in 1955’s Picnic, opposite William Holden.  As Madge Owens, Novak would play an innocent woman who would be taken in by the charms of a drifter.  She exuded both and innocence and a sexuality that would be prominently featured in Vertigo.  As a result of the success of Picnic, Hitchcock and Stewart felt like she would be a big draw for the film.  There are rumors that first Hitchcock wanted Grace Kelly, who we had worked with to great success earlier in To Catch a Thief and Rear Window.  Ultimately they cast Vera Miles in the role but film delays, and possibly not feeling like she was right for the role, made it so they needed to recast.  They chose Novak and the rest is history.

Novak brilliantly navigates the dual roles that she plays.  In Madeleine Elster she plays the young wife of the older ship owner, who we could believe that Jimmy’s character could fall for.  While friends with the husband, it is obviously a friendship from an earlier time.  And the wife seems to exist to Mr. Elster more as property and less as intimate partners.  She excellent plays the wife caught up in the whirlwind of the ghost who would drive her to the edge, yet a woman of sophistication and charm.  She would then have to take on the role as Judy, the carefree shop girl who would be dragged into the darker machinations of Jimmy’s mental illness.  She is obviously in love, and obviously conflicted and in pain by it all.  She is innocence and charm, with a touch of manipulation buried within.

While there are several character actors of note, there is nothing that drives a Hitchcock film more than Hitchcock himself.  And while this may be on display in the script, I think that it is better seen in the visuals, and in the choice in shot selection.  Robert Berks was the cinematographer of the movie and definitely followed the dictates of a classic Hitchcock piece.  The one addition to this movie I believe is in the softening of the tones in all of the movie.  Everything seems to exist in an otherworldly dream state.  Once the character of Jimmy has been reduced to an acrophobic, things descend into a dreamlike quality.  The sumptuous beautiful settings in San Francisco, the dreamy Sequoia forest with all of the huge trees, and the haunting nightmare of the mission are shot in all in soft focus such that one can question whether or not the whole escape was into a nightmare of his own personal making.  It is done to beautiful effect.

But the piece itself, as previously described, exemplifies everything Hitchcock.  From the MacGuffin to the everyman, the audience is drawn into the story, just as Hitchcock would place himself in the middle of every one of his stories in some shot.  But the camera angles and individual shot selection is where one cannot escape his mastery.  From his use of wide angle lens to create visual asymmetry to his over the shoulder shots that give a distorted viewpoint to his amazing 360 degree kiss where we are sucked into both the transformation of Judy in Madeleine and nightmarishly drawn into Jimmy’s distorted psyche.  Vertigo displays Hitchcock’s masterful ability to tell a story.  And every moment is a sumptuous delight.

Why do I love Vertigo?  I love it because it is a masterpiece of filmmaking.  I love the visuals; and despite being disturbed by the story, I am equally moved by the portrayal of the characters drawn into this dark situation.  And whether we are treated to an angel or death at the end of the story, we are in for a treat all along the way.  Is the ending happy?  Is it sad?  Is it triumphant?  Who is to say?  But it’s worth the watch, again and again.  You can pick out something new every time you watch it.  This is what makes Vertigo such a great movie and why it rounds out my top 5. 

What should be the order of my top 5?  Who is to say?  It changes from day to day.  But I keep landing on these films and wanting to revisit them like they are old friends.  If you haven’t seen any of them, or the conversation makes you feel like you need to take another look, please do.  Hope you enjoyed the top 5 list and please comment.  After every film, or comment on the series of five films as a whole.  List your top 5 and join the discussion. 

Vertigo – This film is perfectly Toasty

Five Stars

Up next . . . unless I get some new votes for the movie I will be reviewing, Kubo.

The Toasty Critic's Top Five - Fourth Film

Reviewing my top 5 Movies of all Time

Day 4 – Gone With the Wind

I am going to be straightforwardly honest here.  As much as this is a quintessential film of the early 20^th century in the sound era, it’s the one I question the most often why it’s on my list.  Because this is where the ‘did I enjoy the movie” element of my top 5 definitely comes into play.  And it’s one of those films where I am certain that I could name many other films that I would have enjoyed at one time or another more than I enjoyed this film.  I have heard shouts from friends of different movies that could have made it onto the list.  And certainly I could take those into consideration. The problem is, Gone With the Wind hits so high on the moving and timeless meter. Even if I didn’t enjoy the movie in that classic “I had fun” way that I might have with others, it’s a movie that just sticks with me.  And it’s a movie that sucks me in time, after time, after time. 

As a side note, before I move onto a fairly conventional analysis of the film, I had one of the more bizarre experiences of film watching when I went to see this film with friends.  (The friends who came with me that night certainly can attest) There was a theater in my area that played classic films one Tuesday a month.  This one particular month they were going to play Gone with the Wind.  I had convinced several of my guy friends to go see that film.  We all arrived at the theater, but we showed up later than we wanted to.  As a result we were not able to get tickets to see the movie but then while we considered what we were going to do next, someone came out and told us that they were considering running it on a second screen given the enormous amount of people they had turn out for the screening.  So we got in line on the off chance we would get to see the movie.  Quickly a large line of people came up behind us trying to do the same thing.  We must have had several groups of women come up to us while we were in line telling us how it was a women’s movie.  We did not belong or have a right to be at such a movie so we should be forced to go to the back of the line because we were men.  Ah the crazies that come out when people get attached to a film in a particular way.

So I am going to do a fairly straight forward analysis to examine why it is that I end up liking this film, almost despite myself.  Let’s start from the ground up and take a look at the performances.  First of all there is Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O’Hara.  Now pretty much I can tell you from the beginning that this woman annoyed the crap out of me.  She was temperamental, manipulative, egotistical, vengeful, spiteful, and too cute for her own good.  But there is something about her that you cannot help but relate too.  Maybe it’s her drive that she displays from beginning to end.  She seems to have no limits to her ambition, but that makes her amazing in a crisis.  She is overly enamored with Ashley Wilkes, played by a simpering Leslie Howard, but you can tell that she is led on by that person.  And Scarlet seems to abuse the saintly Melanie Hamilton (Olivia de Havilland), who eventually turns out to be more saintly on the outside than she is within.  And finally she keeps sticking it to the one good guy in the picture Rhett Butler (Clark Gable).  We hate her because she is us.  And we like her because she is us.  She is just herself at all times on screen.  Scarlett O’Hara is a character striped of artifice and left to just be herself in a society that was all about the show of gentility.  Vivien Leigh would later play a role in a Streetcar Named Desire that was a lot like the role of Scarlett, but much older, and to more tragic and horrifying results.

Then there is Rhett Butler.  He is the perfect example of American ideals of manliness and virtue, without being too virtuous.  He is the American male who is drug into society by a woman that seems to fascinate him.  And he comes in to change the little piece of the world that he sees that is good.  Unable to change it, at least from his perspective, he eventually leaves the screen to one of the biggest pronouncements in film history.  “Frankly My Scarlett, I don’t give a damn.”  You could say that there was no real depth to the role that Clark Gable was playing.  In fact you could say that he was just playing himself up on the screen, as many screen actors of the day did. (If you want to think modern screen actors who can’t play anything but themselves, think Tom Cruise).  Sometimes a role is just meant for an individual.  And Rhett Butler was Gable at his finest.  While mostly smirking and smiling on the screen being his usual jovial self, by the time you got to the end and you could see the pain on his face as his daughter was dying Gable reached inside himself to act in a way that he rarely ever did.  This role was Gable plus. 

