Movie Review: Chaplin (1992)

In the history of film, the greatest comedian, in my opinion, was Charlie Chaplin. Chaplin's films like The Kid (1922), The Gold Rush (1925), Modern Times (1936) and The Great Dictator (1938) are extremely important films for the arts. They show his genius of mixing slapstick comedy with social commentary and he was immortalised with his character of "The Tramp", which is now one of the greatest icons of film. Chaplin was a funny man but he was also a tragic one, for his pursuits of women in his personal life led to some law suits and eventually the stress that was gained from it and the pressure applied by J. Edgar Hoover for being a communist, particularly during the 1940s, led to him leaving America and not returning until 1972, where he received an Honorary Academy Award for his work, before returning to his home in Switzerland. With a life as interesting and as exciting as this, it is a little disappointing that the biopic by Richard Attenborough doesn't quite hit the mark.

There are elements of the film which are done perfectly. One of them is Robert Downey Jr. as Chaplin. The two have an uncanny resemblance and Downey Jr. plays the role of the slightly eccentric Brit to a tee. The other actors also give magnificent, larger-than-life performances, particularly Dan Ackroyd as Mack Sennett and Kevin Kline as Douglas Fairbanks. The sets of the period are extremely detailed and give the film a rustic vibe. All-in-all, the majority of the film is well done, except for one element, which is always the most important element in any biopic: the script.

Robert Downey Jr. is an uncanny
doppelganger of Chaplin.

This isn't to say that the dialogue is uninteresting. On the contrary, this film has some excellently written lines of dialogue, especially where it concerns a party in which Chaplin refuses to shake the hand of a Nazi ambassador. No, the problem with the script is not with dialogue but with the story. This film, to me, seemed to take a lot of liberties with the Chaplin story, going to the length where Chaplin attended a fictional celebration dinner of the end of the First World War, where he comes to blows with J. Edgar Hoover, who would later become the bane of Chaplin's existence as head of the F.B.I. I can see the technique that Attenborough is trying to employ but unfortunately it doesn't work because of the fact that the film is a biopic, which means that it has to be truthful. And unfortunately, there are some scenes which I just can't believe actually happened and do benefit the plot too much. Whilst the story does stay faithful to Chaplin's timeline, from his early childhood in the slums of South London to him receiving the Honorary Academy Award, there are fabricated events made to seem as if Charlie Chaplin was a 24/7 fountain of wisdom, which is practically impossible.

The fabricated scene in which Chaplin supposedly snubs J.
Edgar Hoover at a dinner party.

Another thing that I think the film missed out on was Chaplin actually making films. There are some short scenes where we can see Chaplin working on a movie and, when it's very early on and he's on the set with Mack Sennett, it seems as though the film is going to focus on his filmmaking. However, the majority of the film is, strangely enough, more interested in his sex life, to the point where it becomes a slightly weird fascination. I don't mind the movie touching upon these elements but it's the main focus, which is not where it should have been. The filmmaking scenes, in this regard, are far too short. The Gold Rush is barely touched upon, with only a one minute scene dedicated to it. The Kid is barely there. Modern Times is only briefly glanced at. And The Great Dictator is insultingly ignored.

Chaplin is a strange film indeed. There are glows of genius that wants to escape, there are some powerhouse acting scenes and the film is, dare I say it, entertaining. But with problems with the truth and a lack of focus on what made Chaplin so great, the film falls quite flat. And there really doesn't seem to be a reason for it to exist because the man himself said that if people wanted to understand him, then they should just go and see his films. Richard Attenborough tries his damndest to make his audience pay attention, but unfortunately on this occasion, the end result had a messy script and an even messier focus.

FINAL VERDICT: 3/5

Movie Review: The Maltese Falcon (1941)

I've never been a huge fan of detective films. I think it may be because when I was a child it was all about the Lord of the Rings and Star Wars and that didn't leave much time for detectives. I usually find that the things I've liked since before I was sixteen tend to stay with me now. I wish I could want to watch more detective films but my go-to movies always seem to be Science-Fiction, Fantasy, Westerns and Thrillers. However, I believe that The Maltese Falcon may be a film that gets me more interested in the work of detectives.

