"Amadeus" (1984)

"On the page it looked nothing. The beginning simple, almost comic. Just a pulse - bassoons and basset horns - like a rusty squeezebox. Then suddenly - high above it - an oboe, a single note, hanging there unwavering, till a clarinet took over and sweetened it into a phrase of such delight! This was no composition by a performing monkey! This was a music I'd never heard. Filled with such longing, such unfulfillable longing, it had me trembling. It seemed to me that I was hearing the very voice of God."

Composer Antonio Salieri is caught trying to kill himself and is sent to a mental institution, confessing to killing Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. A priest hears his confession and as Salieri speaks, we are taken back in time to when he was court composer to Emperor Joseph II. All his life, he had wanted to compose and all is going well until Mozart comes to town. Salieri imagines Mozart in his mind but is confronted by the real man, a vulgar, highly-sexed man-child with a strange laugh who speaks with the voice of God through his music. Salieri becomes bitter and jealous that God should choose to bestow such magnificent musical genius on an undeserving man while Salieri, a chaste and charitable man, finds his talent lacking. As his hatred grows he decides he must destroy God's chosen composer, through whatever means possible.

One of the best parts about this movie is the music. We both get to see and hear Mozart's music and at one point even go inside his head as he's composing. My favourite scene from the movie shows Salieri and Mozart working together on a piece of music. It's absolutely amazing to see Mozart at work and to watch Salieri's realization that he's unable to follow the man's ability.

We also see how different their childhoods were and their resulting musicianship. It's somewhat sad to see how unequal the talents are between the two. For example, Salieri composes a welcome march for Mozart when he visits the emperor. We actually see him working on it and Mozart, upon hearing it once, plays it back by ear and then improves upon it, seemingly with no effort at all. This accidental mocking eventually flowers into full blown purposeful degradation at a party, further driving a wedge of one-sided jealousy between the two.

Both men are interesting characters. Salieri has had a desire to create his entire life but only passing fair talent to pull it off. He went against his father's wishes and became a composer. He is seemingly adored by the Emperor and other men in his musical court but when Mozart appears, Salieri is instantly filled with hatred for this little man who makes masterpieces. Only Salieri can see the music for what it really is while everyone else finds Mozart an unorthodox upstart. He challenges current tradition and questions everyone's musical taste. Salieri, obsessed with his hatred for Mozart, attends every one of his musical performances while actively working to get them cancelled.

Mozart, shoved into the role of composer by his father, finds the job easy and his talent only thwarted by those who can't comprehend his abilities. He also has some serious daddy issues as his father seems to haunt his every step, judging and condemning. Mozart is also arrogant but still looks for approval and appears upset when no overwhelming praise is forthcoming, possibly an effect of his father's influence. Mozart is very childish and childlike. He laughs like a child, delights in the smallest of things and acts unprofessionally at times. He takes such joy in life that it makes me wonder if he didn't do all his living at the beginning of his life. As the film continues we see Mozart physically deteriorate, Salieri's influence made manifest. Mozart's demeanor, his hair and his clothing change as does his relationship with his wife and the appearance of his house. Every aspect of his life is tied into his music which Salieri is trying to drive into the ground. Mozart, unaware of this, continues to work and we see the toll it takes on him. At one point he tells his wife that the Requiem Mass he's writing is killing him.

Apart from the music the sets and the costumes are perfect. I'm a sucker for costumes films but this one gives you a real sense of the era. The ostentation practically overflows from the film. And the hats! Look out for the ridiculously big hats.

This movie also goes the extra mile when it comes to authenticity. When they show the opera Don Giovanni, the building they shot the scene in is where the actual opera was first performed. More than 200 years later that building is still standing. Also, the actor who played Mozart, Tom Hulce, practiced four hours a day to make it look like he was actually playing the piano.

I knew basically nothing about Mozart before this film, apart from he was supposed to be some musical genius. While the film isn't an entirely accurate portrayal of his life, his music plays throughout which is what interested me. I'm far more intrigued by the man and his music now and plan to make a concerted effort to pick up a biography or at least listen to a variety of his works.

Rating: You own this film and rewatch it often, it's that good. Yes it contains classical music and is a biopic but the story is amazing. The film runs long at three hours but the time is needed to create that one-sided rivalry and introduce us to these men and their music. It's no wonder that this film won Best Picture in 1984.

Movie Review: The Great Escape (1963)

"The goons have put every escape artist in Germany in this camp!"