Even the lesser roles of Ashley Wilkes, Melanie Hamilton, Mammy (Hattie McDaniel), Gerald O’Hara (Thomas Mitchell), and a bevy of other roles, including the future TV Superman (George Reeves) in a small role at the beginning of the film, contribute to the movement of the film.  These players drive the story forward in beautiful and sometimes unexpected ways. From the Mammy who seems to hold the house together, to the weak father who cannot seem to control his daughter, to the weak Ashley Wilkes who cannot stand up and be a man, owning his decisions, Gone With the Wind is littered with fun roles that you can get into and love or hate.

But the truth of the matter is, Margaret Mitchell, the author of the novel and movie’s namesake, was not necessarily trying to get us to love the characters.  She was bemoaning the loss of another world that had fallen into repute in the meantime.  Many southern authors, including William Faulkner, would portray a south bruised and battered by what had happened in the Civil War and unable to get beyond that.  Mitchell through her work exemplifying the beauty of this bygone era and displaying all of the destruction that lay in its wake.  From the new ways that we treated other races to the carpetbaggers who would come in and take advantage of the broken and battered south, Mitchell showed a society that lay in tatters, hoping for the spirit to come out again.

As far as the story, it took at least four different people to sit down and work out the screen play.  The Herculean length of the novel that had to be shrunk down into movie size took several treatments in order to get it into a palatable size for audiences of the day.  The original draft was set to be a six hour movie and that was not going to be workable.  But many efforts of the day were collaborative, including another work in my top 5, Casablanca.  This did not seem to detract from the final work as it had a coherent theme throughout the novel.  It was about the south and its death and hope for reclamation.  Maybe the south needed to die, being a society built on slave labor.  But Mitchell and the authors felt like it could be redeemed as well.  In Scarlett the audience could see hope for tomorrow.  They could see that not only could the great Tara plantation be rebuilt, but the south could be rebuilt too, through the strength and the will of the people who were in it.

The Cinematography was fantastic in its own right.  Although the cinematic effort in this one was chalked up to three different people.  The initial cinematographer, Lee Garmes, was replaced because his footage was too dark.  Ernest Haller and Ray Rennahan, who was a Technicolor specialist, would come in to replace him. And while a collaborative effort, they had some shots that were masterful and iconic in their day.  The burning of the south with Rhett and Scarlett in the foreground, the slow walk down the staircase of Scarlett O’Hara to the admiring gaze of Rhett Butler, and the ending shot of O’Hara staring off into the distance are all scenes and sequences that live on in film lore and are hard to remove from your head.  Even the colors of the film are carefully constructed to emphasize the story points. The color scheme is like that of a redemption piece.  The beginning the colors are Green and Yellow, both bright and vivid and representing life and growth.  With Death and Destruction the Color hues move to Red and then Black.  The palate of the film eventually turns grey and bleak, but as we go through the death of the society and then the literal death of Melanie Hamilton the colors move to brighter greens and yellows again, picturing life and hope for the future.  Scarlett has moved on.  The South has moved on.

Gone with the Wind was such a monumental effort in its day and would go on to win 7 Academy Awards of the 12 it was nominated for and would win Best Picture and Best Director of the year.  While knowing a lot about how the Hollywood system works and having so many different people work on this effort, it was probably impossible for any other effort to win that year.  But the sheer sweep and scope of the film, you would have to consider it to be the first Technicolor Epic of its day.  There was at least one film in the black and white silent era that you would have to consider epic, Eric Von Stroheim directed an 8 hour version of his silent film Greed. (Which may be why when Gone With the Wind looked like it was coming in at six hours long the producers balked as Greed was poorly received)  But Gone With the Wind was the precursor to all of the modern epics that we know in both scope and scale.   

I know that many critics do not like Gone With the Wind.  They claim that the movie has not held up well.  Mostly I think that’s because any movie that contains any people of a race or ethnicity other than white has to deal with the “neo-critics.”  These are people who have decided to make proclamations about the people from bygone eras based upon today’s standards.  These are people who deconstruct Huckleberry Finn and make it out to be a racist novel because of the abundance of one word in the commentary.  As we all pretend to be interested in maintaining the authenticity of any era, let us consider one question.  If you are writing about people living in the 1840s and you did not use the “n” word, couldn’t you be accused of whitewashing the era?  You can find a litany or writings throughout the era that would use such language.  Likewise with a film like this one, set in the pre-Civil War and post-Civil War south, if we try to criticize we would whitewash what was happening. 

I think Gone With the Wind wears well as a piece of cinematic history, with good performances, a story that can reveal the brokenness of us all, and the human spirit that we have to overcome any obstacle.  Definitely worth a watch as a piece of film history and, I believe, more than that. 

This film is perfectly Toasty

Five Stars

*next up, the pies de resistance of my Top 5, Alfred Hitchcock’s masterpiece, Vertigo*

The Toasty Critic's Top 5 - Third Film

Reviewing my top 5 Movies of all Time

Day 3 – Casablanca

“You must remember this. A Kiss is just a kiss.  A sigh is just a sigh.  The fundamental things apply as time goes by.  And when true lovers woo, they still say I love you.  On that you can rely.  The fundamental things apply as time goes by.”  With just a few bars in a chorus, everyone can be taken back to Rick’s Cafe Americain in the middle of Casablanca.  Casablanca, the movie, an indelible part of the American movie landscape.  There are so many different ways I could go about reviewing Casablanca, and why it fits on my top 5 movies of all time.  But let’s take a little side trip to understand why I put Casablanca as one of the top 5 of all time.

What does it mean to have a top 5 of anything?  And what does a top 5 mean to you, or to me for that matter.  I remember being on a date recently and the person informed me that while she had a top 5 favorite movies, there was a movie that was not on the top 5 list that she would watch more often than any other.  She loved The Big Lebowski.  Now don’t get me wrong, as a Joel and Ethan Coen fan I was a great lover of the movie, even going so far as to becoming a dudeist priest; because, you know, it tied the room together, or something like that.  But I would never have considered it among my top 5 movies of all time.  And she didn’t put it up their either, but she watched it all the time.  She loved it.  So given that I have been relating what my top 5 is I will get a bit into my criteria weeds for what my own top 5 is before continuing on.

Top 5 means to me several things.  Obviously, it would have to be one of my favorite movies to watch.  In this instance, I would have to say that Big Lebowski might rank higher than say Citizen Kane, which I am sure many critics would say is a travesty.  But seriously, other than for film study about technique and storytelling, would you really sit down and say it is one of those pleasurable films that you could watch time and again?  Maybe some critics could.  I am not among them.  I believe that you have to actually enjoy the piece that you are watching to place it in your top 5.  Maybe that makes me antiquated and from a bygone era of critics.  And certainly with the notion of postmodern art as a kind of manufactured chaos, trying to state the enjoyability of a film must be a daunting task for some.  This doesn’t mean that I place entertainment value above message or impact.  It just means that I consider it along with those when determining greatness.