The Maltese Falcon is adapted from a novel by Dashiell Hammett. It tells the story of Private Eye Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart), working on a case that involves the murder of his partner, a woman, three criminals and an artifact worth millions.

Now, to talk about a genre I have previously ignored: Film Noir. This is the movie that a great deal of film historians consider the first Film Noir. They argue that it laid the groundwork for mean streets, murder, femme fatales and extremely shifty motivations. And I would agree with them. The Maltese Falcon is unlike any film before it; it borrows the use of harsh shadows from German Expressionism, pits in a hard-boiled police detective in a quest for vengeance, one of the key players is a heavily sexualized woman, etc... All typical traits of what was to become Film Noir. Of course, Film Noir was already on its way in via the literature route, with books such as The Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler being extremely successful. Bogart would later go on to play the hero of the novel, Philip Marlowe, in the 1946 adaptation.

Humphrey Bogart as hard and cold private eye Sam Spade.
In this writer's opinion, one of his best performances.

The most important aspect of the film, for me, is that it sealed the fate of Humphrey Bogart. Previously, he had only been starring in fairly generic gangster B movies and never really got a chance to show his acting chops to a wide audience. The gruffness and hardness of Bogart's performance would be cemented upon him for the rest of his life. It landed him the role of Rick in Casablanca (1942) the next year, and then Philip Marlowe in The Big Sleep, and then Fred in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948), and on and on. And with good reason, as it's really hard to take your eyes off Bogart when he's delivering such a landmark performance. Sam Spade is cold and hard, like his name suggests, and it's all thanks to Bogart that these feelings are gotten across.

The plot is not very important. As is the Maltese Falcon itself. It's a classic example of a Hitchcockian "MacGuffin". Despite the fact that the title of the movie is the object which all the main characters desire, it plays a relatively minor role in the film, being only the catalyst for events to happen, much like the bag of money in Psycho (1960) or the briefcase in Pulp Fiction (1994). The characters are put to the forefront and they are the main focus. Other than Bogart's Spade, we have Mary Astor's femme fatale Brigid O'Shaughnessy, Peter Lorre's homosexual Joel Cairo, Sydney Greenstreet's main antagonist Kasper Gutman and Elisha Cook, Jr.'s pathetic gunsel Wilmer Cook. All of these characters are also typically tough Film Noir, although Joel Cairo seems to be more effeminate than the others, possibly due to his homosexuality.

The infamous scene in which Lorre emits a homosexual
nature that could be considered semi-erotic. 

The acting is fantastic. Other than Bogart, I thought that the performances from Lorre and Greenstreet were excellent, shining examples of their capabilities as character actors. Lorre's subtle gestures of homosexuality (his fussing over his clothes, his hysteria at the discovery of the fake falcon and making fellating movements during his interview with Spade) are pure brilliance, in a time when homosexuality was a taboo subject in the arts.

There is not much to be said about The Maltese Falcon that has not already been said. It's commonly regarded as one of the great classics of a lost era. It signified a dramatic shift in the way that movies could be made under the censorship guidlines, eventually paving the way, along with Hitchcock, for the more liberal approaches to cinema that included acceptable violence, sex and drug abuse. It ignited a whole new genre of films that were a lot edgier than their contemporaries. It launched Humphrey Bogart's career and saved him from a constant barrage of gangster films. And it is, without a doubt in my mind, one of the greatest movies ever made.

FINAL VERDICT: 5/5

Movie Review: North By Northwest (1959)

In many ways Alfred Hitchcock was the greatest pioneer of technique, screenwriting and genre innovation. With Psycho (1960), he initiated the early phases of the slasher film, at least in the popular Western consciousness. With Blackmail (1929), he created the first British sound film. And with North by Northwest, he marries his skill with the camera, the pen and genre to create one of the most exciting and classic spy thrillers I have ever seen.

North by Northwest is a movie about mistaken identity. Roger O. Thornhill (Cary Grant) is mistaken for FBI agent George Kaplan and taken to the residence of Lester Townsend, where he meets the villainous Philip Vandamm (James Mason). Vandamm, thinking that Thornhill is Kaplan, attempts to have him killed via a staged driving accident but Thornhill escapes. Thornhill starts investigating, which gets him into even hotter water when it looks like he has killed a U.N. diplomat. From there follows a winding story into the work of spies and deceit, as Thornhill tries to clear his name.