In 1942, a group of allied air force prisoners of war were transferred to Stalag Luft III. It was constructed to as an "escape proof" camp to hold the problem POWs of the Allied forces. While the German guards keep a sharp eye on operations, "Big X" has a plan to take every man out of camp with the help of Tom, Dick and Harry. And so begins the deception, with every man assigned a role, all working towards the other side of the wire.

The Good:

This film is based off of a book by Paul Brickhill an ex-POW, documenting the true story of the largest Allied escape attempt from a German POW camp during WWII. Something I didn't know was that six Canadians were involved in the escape: George Harsh, Alfred Thompson, “Woody” Floody, William J. Cameron, Keith Ogilvie and Jack Moul. As usual with Hollywood and history, Canada's role has been whitewashed. Walter Floody though, played an important role in the making of the movie. He was hired as a technical adviser, being the overall planner and designer of the original three tunnels in WWII.

This is an ensemble film with various characters sharing the spotlight. Richard Attenborough plays "Big X", James Garner as "The Scrounger", Steve McQueen as "The Cooler King", Charles Bronson as "The Tunnel King" as well as many others. These various characters are well-rounded and each bring their own story and personality to the movie. This enables the viewer to empathize with their characters. For example, the relationship between the "Forger" and the "Scrounger" really shows the camaraderie between POWs despite their different backgrounds.

Though this is a film about a POW escape, this film is really funny. It helps break up the tension and brings some levity to a serious subject. As well there are some great scenes to watch for such as bribing the guard, the moonshine scene and the motorcycle chase. As well there is the iconic fence-jumping scene. Steve McQueen only accepted the role of Hilts after it was agreed he could show off his motorcycle skills. The jump itself was performed by stunt double and friend of McQueen's, Bud Ekins but it's still quite amazing.

Some real life experiences helped to create the final product. For example, Donald Pleasence (the "Forger") was an ex-POW and Sturges used his experiences to enhance the film. As well, Danny the "Tunnel King", suffers from claustrophobia and has to fight his fears as he digs to freedom. Bronson who plays Danny shared this phobia, having worked in coal mines before turning to acting. He didn't like the scenes in the tunnel, despite the fact that they were open to the studio on the camera side.

Something to watch for is the adlibbed line "No taxation without representation". McQueen does a double-take and clearly says "what?" but apparently director Sturges told him to run with it.

The Bad:

The frustrating truth about Hollywood is they tend to twist stories in order to sell more tickets. While Americans, Steve McQueen and James Garner play large parts in the film, no Americans were escaped from Stalag Luft III. The truth was that a more international group of Allies were involved. Producers most likely wanted viewers to more closely identify with the lead characters as well as showcase the American talent they had on hand. You should Americans were involved in orchestrating the escape but were transferred before it took place.

Steve McQueen apparently held up production because he wanted a larger part. James Garner went to reason with him and learned that McQueen wanted to be the hero of the movie, obviously not realizing it was an ensemble piece. McQueen's character was fleshed out and given more lines. Honestly Steve, this was not a cool move on your part.

The film also doesn't explain the difficulties of obtaining escape and bribe material. The reason for this is the survivors may a plea to the producers, asking them to not reveal how various items were hidden in personal parcels, for fear that the ideas might be used in future wars.

The Ugly:

The horrors of war are always ugly and while I enjoyed the film, it's important to remember and comprehend the ending. The film, based on real events end with the message "The film is dedicated to the 50".

Rating: 4/5

Movie Review: 12 Angry Men (1957)

A boy is accused of killing his father. A jury of twelve must decide his fate and in the first preliminary vote, only one lone "not guilty" comes from Juror 8 (Henry Fonda). Everyone is quick to have an answer as to why they so quickly decided to send a teenager to the electric chair. "It's an open and shut case", says Juror 3. It is up to these twelve men to decide the boys fate and Juror 8 must do his best to convince them of reasonable doubt.

The Good:

The dialogue in this film is intelligent, sincere and full of vigour. The film is almost a study in claustrophobic emotion as the heat, cramped quarters and argumentative attitudes push some of the jurors to the boiling point.

Also, one of the greatest things about this movie and its greatest strength is that we get to know each juror. Usually with large casts, several members slip into the background to become supporting players but here we are fortunate in that the opposite is true. The twelve jurors are of different ages and backgrounds with different prejudices and personalities that properly reflect the makeup of juries in the real world. It gives credence to the idea that a jury is made up of people from every walk of life, stuck together, trapped even, until they reach a unanimous decision.