A top 5 movie must be timeless in some way.  This, unfortunately, tends to eliminate most films in the comedy genre, unless the comedies are timeless.  This is a reason why Buster Keaton’s films, while not as popular as Charlie Chaplain’s films at the time, tend to wear better than many of the comics and even than some of Chaplains best works, because the comedy in them is timeless.  Physical comedy almost always wears better over time than particular sketches.  Most sketches that are still funny deal with issues that focus on the human condition in general, and not on anything specifically.  This is why it becomes really hard for a comedy movie to make a best of anything list, other than a list of comedy movies.  Although postmodern comedies are another thing altogether because they make fun of the human condition.  That does make me laugh; but they haven’t been around long enough, and there aren’t enough of them that are successful at this type of comedy to be included.  For a film to be in my top 5 it has to impress me when I first watched; it must be good 10 years later; and it must be good 30 years later (even though some films on the list are not that old).

Aside from being enjoyable and timeless, the film must move me in some way.  This doesn’t mean that I have to be crying by the end of the film, although certainly some of the top films have moved me to tears.  This doesn’t mean I have to be laughing hysterically throughout the film, although that might help.  What this does mean is that it has to provoke some sort of emotion in me.  This emotion can be anything.  It can be disgust, anger, fear, happiness, tears, loss, abandonment, etc.  But it has to provoke something within me.  I need to be walking out of the film and the film has to stick with me.  I cannot leave the film and two hours later barely imagine a scene or a line of dialogue (not that I am the "quote king" of film).  It has to resonate far past the initial watching.  This doesn’t mean that I think a movie like Independence Day, Jurassic Park, or The Avengers is bad.  I enjoy those films and will give them a good rating on a review.  But the experience tends to be limited to the film itself.  For me, a top 5 film must go above and beyond the initial experience.  This is just the place where a film like Citizen Kane or a Lawrence of Arabia does shine.  The movies are beyond fluff and make a person think long after the film is over.  It may even make one argue about the significance of a plot point, or the symbol of a particular set piece.

While these three things are but a small list in the vast array of ways one can judge a film such as: is it technically sound; is the film accurate; is there some new way of looking at film or new technical aspects to film making that are enhanced making it a genuinely great film; are the actors portrayals deep and involving; does the cinematography add or detract from a piece; are there any obvious set gaffes or miscues in the film; and is there a person who is genuinely miscast in the film (i.e. Keanu Reeves in Much Ado About Nothing).  I could get into the weeds in all of these different things.  And while I do take every one of these into consideration, they tend to take a back seat to those three main criteria for my top 5, although not entirely.  So I tend to focus on each and every one of those things as incidentals to the larger view of did I enjoy it, is it timeless, and was I moved.

So how do I place Casablanca in the top 5 of all time?  We can begin with the acting and writing.  Rick (Humphrey Bogart), the classic everyman who has been wronged by a lost love.  Ilsa, acted elegantly by Ingrid Bergman, plays the foreign woman who came along to soften the everyman’s heart until crushing it, leaving him lost in the cold cruel world of Nazis and Fascists during World War II.  In a precursor to being dumped by text, or as Carrie Bradshaw in Sex in the City would learn by Post-It Note, Rick is dumped by a letter, without explanation, and without the ability to respond.  Of course this is all back story to Rick that we do not find out about until later.  The story begins with Rick, the night club owner who stands up for nothing and for no one.  In one exchange with a German General the conversation goes:

                “Maj. Heinrich Strasser: What is your nationality?

      Rick Blaine: I'm a drunkard.

      Capt. Louis Renault: That makes Rick a citizen of the world.”

Rick is a broken man who has decided to get out of the world the most he can get out of it.  And he is going to make the best of a bad situation for himself, running a seedy although profitable night club in the city.  He even takes advantage of a situation, where a gentleman who considers him a friend leaves him with letters of transit that he has murdered and stolen to get them, keeping the letters and possibly profiting from them in the future when the German’s cannot find them.

Along comes Ilsa to gum up the works.  She not only breaks back into Rick’s life without an explanation, she insists on bringing back to Rick all of the bad memories that he had before.  It forces Rick to relive all of the pain that he has already suffered at the hands of her.  She goes to the night club and forces his friend, Sam (Dooley Wilson), to play “As Time Goes By” on the piano.  As soon as Rick hears this he forces Sam to stop playing until he realizes who has made him play it.  The emotions are clearly etched on Rick’s hardened face as it both destroys and softens his character at the same time.  Later that evening Rick forces Sam to play the music once again, believing that Elsa is going to show up, and convincing himself that he can take it just as she can.  We end up reliving the painful memories that he has etched into his brain through a series of flashbacks at the high and low points of their brief relationship.  And then she shows up first to beg for the letters of transit, then to threaten him at gunpoint, before breaking down to reveal that she still loved him and why she had left him in the first place.

What is Rick going to do?  Is he going to become a good guy and help them out?  Is he going to help out Ilsa’s husband and keep Ilsa all for himself?  Or is he going to abandon both of them as he has been broken by them?  I could go into detail about all of these different things, but I think that would spoil the plot of the movie.  And if you haven’t seen it yet, I think it’s well worth a watch.  The actors aside from the main three are a who’s who of Hollywood character actors.  There is Sidney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, Claude Rains, Conrad Veidt and Paul Henried.  All of them litter this piece with interactions with the main characters, building up the story in various ways, and all foils for Rick in certain ways as well.  There is Signor Ferrari (Sidney Greenstreet), the businessman, who is in competition with Rick who sees Rick go against his own financial self-interest, confusing who Rick seems to be at the beginning of the film.  There is General Strasser (Conrad Veidt) who is the German general who Rick should want to get along with in business but who he challenges by allowing French at the bar to engage in the singing of the French national anthem, making him out to be more of a patriot and less sleazy businessman.  There is Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), the corrupt French officer who Rick regularly buys off, exposing Rick to be less corrupt and doing things for the benefit of others and not of just himself.  This caricature of Rick we have at the beginning is slowly blown away by all of the actions these characters brilliantly bring out in him. 

Aside from the brilliant acting and writing, there is the cinematography itself.  While color was used in a wide array of films by that time, for whatever reason the Director and Cinematographer, Michael Curtiz, and Arthur Edeson, decided to go with a dimly lit back and white backdrop.  For anyone who thinks films should have been made in color and attempts to colorize such black and white classics, this film exemplifies the travesty of such a belief.  Yes, shame on you Mr. Turner!!!  First of all, we are introduced to Rick in a dingy seedy nightclub where some high end clientele but mostly seedy clientele are permitted to drink, sometimes gamble, but often get into trouble.  Turning that into a colorized place brightens what should be a dark place.  And many of the outside activities are in back streets and alleys because these are the people that Rick is dealing with.  Also colorizing it would hurt the nature.  But there is just one shot where Rick is sitting with a bottle and a shot glass and you see the smoke from the cigarette wafting into the air while the extreme pain and emotion are written on the contours of Rick’s face, that if anyone tried to change would just rip out the heart of the film.  Here is a man who was broken by the world and living in the seediest of places.  This cinematography perfectly highlights every wrinkle and every mark of pain that this man has had to endure in his life and at the hands of Ilsa.  It is the moment where the man must confront the demons of the past.  You cannot imagine that iconic scene being told in any other way.  That is the mark of something that is timeless.