Ernest Lehman, nominated for six
Academy Awards, including Best
Screenplay.

The real champion of this movie is its script, which is truly a fantastic piece of work in itself. Ernest Lehman, the screenwriter, wasn't joking when he said that he wanted to write "the Hitchcock picture to end all Hitchcock pictures." There is a truly wonderful quality to this script that few screenwriters actually hit. For me, Lehman stands up amongst the great classic Hollywood screenwriters, which include Billy Wilder and Tennessee Williams. His wit is sharp and his storytelling plays out with enough twists and turns to keep you on the edge of your seat. Modern screenwriters only wish that they could write a script with this much classic Hitchcockian thrills and sarcasm.

The infamous crop duster scene, in
which Thornhill is chasedby enemy
agents.

The cinematography is also on point (as it was with most of Hitchcock's pictures). There is a real sense of urgency in the way Hitchcock uses the camera, almost as if he wants us to feel the same way as Thornhill: stressed, on edge and feeling as though you're in a situation that simply won't end. The way Hitchcock shoots action is also very unique in itself. The crop duster scene may very well be one of the most iconic action scenes in movie history. In this scene, Thornhill is chased and nearly killed by enemy agents in a crop duster. The angles Hitchcock uses in this scene paint a unique feeling to the action and keeps the audience increasingly on the edge of their seats.

Grant, who was aged 54 at the time,
brings a sort of suaveness to Thornhill
that no other actor could have pulled
off.

However, I feel that the movie mainly works because it has the right set of actors for the job: Cary Grant, Eva Marie Saint and James Mason. Nothing can go wrong with this combination. Of their time, they were three of the best actors in Hollywood. Grant was a favourite of Hitchcock's, mainly because he always did what Hitchcock told him to. Mason was a huge actor by the time the film was released, having starred in Odd Man Out (1947), Five Fingers (1952) and A Star is Born (1954). Eva Marie Saint had gotten lots of credibility as a good actress from starring in On the Waterfront (1954). And Hitchcock needed all of them to bring his movie to life. The actors all have fantastic chemistry together, particularly Saint and Grant, who I think make the relationship between Thornhill and Eve Kendall much more believable.

North by Northwest is a classic movie and I really don't think there's much more I can write that hasn't already been written. The sets are wonderful, the story is intriguing, the actors deliver powerhouse performances and the cinematography is excellent. One of Hitchcock's classic films.

FINAL VERDICT: 5/5

Movie Review: Contact (1997)

Robert Zemeckis is one of those directors who I think makes movies that are either hit or miss. A lot of this does depend on what sort of films are preferable to you yourself, but for me, it really does depend on what film he makes. I think that Back to the Future (1985), Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988) and Cast Away (2000) are really good movies, whereas Forrest Gump (1994), Beowulf (2007) and A Christmas Carol (2009) were, in my opinion, not very good at all, by which I mean they were quite underwhelming. However, out of all the films I've seen of his, nothing quite compares to his 1997 Sci-Fi film Contact.

Contact is a Sci-Fi film like no other, in that it is ingrained in reality like none in its genre. The movie talks science, religion and politics: three very uneasy grounds when it comes to Hollywood and their rhetoric of making millions of dollars. One would be enough to make them squirm but all three together in one movie is a very bold move, especially by Zemeckis, who I think tries to make films for a mass audience. The juxtaposition of these themes and the subject of first contact with extraterrestrials make for a very interesting debate; mainly because first contact would have to be orchestrated by someone who could be a popular representative of mankind. And when science, religion and politics are thrown into the mix, you have a massive showdown as everyone races to see who would be the ideal candidate. There are talks in the White House, a world congress committee is formed... Everyone involved with science, religion and/or politics goes for the jugular.

The basic plot premise is that Dr. Eleanor "Ellie" Arroway (Jodie Foster) discovers that a message is being sent from Vega, the fifth brightest star in the galaxy. Instantly, world leaders become involved and a whole project is set up to make first contact. Within that is the subplot of her relationship with Palmer Jos (Matthew McConaughey), a man who believes in God who is her opposite as she is an atheist and with whom she once had an affair with.