Something also to note is that not all of the jurors voting "guilty" are doing so out of malice or some long-held prejudice. Juror 4 is basing his vote on logic alone. Another has tickets to ball game he doesn't want to miss. This is just another example of how the film tries to play the idea of shades of gray.

The pace in the movie, while not break neck, is even and in some cases urgent as the story behind the killing is revealed and the evidence comes under close scrutiny as the plot unravels.

Some things to watch for is that the room seems to become smaller as the film progresses. This is thanks to director Sidney Lumet says he "shot the first third of the movie above eye level, shot the second third at eye level and the last third from below eye level. In that way, toward the end the ceiling began to appear. Not only were the walls closing in, the ceiling was as well. The sense of increasing claustrophobia did a lot to raise the tension of the last part of the movie." In the film's last shot, he observes, he used a wide-angle lens "to let us finally breathe."

The Bad:

This is not an action film. There are no big explosions, no fistfights or final battles and so it may not be for everyone. That isn't to say this is a slow movie or boring. It's more of a character study where the audience gets to see what happens when a group of strangers are thrown together.

The Ugly:

Somebody find Eli Wallach.

Movie Review: Modern Times (1936)

This movie is a must-see Charlie Chaplin film. Chaplin originally imagined it as a talkie and you do hear his voice for the first time in film but it's only to ad-lib gibberish to the tune of Leo Daniderff's song, "Je cherche apres Titine". The movie stars the Little Tramp character in his final silent film performance and concerns him trying to survive in a modern world. The first image we see is a herd of sheep that fades into a group of people exiting the subway and should give you some idea of what Charlie thought about modern industrialization.

The Tramp works on a conveyor belt at Electro Steel tightening nuts on some irrelevant piece of equipment while the President works on jigsaw puzzles. The scene reminded me of the "I Love Lucy" episode where Lucy and Ethel have similar problems only its with chocolate. Then poor Charlie must submit to the indignity of his boss force-feeding him with a new time-saving machine. I just about died during the corn scene. All of this puts a lot of strain on the poor tramp's brain and he ends up whacked off his gourd.

The remainder of the movie involves, mistaken Communism, "nose powder", a hilarious scene with eyebrows, Paulette Goddard, roller skates, a department store, a dog, a roast duck and a cabin that looks suspiciously like the one in "Gold Rush".

The reference to "nose powder" or drugs in the prison sequence is somewhat daring for the time as the production code, established in 1930, forbade the depiction of illegal drug use in films.

The Good:

I love Chaplin's imagination. It's so evolved from what I expect when I watch a 1903s movie. I love that he manages to find the humour and absurdity in everything, especially in automation and the modern world in this film. I also really appreciate the fact that for an hour and a half it helped film goes during the Depression to think about something other than their own poverty. I guess other people liked it too because in 1989, the Library of Congress deemed "Modern Times" to be "culturally significant" and selected it for preservation in the United States National Film Registry.

The Bad:

I think Chaplin was just having fun with this film because it's very light, very surfacy. That's my technical speak for saying that there isn't much going on under the surface. There's no deep meaning or message he's trying to convey to us about the world other than industrialization is a bit silly sometimes.

Also, while I appreciate the fact that Chaplin tried to create transitions between settings, the various scenes at the factory, at the prison, the house and the restaurant felt like individual skits mushed together. The film starts off being about 'modern times' but that idea isn't carried through the entire movie. In fact, the only constants are Chaplin and Paulette Goddard.

This is Paulette, the leading lady of the film who apparently made some significant story contributions. Chaplin ended up marrying her, a situation that often happened with his leading ladies. But can you blame him?

The ending is very "It Happened One Night", walls of Jericho and this movie, barring parodies and novelty films, was the last major US film to use silent film conventions like title cards for dialogue. The last dialogue title card belongs to The Tramp, who says "Buck up - never say die! We'll get along."

Because of the mistaken Communism made fun of in the film and other movies made by Chaplin, the House Un-American Activities became convinced he was a Communist. Chaplin flatly denied the charges and left the country to settle in Switzerland, vowing never to return.











And now, for my favourite still from the movie, I present to you, the happy-go-lucky Tramp in all his glory.

The Dark Knight (2008)

The Good:

Batman still watches over Gotham City though the police force has orders to arrest him on sight. He and Lieutenant James Gordon are secretly working together to loosen the stranglehold the mob has over the populace. Rachel has moved on with her life and is now involved with Gotham's shiny new District Attorney, Harvey Dent who plans on cleaning up the city his way. Behind closed doors the mob meets to decide what action to take against the 'Bat Man'. Enter, a stranger, dressed in a fugly purple suit. He offers his considerable 'talents' to take care of all their problems. And then things start to get crazy.