Aside from all of these things, who can forget all of the lines that we now consider to be cliché, originating in this one piece.  “A penny for your thoughts.”  “We’ll always have Paris.”  “Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine.” “Here’s looking at you kind.”  “Louis, this looks like the beginning of a beautiful friendship.” “Round up the usual suspects.”  There are so many different lines that you cannot possibly forget that have ended up in other movies and other settings at different times.  Casablanca has so many lines there is a movie based upon a line that most people only think are in the movie, and yet it’s not there.  “Play it again Sam,” is not a line in Casablanca and yet it has gained worldwide fame.  That’s how timeless this piece is.

But the heart of the movie is the Romance between Rick and himself.  I know that it is a weird thing to say.  But truthfully, Rick has lost the love of himself when his heart is broken by Ilsa; and he buries himself in the corner of the world to almost have his soul rot.  But Ilsa reawakens in him a love for all sorts of things, not just a love for her.  It’s a love of country; it’s a love of things that are right in the world; it’s a love of human kind.  Ultimately Rick discovers a love of himself that moves him into action.  It’s a story of what real love should inspire in all of us.  I will not say more as if you haven’t seen the movie you should go and see it for yourself.

Why do I love Casablanca and is it in my top 5?  I love it for the lines.  I love it for the Romance.  I love it for the silly patriotism.  I love it for the sensual cinematography.  I love it because the acting is amazing, the roles are rich, and for the music that Sam plays on the piano.  I love it because every time I want to be the one saying, “Play it Sam. Play it for old time’s sake.”  I love Casablanca because, ”the world will always welcome lovers, as time goes by.”  I am one such lover.

This Film is Perfectly Toasty

Five Stars

*up next on the top 5 (and probably the one that will receive the most argument) – Gone with the Wind*

The Toasty Critic's Top 5 - Second Film

Reviewing my top 5 Movies of all Time

Day 2 – Glory

I have to admit at the beginning of the article today that I am a Civil War fan.  This isn’t to say that I am a fan of war.  And this isn’t to say that I think even what we consider to be just wars are good.  War is a terrible thing, even when they are done for the best of reasons.  War should never be a first response.  It should only be the response when all other options seem to have failed us.  I am also not the kind of person who has gone to Civil War Reenactments, or any reenactment for that matter.  While I do think dressing up in period costume is cool, I am not always sure of the purpose of the people putting them on, unless for historical study. 

But I have been a kind of Civil War history nut since I was 10 years old.  When I was 10 I went to the school library and picked up a large history book of the Civil War.  It contained information on each and every battle, troupe movements, and the generals who were in command.  It put each battle in context of the larger civil war itself.  I was enthralled.  I wanted to learn each and every thing I could about the era as possible.  From the History of Slavery, to the onset of the Civil War, to the Emancipation Proclamation and beyond.  I wanted to learn it all.  And when I was 10 I knew just about as much as any 10 year old possibly could about the War Between the States.

Obviously it’s been over 30 years since then, and as anyone who has watched the game show Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader can attest, we forget a lot in the intervening time period.  I could tell you a little bit about some of the major Generals and their history.  And Ken Burn’s documentary on the Civil War helped me recall some of the names and faces of the major players involved in the conflict, but nothing can match the knowledge I had at 10 years old.  Suffice it to say, I have known a lot, and forgot a lot in the interim. 

So when I was a sophomore in high school and a friend mentioned to me about a Civil War movie coming out, I was excited.  But I had one major hurdle to cross.  I know for some of you out there, you won’t understand this, but for those who do, I was not able to watch rated R films at that time.  I couldn’t just walk into a movie and watch one.  I know some of my friends who could pass for 17, but I could not.  It just so happens that I lucked out when my parents had been told by people that they trusted at their church that there was an amazing Civil War movie out that had really nothing wrong with it except some accurate depictions of violence in war.  That convinced my parents to allow us to go, albeit with them in the audience.  So I remember sitting back for my first R rated movie, and a Civil War movie at that, excited to there for the show.

If I was worried or not, I did not have any reasons to be.  The Cast was high powered, although I would say that at the time they weren’t necessarily all that well known.  And those who were did not necessarily have the type of resume that you would think warrant a big screen historical epic of that magnitude.  First there was Matthew Broderick, probably the primary male lead of the piece.  He was best known for Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.  And he had done some musical theater as well.  While I enjoyed Ferris immensely, being one of the quintessential 80's movies dealing with uniquely first world problems of teen angst, I would never have said that he would have had the capacity for such a dramatic effort.  Then there was Cary Elwes, he of an amazing romantic comedy, The Princess Bride, that was a kind of sweeping epic, but more on the comedy end of the spectrum.  He had done some other minor work previously but nothing with the depth of Glory in mind, and nothing that I had seen.  Of course there was Morgan Freeman, which if you have read my previous piece on Shawshank Redemption will note that he did have some movie background, specifically Lean on Me up to that point.  And he had made Driving Miss Daisy, which had come out that same year.  But aside from that, he just had a ton of TV work that he had been involved with.  I remembered him from the Electric Company, which I occasionally watched as a child.  I had seen Lean on Me, and that made me hopeful, but that was about it.  Denzel Washington, who would earn an academy award for his performance, had been in mostly TV work with the exception of Cry Freedom (also nominated), which I wouldn’t watch until after I had seen Glory.  He was definitely a promising actor but nothing would prepare me for his role of Private Trip.  And there were tons of smaller roles as well.  From the Irish Drill Sergeant to Andre Braugher, as Thomas Searles, one of Robert Shaw’s close African-American friends who would join the first African American regiment, to Bob Gunton’s portrayal of General Garrsion Harker, as a conniving war profiteer, the roles were plentiful and amazingly well written.  I could go on and on.

Freddy Francis, the cinematographer of Glory, had done some amazing work in black and white on The Elephant Man, and had done some rich work in otherworldly lands, working with David Lynch once again, in Dune.  These experiences would serve him well in Glory, dealing with both intimate moments, which would capture the men dealing with private reflections or the singing of the men before a battle, to more wide sweeping moments, such as Robert Shaw setting his horse free and walking through his men out to the front of the lines before the battle.  He was able to capture beautifully the chaos of war, and at the same time preserve the humanity of each individual soldier involved. 