Opposition comes in all forms, particularly in the form of this
preacher, who becomes a catalyst for a tragic event later in the
film.

The subject matter of the film is what its key strength is. Contact perfectly illustrates a very good argument of what could happen if we were ever to prepare for such a thing, from the political implications to possible religious terrorism. And one of the best things about its plot is that actions do have consequences and nothing is brushed under the rug. For example, the first message the extraterrestrials send mankind is the broadcast of the opening of the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin, during which Hitler makes a speech (this was the first broadcast that was ever made). The consequences are later seen when Arroway comes back to the Very Large Array and sees a variety of civilians celebrating or condemning the project - amongst them are Neo-Nazis holding banners that say "Hitler Lives". Using details like this make the plotting of the film much better and hold it together much more.

The pacing of the film is also excellent. The film is approximately 150 minutes long but not a single time did I ever check my watch just so I could know when the film was going to end. And with a Sci-Fi film so ingrained in reality, with politics and inter-dimensional space flight, the fact that the pacing feels even and matched makes it more bearable to watch. I think a lot of this is due to the fact that Zemeckis recognises that films, especially those on the science fiction or fantasy side, are a visual medium and that it is better to show rather than tell.

Dr. Eleanor Archway is a strong, well-defined character who
eventually gets to meet the Vegans.

Something I also loved was the fact that the lead scientist was female. Women are hugely misrepresented when it comes to the world of science and I think that this film is a strong feminist case for the misrepresented female scientists. Ellie consistently discovers new things about the message and is also the first (other than S.R. Hadden (John Hurt)) to know what the schematics they were sent mean. However, all of her hard work doesn't seem to pay off, as her former employer David Drumlin (Tom Skerritt) constantly tries to steal all of the credit from her and is actually chosen at first to be the one to initiate first contact. She is also one of the few female scientists in the film, as the majority of them are male. However, she rises through sexist and religious opposition to finally be the one who pilots the Machine: a way for her to travel and meet the aliens.

Breathtaking visual of the first contact meeting place.

In terms of special effects, the visuals are stunning, particularly those with the Machine. Even though the film was made in 1997, the effects have not really dated from my own standpoint and remain as fresh to me now as they were back then. The scene where contact is actually made is absolutely fantastic. It's design is a sort of cross between a tropical paradise and an ethereal science fiction landscape.

The last thing I have to address is the acting, which I think is excellent. Jodie Foster nails being a scientist, with all her passion and techno babble. Matthew McConaughey brings his powerhouse to the table. However, out of the entire cast, which also consists of James Woods and John Hurt, the most impressive performance is by Tom Skerritt, who is just overall very good at playing a conniving, manipulative man whose only concern is with getting enough of the media's cameras on him.

Contact is the best science fiction film of the nineties. This is something that should not be frowned at, since competition includes The Matrix (1999), Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) and Jurassic Park (1993). I find that the film's plot, themes, special effects and acting all combine together to not only one-up these films in all of these departments, but to also show new generations of science fiction movie buffs how a great Sci-Fi film is made. Whilst it is fun to see Arnold Schwarzenegger beat up an indestructible robot or to watch a T-Rex eat a lawyer, Contact provides something that I think a lot of science fiction films, particularly nowadays, miss out on: provocative thought.

FINAL VERDICT: 5/5

Movie Review: The Shining (1980)

I don't really like Horror movies. This isn't to do with the usual perception that I don't like scary things, which absolutely isn't true, as many of the movies I watch contain dark elements and shock moments. My main concern with Horror movies is that the idea is to scare and very few Horror films actually end up doing that. In fact, out of the entire catalogue of Horror films I have watched, only three have truly frightened me: The Exorcist (1973), Alien (1979) and Stanley Kubrick's The Shining (1980).