The cast of this movie is amazing. Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Gary Oldman. They're all perfectly cast. Bale was made for this role, equal parts arrogant playboy and gruff guardian of Gotham. I'm so happy that he's finally getting the due I believe he's long deserved. Ledger is the most psychotic deviant I've met in film and the creepy things he does with his mouth is deliciously unsettling. Eckhart plays the perfect DA, a 'white knight' to root out the deep seated corruption in Gotham City. It also doesn't hurt that his face has a classic 50s All-American look. Gyllenhaal does the role of Rachel Dawes justice, redeeming her character from the disaster of "Batman Begins". And then there's Gary Oldman. What can I say about James Gordon? He comes into his own in this movie and I cannot express how awesome Oldman was in this role.

The script was amazing. I've always believed the story is the most important part of a movie. It's the core of the project and it needs to be solid to make a good movie. The writers did a fantastic job here. The plot has a relentless drive and pulls you in from the word 'go'. The interweaving of storylines seems effortless, the dialogue is clever and believable, the look of the film is dark without being morbid and don't forget the special effects. I'm a big fan of explosions in film and if you are too I promise you won't be disappointed.

The Bad:

I only had three complaints about the film.

One of the characters from "Batman Begins" is brought back for what I saw as only a cameo, an unneeded and unwanted one. It was confusing because I didn't understand the reason for their presence and it only served to complicate the plot.

The jerky camera motion editing that may have given you motion sickness from "Batman Begins" is back. It's not as pronounced but still present and as in the first film, keeps you from seeing what's really going on in some scenes.

My biggest problem was the ending. After the major plot is tied up, the film continues for about another half hour. I understand how the writers may have wanted to resolve some character arcs but it felt somewhat forced. A good example of this would "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" where most people were half out of their seats because they weren't sure if the last fade out was the end of the movie or not. This tag end could have been saved for the next movie as it would have left rich and various possibilities for the direction of Batman 3. It would have also left a much more satisfying end for the audience.

The Ugly:

Somebody find Eli Wallach.


Rating: 5/5

"It's a Wonderful Life" (1946)

I went to the last movie of the season up on campus. They were showing "It's a Wonderful Life" starring Jimmy Stewart, Donna Reed and Lionel Barrymore on the big screen. They show it every year and every year I miss it. But considering I'm graduating this spring I thought I should finally see it.

I invited friends but they weren't interested. Another was certain it was going to be shown in colour (that's an example of blasphemy right there). I phoned to double check about this. Turns out they asked for a colour version but were sent a black and white version instead. All is right with the universe. It was too late to contact her so I ended up going alone.

I find that I really like seeing movies alone. I went to see "Superman Returns" alone and found the experience strangely satisfying. But back to the black and white version. One of the theatre's employees came down to explain what had happened and you should have heard the cheers and clapping.

Then the lights dimmed, the curtains parted and the movie started. I can't tell you how amazing it was to see an old classic on the big screen. I noticed things I've never noticed before. Bert the cop is reading a paper when George walks up to him. The front page reads "Smith Gains Nomination". Now, if you're a total nerd like I am you'll have realized this is a nod to another Frank Capra film with Jimmy Stewart "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". I managed to keep from yelping in the quiet theatre. As well, there's a butterfly collection on the wall when the Bailey's are polishing off dinner and they show up later in George and Mary's house. How I love props!

The strangest thing by far was the audiences reaction. They were laughing throughout the movie. And yes, this movie has quite a bit of comedy in it. It's weird and wonderful how funny a movie can be more than 60 years later.

And you know what? I think I've finally decided on a favourite movie. I've always been finicky when it comes to being definitive about favourite songs and colours and food. But now, having seen this movie in all its glory, the way it was originally seen, I just can't say no.

I've seen it more than a dozen times and I never get tired of it. It did take me quite a while to realize Mr. Potter was Lionel Barrymore. I mean, he was a big cheese when it came to the early years of movies and I didn't recognize him at all. He plays the curmudgeonly miser perfectly.

From a very young age I wanted to do something extraordinary with my life. Not necessarily become an astronaut and travel to Mars but something special. I'm slowly realizing that this may not happen and that's why George Baily's story is so close to my heart. George never left town, never even went to college and yet look at the impact, the difference he made in the lives of the people around him. Despite just being just a movie, it has a very inspirational message.

Happy Holidays everybody and have a great New Year! I know I will.