Ed Zwick up to this point in time had done mostly TV work, with the exception of the film About Last Night, which in no ways would lead one to believe what he would be able to do here.  With Glory, Zwick was able to tell a sweeping tale of the first African American Regiment to see battle during the Civil War.  With his deft directing and Kevin Jarre’s brilliant screenplay, Zwick was beautifully able to display the chaos and riggers of war with an initial battle where Shaw seems to be utterly lost in the midst of everything going on.  And from there he was able to develop the characters of the men who would ultimately lead this regiment into battle, as well as the men themselves.  From small moments of watching the doctors treat Private Trip’s (Denzel Washington’s) back as a result of being whipped for deserting his post, to larger grandiose moments where the soldiers, and later Shaw himself, refuse to take their pay because they were being underpaid just because they were black, Zwick develops these characters so that when they go into battle that we actually care about them.  He then ably moves the unit through early battles and through dealing with being misused to see the growth of the unit and them seeing each other as brothers as they are about to go off into the final battle.  Finally Zwick leads us through a final battle, with James Horner’s operatic score playing in the background, showing both the beauty of a unit moving as one cause to one purpose and the tragedy of losing these men for a battle that day they would eventually lose.

But the beauty of Glory and telling the story of all of these individual men and their heroic efforts during the Civil War is not in the fact that most of them would die in battle and never live to see what happened.  The beauty of these men was in rallying others to join their cause and come after them to fight a war that would earn them their recognition as human beings worthy of the same rights as others, and not as pieces of property.  The ran the risk of certain death by a bullet or even being captured, because the south announced they would execute any black man in a Union military uniform, or any white men who was leading said unit.  They were heroes.  Lincoln believed that the black soldiers were responsible for turning the tide of the war in their favor.

So why is Glory in my top 5 movies of all time?  I think you could run down the list.  From the amazing writing and direction, to the incredible portrayal of these men, none of which you feel like you don’t know or are rooting for by the time they get to the final battle, to the beautiful cinematography, I find myself enraptured in the piece every time I sit down to watch it.  There are some movies that I can watch multiple times.  But there are very few that every time I see it on I will stop and sit and watch all the way to the end.  Glory is just one of those films.  It’s a beautifully told historical epic.

This film is perfectly toasty

Five Stars

*Up Next in the Top 5 Casablanca*

The Toasty Critic's Top 5 - First film

Reviewing my top 5 Movies of all Time

Day 1 – The Shawshank Redemption –

It’s hard to look back on this film and not have it have so many different associations with different times in my life.  I remember the first time watching it when I was 22 years old and a projectionist at a movie theater at the time.  It had come out and gotten good reviews and a bunch of academy award nominations.  I was excited to go see it with my friends as it had one of my favorite actors in it: Morgan Freeman.  I really could have cared less about Tim Robbins at the time although he had come out with The Hudsucker Proxy, directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, earlier that year.  So while he wasn’t necessarily a must watch I did want to see what his follow up film to that would be.  And of course the source material was written by Stephen King.  I knew this was a hit or miss proposition when it came to books converted into movies, especially King’s books; but as this was one of his short stories I had more hopes for it.

There were me and a couple other friends watching the movie, and as I worked for the movie theater, we did not pay for it.  I think there might have been two or three other people in the entire movie theater when the opening sequence of the court trial of Andy Dufresne began.  Movies back then still held their allure of magic to me.  I remember the time I was hired in the movie theater and going up in to the projection booth to see all of the projectors clicking through their rolls of film, and the lights flickering across every movie theater.  So when the theater darkened and here was a story of a man going through hell and being redeemed at the other end, I was transfixed.  And by the last lines of the movie, “I find I'm so excited that I can barely sit still or hold a thought in my head. I think it's the excitement only a free man can feel. A free man at a start of a long journey whose conclusion is uncertain. I hope I can make it across the border. I hope to see my friend and shake his hand. I hope the Pacific is as blue as it has been in my dreams. I hope.” Goosebumps.  Every.  Single.  Time.

It was the epitome of movie magic.  One of my best friends sitting next to me looked at me and said, “I wanna make movies.  I wanna make movies like that.”  I couldn’t even argue with him.  It was a perfect example of why movies are magic.  It shows why movies transform our thinking about the world we live in and our role within it.  It displayed both the danger and the promise of movie making in its two hours and 22 minute length.  Movies can move us in ways few things can.  And right there and then I wanted to make movies.  Sure, I had always wanted to be a part of the film making process before.  But in that moment I saw film as transformative.  Pulling at the basest of emotions, working on our capacity to hope and how it moves things, I cannot express in words what it did to me at that moment.  I just wanted to sit there and stare at the screen long after the movie was over and take it all in.

Now few of you remember, but I can attest, especially as it is in Roger Ebert’s 100 greatest movies of all time, that Forest Gump was the Academy Award winning picture that year.  This is not to be critical of Forest Gump mind you.  But it was the perfectly commercialized piece with the oddball character and the over the top acting that so frequents the Academy Awards.  And it was marketed well to the general public.  No one had even heard of Shawshank Redemption, or very few people had.  So in the next 10 years after its release people slowly were exposed to the brilliance of the film on TNT and other such cable TV stations, in somewhat edited fashion. So when I was to look at it again 10 years later, while still emotionally pulling on my heart strings, it was gratifying that the rest of the world had been let in on the secret that I had known years before.  That a prison movie with two hardened criminals, speaking of hope in the bleakest of human circumstances, exhibited movie brilliance.  It was the reason people keep going back to the movie theater, year after year.

And then came the third major period of experience.  This one occurred almost 9 years later, 19 years after the original movie had been released.  I was sitting on a couch in an emotional state, going through a divorce, and sitting there feeling completely hopeless.  I felt like the weight of the world was pressing down on me and I didn’t know what direction to turn.  And then I sit down watching that movie and get to the note that Andy Dufresne writes to his friend Red. “Dear Red, If you're reading this, you've gotten out. And if you've come this far, maybe you're willing to come a little further. You remember the name of the town, don't you? I could use a good man to help me get my project on wheels. I'll keep an eye out for you and the chessboard ready. Remember, Red. Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies. I will be hoping that this letter finds you, and finds you well. Your friend, Andy.”

It was like a release of an avalanche of tears coming streaming down my face as the words were read as voice over narration.  Even at the moment when Red says “Zihuatanejo,” I am speaking it along with him.  I am thinking of that promised land of better tomorrows.  I am hoping that each day is going to be better than the day before.  I am hoping for the relationship with my daughter to get better, and for the life that seemed in shambles at that moment to have a turn around.  I am being carried away by the hopeful musical score and the blue in the Pacific Ocean.  I am hoping that the future I see before me is the future of my dreams.  I hope.

So why is the film itself so amazing?  Why do I love Shawshank Redemption?  Let’s first examine the message.  First it taps into one of the three primary human emotive forces that exist: faith, hope and love.  This is not to say that there aren’t other emotive forces in the world; but I would say they are either lesser secondary forces, or they are various perversions of one of those three. We believe in things; we love things; we hope for things.  Hope is a future looking force, thinking about what could be, and not merely fixated on what is.  Hope is always brighter and not dimmer than what we are experiencing.  We never hope for less.  We always hope for more. 

Shawshank Redemption shows hope in what would have been the world’s worst possible situation.  First, you are person whose spouse ran out on you for another man.  And she didn’t run out for just any other man.  She ran out for a golf pro, which attacks the very nature of your manhood.  Then not only are you ceremoniously dumped, but then the wife tragically dies in a double homicide.  This means that not only are you broken, but you can’t possibly get any closure from this person.  And to add insult to injury, you are now charged and convicted of the crime that you didn’t even commit.  This is bad enough but then Andy Dufresne ends up having the “sisters” in the prison take a liking to him, meaning that he is suffering through rape and abuse in the prison for the first two full years of his stay there.  One would think that this is the perfect time to give up hope.  Many of us would definitely want to chuck in and call it a day.  But there is something so strong about the pull of hope that we still sit transfixed.