The Shining was originally a novel by Stephen King, the master of horror literature. The book was very popular, so master filmmaker Stanley Kubrick took it on as his first and only project in Horror. And the result is a movie that may be both Kubrick's most known work and one of his best. Considering Kubrick's catalogue of films before The Shining, it is not a real surprise that he had the necessary skill to make the film. Many of Kubrick's films contain dark characters and ideas. For example, the idea in A Clockwork Orange (1971) that criminals can be brainwashed so that they have no desire to kill or hurt people is, on paper, not such a terrible idea. But the deeper meaning behind that is probably that it is like an ideological castration of the mind. In other words, the destruction of who and what you are and the freedom to defend yourself and make love to someone. Kubrick seems to illustrate that this is an awful idea, mainly due to choice and free will being taken away. In fact, it's not just awful, it's downright insane and evil. The time after Alex's release illustrates this, as the actions of the government make him extremely vulnerable to everyone, from old friends to half-crazed men, to the point where he is almost killed. The Shining maximizes the horrifying aspect whilst still asking some intellectual questions, mainly about the supernatural and telepathy.

The plot of The Shining is not exactly genius but the true strength is in the ideas within the plot and also the foreshadowing. Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) is a writer who has agreed to take on the winter caretaking of the Overlook Hotel, which is high up in the mountains. Despite being warned that the last caretaker went insane from the isolation, Jack takes the job anyway and moves his family there. As bad weather and the overall wide open space make Jack slowly lose his mind, his son Danny (Danny Lloyd) experiences visions of death and wants to leave, along with his mother Wendy (Shelley Duvall), resulting in one of the most electrifying climaxes of any horror film.

The foreshadowing and opening of the film is handled so well. In the beginning, we are told about O'Grady, the previous caretaker, which will be the setup for Jack slowly losing his mind and being open to the suggestions of the ghosts. It is also made clear from the beginning that Danny has the power of telepathy, and that he has a best friend called Tony, who may or may not be real. As well as this, we are exposed to Jack's previous alcoholism, which has caused a fracture in his marriage. Danny meeting Dick Hallorran is also important, because it will not only lead to Dick's death at the end but also foreshadows Danny and Jack's meetings with ghosts both good and evil. There is also the subtle hinting that the ghosts may be there because of the hotel being built atop an ancient Native American burial ground. The setup of The Shining is one of the most ingenious facets of the film because it tells so much but reveals so little, preferring to stick with the old cinematic saying "show, don't tell".

In this still from the film, we see Jack
in the first stages of his breakdown into
madness.

Another thing I think that the film handles so well is the slow devolution of Jack Torrance. As John David Ebert described in his own review of the film, if 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and its final sequence with Bowman are about the evolution of mankind, then The Shining and Jack's slowly more primitive state are about devolution. The already archaic idea of ghosts fits perfectly well with the theme of a human showing more animal-like behaviour because ghosts and spirits have been a frequent idea since the dawn of man. This is one sign of devolution or humanity going back to its roots. Another is Jack's psychotic behaviour brought on by the ghosts that he and Danny can see. At the beginning, Jack is already a little unhinged, having been an alcoholic and not touching drink for the previous six months (this could also insinuate the extremes of addiction withdrawals). With the complete mental breakdown he suffers from after Wendy accuses him of hurting Danny, his walls come crashing down and he turns from being borderline psychotic to a complete psychopath, killing anyone who comes into his path.

The tricycle scenes leave the viewer in suspense up until
Danny's second meeting with the two murdered girls.

In terms of cinematography, this is the sort of film that could teach many amateur filmmakers how to use spatial awareness in film. The movie is shot in such a way, especially with its large rooms, to get across a feeling of agoraphobia, the fear of wide open spaces. There is a real sense that wide open spaces leave the victim in a more vulnerable state than narrow passages because of how the feeling of something about to jump out at the victim is so much stronger in a wide open environment. I think Kubrick deliberately chose the location of the hotel because of how big the rooms actually are, or how he thought he could make the rooms look even bigger with his cameras. Another of the techniques I liked was the way in which he followed Danny on his little tricycle through the house, which evokes suspense, mainly orchestrated by the sounds of the tricycle wheels going across wooden floor and then carpet.

And then, of course, I have to address the classic performance of Jack Nicholson. What can I say that hasn't already been said? His role as Jack Torrance is one of the most iconic roles in movie history. His line, "Here's Johnny", was actually improvised by him. Jack Nicholson is the sort of man who is only half-crazy on a good day anyway, so the role of an insane writer I think was pretty much a doddle for him, especially considering he went into this film on the back of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975), in which he played a criminal who claims that he is insane so that he can serve better jail time. Jack Nicholson is the master of insane roles. And this is his most iconic.

The acting from Danny Lloyd is also very good, especially from the standpoint of child actors, who

Shelley Duvall's career got a massive boost thanks to Kubrick's
(some would say insane) direction.

are usually not that great at acting (understandable, they are children after all). However, Shelley Duvall's acting is actually, considering her credits as an actress, very good. I think the reason why she did such a good job was because Kubrick was the sort of director who always got what he wanted out of his actors. Kubrick wanted Duvall to play the role of someone living with a crazy person, so he took it upon himself to be that crazy person. He intentionally made Duvall feel uncomfortable on set and made her do the scene with the typewriter, not ten, not fifty, not even one hundred times but one hundred and twenty-seven times. In the long term, this was actually better for her career, as the performance she gave got her into higher places in the world of acting. Kubrick was an absolute perfectionist when it came down to everything in his films, because he loved the art so much.

I had a lot of trouble writing this review of The Shining, mainly because there is so much to say and I need to condense what I want to say into a snappy article. I could go on to mention the specific choice of colour for some of the rooms, as they are symbolic. I could delve into the background history of ghosts and other supernatural entities. But I won't because, to wrap this review up, The Shining is one of the classic horror films. It has always been and always will be one of the few effective horror films I have watched and the fact that it came from one of my all-time favourite directors is just the cherry on top.

FINAL VERDICT: 5/5

Movie Review: Lethal Weapon (Director's Cut) (1987)

If there is a specific type of action film that I absolutely adore, it would be anything from the eighties. The eighties, in my opinion, were the best time for action films because there were so many of them and because the stars of these movies were larger than life themselves. Although we know that Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone aren't great actors, they are now iconic images of a decade. A large amount of eighties action films were also quite well-written, like Aliens (1986) and Die Hard (1988). Even silly action films which are very hard to take seriously, like Commando (1985), still have some ingenious punchlines to them, my personal favourite from that film being (and bear in mind that I'm paraphrasing):
"You know when I said I'd kill you last?"
"Yeah, man, you did say that!"
"I lied."
For me, eighties action is like an exercise in drinking. You can have the most rich and purest champagne (for instance, Die Hard) and you can also have the watered down cheap beer that only students and teenagers like drinking simply because it's cheap (like Firewalker (1986). Lethal Weapon falls into the former category.

Lethal Weapon is a brilliant action film starring Mel Gibson as Martin Riggs and Danny Glover as Roger Murtaugh and written by Shane Black, who would later go on to write Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005) and Iron Man 3 (2013). This film is astounding mainly for how it was written; Riggs and Murtaugh are two of the most iconic action characters in history and the film is considered a landmark film in the action genre. And yes, this was all before Mel Gibson actually went crazy instead of acting like it.

Martin Riggs: Crazy but sympathetic.

The most important aspect of this film is its writing, which I think is excellent in that it never once tries to insult the intelligence of the audience. Martin Riggs is a young cop who is devastated by the death of his wife in a car accident; his opposite, Roger Murtaugh, is an older police sergeant with a family who is close to retirement. Typical buddy cop setup. But what makes it work is Black's realistic and heartfelt writing. Both of these characters are sympathetic in their own ways, in particular Riggs because of his depression and the loss of his wife, which supposedly in the eyes of the Los Angeles Police Department makes him a "Lethal Weapon". Riggs' character is also interesting because we are actually given space to feel sympathy for him, mainly because there are two pivotal scenes that touch the audience and make us care. These, of course, are when Riggs sticks a gun in his mouth whilst at his home early in the film and when he gives a prostitute one hundred dollars just to come home and watch TV with him. Murtaugh's is sympathetic for another reason. He's a family man who knows how dangerous his job is and when everything he loves is threatened, nothing will stop him and the audience will route for him.