And then in the darkest of places Andy begins to reclaim his humanity and his dignity.  Why?  Because he should expect that something different should happen to him than it did before?  Because somehow the people he was around now he should expect to behave differently?  Because society was going to consider him to be different now? Of course not.  He was hoping for something better.  Even in the hole, in a prison, where no light would get in and he was subjected to slop for food, Andy could hope for a beautiful place, on the ocean, with a boat to sail on and wind-blown hair.  Should he expect that?  No.  But the human capacity to hope, even in the darkest of situations, is burrowed into our DNA.

The photography for the film was simple but elegant.  A lot of quick opening shots as if Andy Dufresne is descending into a nightmare, which he truly is.  And then a long extensive shot of the whole prison, and we now know the confines of the new hell that Andy is entering into.  He goes into a place that tries to dehumanize everyone; and he shows what it means truly to be human.  He may have been in that world, but he certainly was not of that world.  The beautiful mixture of dark and light used in the film at different places adds to the ambiance of the world Frank Darabont, in his first feature film debut.  He weaves a tale of light and darkness where even in the direst of circumstances, the capacity to believe in and hope for something allows humans to transcend their existence.

As for the acting, what more can be said?  Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman shine as Andy and Red.  The two of them have some amazing on screen chemistry, Morgan Freeman’s Red (Ellis Redding) being the pivotal role.  While Tim Robbins characterization of Andy Dufresne does display the hope that one can have, it is in Morgan Freeman’s character of Red that we can see man’s capacity to transform, which is the truly beautiful part.  At the beginning of the movie the character of Red has served the first 20 years of a life sentence for murder.  He had been “institutionalized” as he put it.  Society had taken the life from him, and we was going to fade out of existence.  But through his friendship with Andy, he saw a capacity to home for something more.  And we don’t know what all of that is going to mean for him until the end. “Get busy living, or get busy dying,” Red summarizes his situation even after being let out of prison.  But he summarizes his conclusion in one perfect exclamation point.  “That’s God Damn right!”  So when we seem him next, he is off on a bus, a transformed character.  And the voice-over that had been used extensively throughout the film begins again.  Morgan Freeman is getting ready to get on a bus.  He is full of wonder about what’s before him.  He is full of amazement about every little thing.  And ultimately he is full of hope, for his friend and ultimately for himself.

Along with our main stars there are some great individual performances in some smaller roles.  From James Whitmore, as the likeable but ultimately doomed character of Brooks Hatlen, the former prison librarian before Andy takes over, to Mark Rolston as Boggs Diamond the man responsible for Andy’s initial hell within the prison, to Gil Bellows as an affable Tommy, whose life is coming off the rails and Andy takes a personal interest in, the characters are fun and add to the prison comradery that is developed throughout the picture.  There are so many other roles that I could get into and say what they meant, but this is a blog and not a treatise on Shawshank.

Why do I love Shawshank? No matter how much I can get into the intricacies of a particular film, sometimes the description only pales to the actual work of art.  You can look at Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” and try to describe the brush strokes, and the brilliance of his work.  You can get into the picture as something that is living and breathing and how his work displays that.  But no matter how much you sit and talk about it, until you are staring at the painting and seeing it face to face, you cannot possibly fathom the greatness.  It is that moment that you get up close and all you can do is say, “wow,” where it all comes together for you.  I am guessing that many of you have already seen the film.  But if you have not, please take a look at it and just enjoy it, not only for what it preaches, but for what it is, a beautiful story of humanities capacity for hope and how that we can find it in the direst of circumstances.

Definitely perfect Toast

Five Stars

*Next on the Top 5 “Glory”*

Toasty Critic's Day Off

Good morning readers.

I know that I am trying to write about films from my perspective, and while I could be content to sit back and write once a week encapsulating a film or two that came out recently, I think that this blog should be about far more than just that.  I would love for this blog to become part of the discussion about film and film making.  I want for people to have the opportunity to discuss about film themselves and what they found beautiful or wonderful in a particular film.  While I will moderate the commentary that is posted on my page, taking out anything that I believe denigrates another person or their opinion, I would love for this to become a free flowing discussion.  So I do plan on writing about more than just the weekly cinematic efforts.

Suffice it to say, I did hope to have a review up yesterday about a film I had planned on watching.  I was looking forward to going and then sharing my review with you, but things came up and I did not get the chance to get to a movie yesterday.  I do plan on getting to it on Monday and hope to have a review up for you late Monday or early Tuesday discussing the film that I watched this week.  In the meantime I am going to post reviews on my Top 5 favorite films of all time.  Of course all of these titles are subject to change.  It is possible that at any time a film could fall out of my Top 5 and a new one be added, but these films have been fairly static over the years.  There is not a film newer than 1994.  This could be a current commentary on modern film I suppose.  Or it's just that these films are so good and have stood the test of time, and that a new film just hasn't blown me away in the same way.  Who knows?  But obviously I hope for this to be a fodder for the discussion of your own favorite movies.  Feel free to engage and as always your commentary is welcome.

Finally, for the movie week of August 27th, I had no real standout feature that I was going to write a review on.  I have taken a look about what is coming out, and I had no clue in which direction to go.  So I am going to leave it up to you and will watch the film that you select for me on that week.  Then I will get the review up as soon as possible.  I am going to list the movies, plus a few more coming out this week that I wasn't planning on reviewing, but still might be interested in watching and possibly reviewing.  Your vote will decide what I do.

Mechanic
Don't Breathe
I Am Not a Serial Killer
Ben Hur
War Dogs
Kubo and the Two Strings

Thanks for your interest in my blog.  And take a look at my top 5 movie reviews which I will begin with the first film on the list today.

This Squad is Toast

Suicide Squad

Just the perfect piece for my little rant about how reviewers operate now-a-days.  Can there ever be a better Rorschach test for film critics and their petty political grievances and politically correct kowtowing than this movie?  First of all there are those on the left who are in an uproar because they don’t understand how we can glamorize the bizarre relationship that the Joker has with his minion Harley Quinn.  They get in an uproar that she does not seem to fit their modern notions of what role a woman should play.  She should be kicking butt and taking names and screw the Joker for all they care.  She should be the embodiment of female empowerment made manifest.  Let alone all of the machismo of all of the other males that are in the film that they hate and say is overstated or down-right chauvinistic.  They believe movies should be downplaying them and their antiquated attitudes.

And then there is the response from the critics on the right.  They say here is the perfect example of what a film should be.  It should be showing a woman in her fully empowered form with more traditional roles for males and females.  They say we should show a  different side of female empowerment.  Male and female should be complimentary forms and we as a society need to stop being so politically correct that we can’t enjoy a film anymore because it has to follow whatever the modern view of society people believe we should hold or else the film is a failure. 