One of the most ingenious things about the script is how Black incorporates drama into a film that is mainly about the action. Many action films don't have time for character development, aside from basics like their name, age, etc... In this we have two characters who are mainly defined by their actions, which is how many great characters are written. Through their actions and the drama that happens on screen, the audience feels as though they know these two as human beings; in other words, the separation between the screen and the audience is transparent. This is an impressive feat for any film but even more impressive considering it comes from a buddy cop film.

Another great thing about the film is that the story takes many twists and turns. What begins as a simple suicide case turns into a homicide one and then finally a vice, as the two try to bring down an underground drug ring. So many unexpected things happen that the audience not only notices the action on the screen but also the overall well-crafted story, something I think a lot of modern action directors seem to miss nowadays (ahem,  Michael Bay, ahem). It is a glimpse into an era when action was not only considered as popcorn fun, but also as a means to tell a complicated story through simplistic setup.

Danny Glover and Mel Gibson give out two of their most iconic
performances.

The chemistry between Mel Gibson and Danny Glover is also something that needs addressing because the two work off of each other very well. Mel Gibson is excellent at playing the role of a man who is on the edge and borderline psychotic (Oh, if only people knew back then), as much as Danny Glover is at playing the experienced man trying to get on with his complete opposite. The pairing is perfect. The other role which I thought was played excellently is Gary Busey as Joshua. According to Busey, this was the film that revived his career, after a lull period where he wasn't being hired for many movies. Busey plays his villainous role with a certain enjoyment that only the best villains can be played, much like Heath Ledger as The Joker in The Dark Knight (2008).

The excellently shot final confrontation between Riggs and
Joshua.

The action is also very good, especially for 1987. Firefights, cars blowing up and one-on-one martial arts fights have never been so fun to watch. Genuine tension is built, as the course that the action takes suggests that the main villains will win in the end, which is something all good action films should do, in my own personal opinion. Otherwise, why will the audience care about what happens onscreen if they already know what the outcome will be? It is also shot well and I think the final act of the film is one of the best action sequences I have watched in a while.

My only complaint is that Eric Clapton is one of the composers of the score. I thought the score was a little generic eighties action but overall okay but the addition of the racist scumbag that is Eric Clapton did not please me (for those of you who don't know, Eric Clapton once said drunkenly during a concert that he wanted all black people and immigrants out of England, thus creating the Rock Against Racism movement in 1976). I know that I'm supposed to be subjective when it comes to reviewing movies but it's my blog and I can write whatever I want. Go figure.

Overall, Lethal Weapon is an excellent action film that anyone can watch with friends. It's one of the most impressive action films that I have watched from the perspective of story and characters. I pretty much liked everything about the film and I think it is one of the eighties classics.

FINAL VERDICT: 4.5/5

Movie Review: Barry Lyndon (1975)

Stanley Kubrick was a master filmmaker. I don't believe there are many who would disagree with me. In his career which spanned from around 1949 to 1999, he made sixteen films, of which eleven were incredibly successful and critically acclaimed. Of his movies, I have only watched five: The Killing (1956), Paths of Glory (1958), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), A Clockwork Orange (1972) and, most recently, Barry Lyndon (1975). One of the things that it is ultimately fascinating about Kubrick is that not one film is the same and he tackled a variety of genres, from Science Fiction to Period Drama. His trademark cinematographic style remains constant and many of his themes recur in his films but each movie is something different. And in Barry Lyndon couldn't be more different from the rest of his films.

Barry Lyndon is a period drama set in the late 1700s in Europe based off of the novel The Luck of Barry Lyndon (1844) by William Makepeace Thackeray. Of all the films Kubrick has done, this is the movie that stands out the most in terms of being different from his other work. Kubrick, before this, had directed mostly risque films. But Barry Lyndon feels more like Kubrick was trying to take a break from his usual. Barry Lyndon is, in every essence of the meaning, a Period Drama. It's setting and story are kin to a novel like Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights, in that the action all takes place in the 18th Century and thematically it is about a young person rising through the social hierarchy. But it is subverted in that way Kubrick always manages to do, which is to make it a bit grittier and not have a happy ending.