And all I can say to both sides, whether they have legitimate viewpoints or not is: “what a load of crap?!?!?”  Seriously . . .  How can we take either side seriously in this argument?  Source material is what it is.  If you do not like the source material then I would suggest that you not watch the movie and leave it to enjoy or not enjoy for the rest of those who appreciate it.  I want to attack both sides in this flame war for forgetting about the film itself in favor of their own petty grievances.  We should be looking into the films greatness, or lack thereof in the context of the movie itself.  Is there anything great or redeeming about the movie?  What message does it carry . . . if any?  Or is it just for pure pleasure and enjoyment?

Now that I have gotten that diatribe out of the way, I will move on to the film itself.  Superman himself has died (or so the world is lead to believe).  And Amanda Walker, portrayed by a tough as nails(yes that’s incredibly cliché) Viola Davis, has the bright idea to use a group of super-villains with their own set of super human powers to stop any other evil alien forces who may make their way into the world.  She is not sure that the next “Superman” may be as benevolent as the last one.  And of course if you have any background in the plot of Superman, knowing that crazy Kryptonians like Zod may be running around, it’s not necessarily as bad of a plan as one may think.  And of course she adds her own little contingency plan to this measure, implanting a device in the neck of all of her “team” (think unwilling victims) that will explode with the force of a grenade should any of them survive and try to escape, or step out of line at any time.  And of course we get the obligatory super villain trying to escape, just to prove ensure we know how serious Walker really is.

Deadshot (Will Smith), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), El Diablo (Jay Hernandez), Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), and a late addition of Katana (Karen Fukuhara) are tasked by Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman) and Walker to destroy this evil witch (Enchantress played by Cara Delevingne) who has taken over the city with her gigantic robot like brother.  Of course all hell is about to break loose, and that says nothing about the “bad guys” who are tasked to destroy the real dangers of the post Superman world.  What could possibly go wrong?

Now if I am going to get into the weeds with this movie and try to analyze every little thing then I might not be able to sit back and enjoy the entertaining fluff for what it is.  Because to be honest, that is all that it is.  It’s entertainment.  Super bad guys tasked to destroy an even more powerful “super bad guy” or in this case super bad girl, have to fight themselves and the minions before going after the real evil in the city.  We could hyper-analyze the relationship between Harley Quinn and her Mr. J (Jared Leto).  And we could talk about the abusive or Stockholm like nature of the relationship.  From my perspective this actually adds to our connection with the characters because we can connect with Deadshot (love of family), Harley (romantic love), El Diablo (love of community and love of others), and see in them little tidbits of ourselves.  They are the most authentically humans around, more-so than Batman, and definitely more-so than Superman. But I don’t need to go there.  As with any fun movie there is introduction, action, conflict, action, conflict, more action, climax and resolution, or in this instance warped love conquers all.  You go Mr. J!  And we get to discover some new characters in some new settings and realize them for the complex souls that they are.  So that when they appear in the next Justice League, Batman, Superman, the Flash movie, we know that they are not the static characters that they so often are.  We get the depth that we want and need.

As for the acting itself, Will Smith is basically Will Smith, with great eyes and cool gadgets.  If you expect anything more or less, then you may not like it.  Margot Robbie and Jared Leto are a lot of fun in their role as star crossed (insane), lovers who cannot seem to keep away from each other.  And Viola Davis take no prisoners version of Walker certainly handles her own up against all of the firepower and repartee of the villains.  It’s good clean, albeit warped, fun.  And to try to read into it anything deeper tries to input your own biases onto the film and not reading the film for what it is.  Although if you want to pick apart one character I would say that Ben Affleck as Batman does leave something to be desired.  He doesn’t seem to add anything of substance to the role and you could have had anyone don the Batman costume and recite the lines and it would have been just as good.

While there might be some room for improvement with this "superhero" movie (nothing beats the Dark Knight in tone and intensity to me for superhero movies), you could do a heck of a lot worse than to enjoy a couple hours at the cinema watching Suicide Squad.  Enjoy it for what it is, not for what it is not.

This film is slightly toasty.

Three stars

This Green Dragon is Toast

Pete’s Dragon

Now I am going to be completely honest with you.  I went to see this movie with my family this past weekend.  It was an experience in film watching for sure.  I suppose my experience with this movie even began before that, when I was at Disney’s California Adventure and I went to one of those sneak previews they have of the movie in “4D.”  I can’t possibly imagine what this movie would have been like in that venue but the little snippet that they gave you there was a lot of fun.  It was like any good trailer: lots of editing and splicing together; quick transitions building intensity, and mind blowing sound to suck you in.  It was a lot of fun.  I was excited enough to have my daughter and the rest of my family with us there for the movie.  I thought I was going to sit back, relax and enjoy a nice piece of fluff. 

Obviously this is the perfect transition for a nice big “but.”  But before I get there I want to give some context with the whole experience.  I am sure like many of you, you have experienced some of Disney’s interesting remakes, or re-imaginings of its classic fairy tales.  There has been Cinderella (enjoyed it), Maleficent (very disappointed), the Jungle Book (not as whimsical as the original but fun) as well as upcoming features like Beauty and the Beast.  But it’s hard to view the new versions without having some thought in your head about the original.

The original, while definitely Disney, was produced in the 1970's post Disney himself.  And while it might have been missing some of his wit and charm, it was unmistakably a Disney production.  Lost boys in need of help, fun musical numbers, and crazy villains were hallmarks of his films, and this was no different.  Pete was an orphaned boy controlled by a ruthless family and who had been adopted by a magical dragon to be able to help get him into a better family and find his own place in the world.  At which point Elliot, the dragon, would no longer be needed.  There was magic.  There was silliness.  There was warmth.  And ultimately it was about finding family.

Which brings us to the new film.  How can we look at the new film without thinking about the old film.  Obviously there is still Pete, an orphaned boy.  And there is still a dragon who is protecting him named Elliot.  And as my daughter put it so bluntly, that is where the similarities end.  I am not sure that it is completely true that the similarities ended there, but I will get into that a little later on.  First let’s begin with the setup.  There is a boy who seems to be orphaned in the Pacific Northwest sometime in the 1970's.  I am only guessing this because of the costumes that the parents seem to be wearing at the start of the film.  They were dressed up in either 70's or early 80's clothing.  And in trying to avoid a deer they end up flailing off the road and the parents do not survive the accident, but Pete does; and along with a book about a lost dog named Elliot, he scampers off into the woods to avoid scary noises that he hears.  Along comes Elliot the dragon to the rescue, protecting him from the nasty wolves that are in the area (wolves are a hallmark of Disney film making for sure).  And from there he spends the next 6 years on a series of adventures of fun and fancy free in the wilderness, that is, until he runs into a girl.

This girl is part of a blended family with a woman who is a forest ranger and environmental activist, and a nice but gullible guy who is torn between supporting his anti-environmental brother, and the woman who is in love with all things trees.  Finally there is the old codger, played by a "barely looks like he got out of bed to play this role" Robert Redford.  If I am trying to map this onto the original I am not sure that Mickey Rooney’s zany drunk maps perfectly onto the Robert Redford loony dad.  But that is another attempt to try to match character for character. 