Redmond Barry (Ryan O'Neal) is a man from a humble family that doesn't have much land or wealth. His father is killed at the very beginning of the film before his birth in a duel. His mother takes no other suitors and raises the child by herself. From there, the viewer gets a story dedicated to a large part of his life, showing how he slowly becomes rich and powerful, only for it all to crumble in the second half of the movie. Just to clarify, this is not a spoiler, because the narrator tells us a lot of events that are going to happen right at the beginning of the film. However, the 'how' is what really drives the film, in that we don't know just how a man of Barry's stature came to possess such wealth and then lose it. This intrigues the audience to keep watching. Throughout his life, we see Barry transform from a green boy, to a soldier, to a spy and finally into an extremely wealthy man. The whole plot of the film is like a looking glass into the life of a man who seemingly has unpredictable things happen to him and we, the audience, are the ones lucky enough to see it.

Ryan O'Neal as Redmond Barry holds a blank, expressionless
face like this throughout the majority of the film, possibly
signifying his lack of emotion for anyone but himself.

Barry himself is an interesting character because, essentially, there is not really anything that is remotely special about him. We know he's an opportunist and a good fighter but there is nothing about him that screams that he's intelligent or has the brains to come into such wealth. He is, in fact, quite average. But the opportunist part is the most important because consistently Barry sees opportunities to exploit people or situations into his favor. You could say he pretty much has the best luck in the world when it comes to meeting powerful people. O'Neal plays his character well and doesn't really show that Barry has any emotions at all. The only time we get the feeling that he cares is when he is with his son Brian, whom he loves unconditionally, but he seems to bear none for anyone else, including his wife, step-son and mother. It is almost as if his sheer luck and opportunistic nature have blinded him to things that those characters consider very important: love and family. This backlashes against him later when all those who hated him come to strip him of all wealth and titles, leaving him to die a broke and broken man. Redmond Barry's character is a warning in itself against the dangers of low emotional intelligence and greed. But, at the same time, we feel peculiarly sorry for him by the end because we have seen his hardships and his rise and fall. This could also be reflected in the final scene of the film, where the Countess of Lyndon (Marisa Berenson) is with her son, Lord Bullingdon (Leon Vitali) and the Reverend Samuel Runt (Murray Melvin), going through all the debts to pay and stops when she comes across Barry's annuity check, which was agreed between him and Bullingdon. We see that she is hesitant to sign the check to the man who singlehandedly destroyed her family's wealth, before she signs it anyway. The question is, why did she sign it anyway? Was it to honor her son's agreement? Or was it out of a curious sense of pity for the man she was once married to?

This moody still from early in the film captures the type of
cinematography Kubrick wished to convey, as young Barry
flees from his home after killing an officer of the British army.

Technically, this film is fantastic. No wonder three of the four Oscars it won at the 1975 Academy Awards were for Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography and Best Costumes and Make-Up. Kubrick carefully crafts his film into making each frame look like a Gainsborough or Hogarth painting. He even used ultra-fast lenses to capture natural lighting in the rooms used. He pays close attention to all the details of Georgian dress and used several locations around Europe to shoot scenes in the large manor houses. I think Kubrick found a freedom in film-making in Europe that he could never have found in Hollywood (at least, not at the time). Kubrick uses all these to his advantage to create a wonderfully detailed and fairytale-esque world that enraptures the viewer in splendour. The fourth Oscar the film won was for Best Original Score and it is fantastic. The way that Kubrick uses the music in this film is to say things with it that characters on screen cannot say; in other words, the music reflects the emotions of the characters, much like how Pink Floyd: The Wall (1982) tells its story through music and imagery.

Barry Lyndon is a brilliant film. It is funny to think that, at the time of its release, it did not do very well at the box office and received mixed reviews but now it is considered by many to be one of Stanley Kubrick's finest films. In many magazines, such as Sight and Sound, it was also named one of the greatest films ever made. Whilst I do believe that his masterpiece is 2001: A Space Odyssey and my favourite is A Clockwork Orange, I wouldn't be far behind that notion. Barry Lyndon is masterfully executed and fascinating to watch. It's story is intriguing, its characters sympathetic and its cinematography and soundtrack beautiful. Coming from a man who doesn't usually like period dramas, it is also an achievement by Kubrick to not only make me like it but also love it and I was very lucky to get it in my Christmas stocking this year. In every sense of the word, a gem.

FINAL VERDICT: 5/5