Unfortunately I think where they stop matching characters is where Pete’s Dragon loses some of its heart.  They do have the crazy brother trying to catch the dragon and use it for his own profit.  But this character loses something in the fact that he isn’t necessarily evil.  He still has some attachment to his brother, which you can tell by the end of the film. So he’s not really a catalyst for the action, other than to capture Elliot so that he needs to be freed later.  And his other side messaging is that he is anti-environmental and therefore evil in the film.  Sticking this message in the middle of a kid’s film may work for the kids, but it’s too easy to make him out to be the evil-ugly-bad guy.  And it doesn't ring true to make him out to be the heavy when his character has too many mixed notes.  Maybe they were trying to show that humans aren’t perfectly anything.  But somehow I think this weakens the story.  

While Jim Dale may have been ridiculous in the original, he worked perfectly as the evil manipulator trying to take advantage of everyone, and Elliot is his ticket to money.  Karl Urban is not purely evil, and definitely not a foil for the dragon Elliot trying to manipulate rather than help people.  And he doesn’t work as the family trying to use Pete or people.  This part of the character is too weak as he seems to still have a soft spot for family.  And it doesn’t seem to impact Pete at all, except maybe that Pete is actually related to him in the end.

Finally I think the unfortunate part of Pete’s Dragon is in the mixed up relationship with Elliot.  The beauty of him being seemingly imaginary and yet not in the first one is that he truly is Pete’s guardian angel.  He is there to get him through his rough times and seeing him into something better.  But when Pete is separated from Elliot in this movie, we don’t feel the accomplishment of Elliot, or the need for him to help other lost souls.  What we see is loss.  Elliot is essentially Pete’s father figure for all of those years and now the story is just taking Pete away from Elliot.  Maybe it’s not an abandonment in the classic sense.  But society seems to be ripping apart a family, albeit an unnatural one.  Society itself feels evil.  Even the welcoming family for Pete, while not necessarily evil, seem to have as their intention taking Pete away from Elliot.  This new family is encroached upon.  And we see Elliot himself mourning the loss.  Even reuniting Pete with Elliot in the end seems to be missing something.

As for the acting, I would say that they did a good job with the animation for Elliot.  And Bryce Dallas Howard did a creditable job as the Grace Meachem, the ranger.  Oakes Fegley did an admirable job as the lost boy Pete.  Karl Urban seemed somewhat miscast in his role as Gavin.  It never felt like the movie allowed him to settle into any role.   Whether purely bad guy, or family man, or bumbling buffoon, he never seemed to have his bearings throughout the movie.  And as for Robert Redford as Mr. Meachem, I feel like he slept walked through his role, literally.  Throughout the film it looked like he had bed head and his acting seemed stilted.  It’s like they hired him for the voice over Narration and decided to film him in the movie as a last resort because they needed a silly old guy role to fill.

Despite the beautiful cinematography, and Oakes creditable job as Pete, I am not sure that it is worth the retelling of the original film.  Maybe my bias is to the original, but I feel like the original had more heart and the interactions of the characters seemed to make more sense for the driving of the plot.  Although I will have to say that my daughter did love the film, as did my niece and nephew.  And with so much other poor choices for family movies, it’s an ok weekend matinee film.  Just don’t expect to find any of the original’s heart.

Toast not all the way cooked

Two Stars 

The Toasty Critic

The Toasty Critic by DE

Let’s begin this blog with one of the major problems I see with film reviews now a days.  It occurs whether you are left, right, male, female, younger or older, critics tend to prejudge films and reviews become wish fulfillment rather than an honest critique of film.  So with this regular posting, I am endeavoring to write some reviews for you that try to take my own wish fulfillment out of the review and focus more on the piece itself.  I want to make reading a review about an honest assessment about the strengths and weaknesses of a film.  I want you the reader to feel like someone has given you some insight into what I considered about the film itself.  This does not mean that I am not going to have a truckload of bias when I come into the movie.  I cannot necessarily check that at the door very effectively.  But I am going to be honest about that bias when reviewing movies, and you are going to be able to see that and still have a feeling whether this movie is for you or not.  I hope to take reviews back to a previous era.

I remember being a young child and watching the two talking heads of Siskel and Ebert.  And while these are critics of a bygone era of film review, I do see something in them that I wish that we had in the people who are reviewing films today.  And what it comes down to is guts.  They had cajones.  If they felt like something was good, they told it like it is, whether or not the tropes of the left or right agenda were lived up to.  And if they thought something was bad they were also going to tell it like it is.  This did not mean that the two of them were going to agree on any particular piece of film.  In fact it was much more fun hearing from the two of them when they didn’t.  But they really got into the particulars in the film itself and you knew what they liked and why they liked it.

If you watched carefully enough, over time, you could tell that the two actually had a pattern about how they reviewed the films they liked, and the ones that they did not.  When it came to Gene Siskel, the stranger and more outrageous the better.  He saw successful films as films that were going to do something in an entirely different and fresh way.  It was obvious that he hoped to come into the movie theater wanting to expect something completely different every time.  If he was given what he considered more of the same, then he was going to lambaste the film as a waste of time to watch.  This did not mean that he hated things that had been done before.  Even if it was something that had been done a million times before, like a Christmas Carol, if he thought the new version of the movie had a fresh and different take on the movie, he was going to appreciate it more. 

Then there was Roger Ebert.  Ebert reviewed movies in a completely different way.  His method of looking at movies was based in the intentions, or his “perceived intentions” of what the film maker was trying to do.  If the film was successfully trying to convey the message that he felt was trying to be conveyed, then he felt like the film deserved a positive review.  This does not mean that a film would end up perfect, and if you ever read his columns you would know that even a “thumbs up” did not mean that the film was amazing.  All it meant was that a film lived up to what he believed its expectations of it were.  He saw film making as entertainment, but he also saw it as functional.  Films needed to live up to their expectations, whether lofty or lowly.

So how am I going to judge films?  I remember a friend of mine once asked me what kinds of films did I like.  My response to him, other than being completely narcissistic, was very telling.  I said that I liked good films.  And while completely brazen, there is an element of truth to it.  We love films because we consider them to be good.  And we dislike films because we think they are bad in some way.  So I am going to tell you whether I think a film is good or bad.  But I am probably going to be more of the Roger Ebert, and less of the Gene Siskel.  I am going to let you know whether I thought a film was good or not based upon whether I felt the film lived up to its own expectations.  But I will not leave you dear reader completely stranded in the weeds about whether I thought a film was just about expectations.  I will discuss acting, cinematography, costumes, errors in film making, message, etc.  I may agree or disagree with some choices the film makers have but I will let you know whether or not I thought the message they wanted to convey was a success.  And whether or not I liked that message.  But the “I like” part or the review will be my bias.  

So there it is.  That’s who I am and what I believe.  I hope you can enjoy my reviews and get a glimpse of film making through my eyes.  And feel free to send in comments because I like to know how you see things as well.  It may not change my opinion.  Siskel could rarely change Ebert’s mind.  But it may make me rethink about a movie and maybe even give it a fresh outlook.  Sit back, relax, and enjoy.