Psycho

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Written by: Joseph Stefano (screenplay); Robert Bloch (novel)










If there is an iconic horror/slasher film, this is it.  I'm glad my local theater decided to run it as part of their "Classic Film Wednesday" series.

I hadn't seen the movie since high school, so some of the shocks and twists still felt new.

That's the key for this film: It still seems new.  The styles and effects may have changed since it was made, but the tension and mood is still top-notch.

I highly recommend this movie to anyone who says they "like movies."

The Sting

Directed by: George Roy Hill

Written by: David S. Ward










There was a time when, together or apart, Robert Redford and Paul Newman could carry any film into greatness.  "The Sting" stands as the prototypical example of what they were capable of, without seeming to have to try that hard.  This movie belongs in that special category of films which are simply entertaining and magical, and I'm glad I got to see it at a special classic film screening.

The plot can be boiled down to this: Two lowly, but charming con-men decide to pull a fast one on the high-powered mobster who killed their friend.

Most of the film's charm is carried by Redford and Newman, who radiate attractiveness and allure (though there is a lot of doubt as to how realistic they might be compared to real con-men - but I digress).  Both actors are at the top of their game and bring their characters to life without much effort.  There's a lot that can be said about these two, but I'd rather you just experience it for yourself - it's truly amazing.

Robert Shaw also deserves credit for bringing the villainous card-cheating mob boss Lonnegan to life.  He serves as the perfect foil for the heroes without over-playing the part.  It's impossible for me to imagine this movie without him, perhaps someone else in his place.  He is just nasty and mean enough to earn the viewer's disdain, but not so cruel or awful as to be off-putting.

There are enough twists and turns to keep the story moving forward, and enough moments where a con is revealed to make it worth watching.  There are even a few "cons" pulled on the audience, but I won't spoil those here.  The movie does drag a bit in the middle, as the anti-heroes slowly set up their foil for his comeuppance, but the nature of the set-up necessitates this somewhat lengthy dry period.  When the con is played out, though, it's totally worth the wait.

Of course, no review of "The Sting" would be official without mentioning the background music.  The ragtime piano music helps to really set the film in its time period (not necessarily the most realistic - but still).  In fact, once you've seen the film, it's basically impossible to think of the movie and not get the music stuck in your head again.

"The Sting" is a classic movie, with great performances, great music, and a great story.  It's great, all around.

Jaws

Directed by: Steven Spielberg

Written by: Peter Benchley, Carl Gottlieb










I'll start by being as clear as possible: I love "Jaws."  It's the kind of movie that, no matter what else is going on, I will go out of my way to see.  I've seen it on the big screen three or four times (thanks to midnight movies and my local theater's "Classic Film Wednesday" series).  It was one of the first DVDs I purchased.  Heck, I'll even watch it edited on TV - commercials and all.  This fanaticism may seem a bit much, but Spielberg's final product is so great that I feel it's totally warranted.

Let's start with the cast.

--Roy Scheider plays police chief Brody, who has moved to Amity to get away from the dangers of being a police officer in a big city.  A bit ironically, he's taken a job as police chief on an island despite the fact that he's afraid of water - an irony that comes into play when the shark attacks begin.  What makes Scheider's performance so amazing is the way he managed to flesh out the character with little subtleties.  There are hints that something traumatic happened to him wherever he worked before, but he wears that trauma in his eyes and the way he responds to situations.

--Richard Dreyfuss is fantastic as Hooper, a young marine biologist who arrives to investigate the shark attacks and finds out exactly what kind of monster they are up against.  He manages to keep one foot in the world of "preppie" and another in the realm of "rugged individual."

--Robert Shaw brings mad shark hunter Quint to life, a character cut from the broken mold of Captain Ahab.  The "Indianapolis" speech he gives just before the final scenes is unforgettable.  Shaw's performance in this film is, without a doubt, one of the greatest acting performances in the history of cinema.

--The supporting cast - Lorraine Gary, Murray Hamilton, etc. - help bring Amity Island to life and provide verisimilitude to what could have easily deteriorated into an absurdity of horror.

I said I'd start with the cast, but I also think I'll end with the cast.  I could go on and on about "Jaws" and what makes it great, but ultimately you should experience it for yourself.  You need to hear for yourself John Williams's amazing score, which, without any visuals, could evoke the presence of the beast.  You need to see for yourself what happens to the Orca fishing boat.  None of it can be conveyed, it must be experienced.

I'll wrap it up simply: "Jaws" is one of the greatest films ever.  There is very little wrong with this movie, and a whole lot that is done right.  I'd even argue that it's nearly perfect.

Harold and Maude - Revisited

I jump at any chance to see this movie.  It's definitely a contender on my "all time favorite" list (which doesn't actually exist).

This time, I caught a screening at my local theater's "Classic Film Wednesday" series.  There's definitely a special charm to seeing it on the silver screen.

Charm.  That's the key-word that came to mind after seeing it this time around.  "Harold and Maude" has a lot of charm.  And it's important, because that charm draws the audience in to what would ordinarily be an absurd situation.  An adolescent millionaire obsessed with faking his own death?  An old woman who refuses to recognize boundaries and property, but never seems to get into any major trouble?  Total nonsense that goes completely unquestioned because the characters have charmed us into believing in them.

The amount of music struck me this time.  Cat Steven's backing tracks have always been a key element in the film.  But this is the first time that I noticed that basically every transition - especially early in the film - is a musical transition.  It helps to set "Harold and Maude" apart most typical films.

Go see it.  Right now.

Batman

Directed by: Tim Burton

Written by: Sam Hamm, Warren Skaaren

Long before he became a Johnny-Depp obsessed caricature of himself, Tim Burton established a modernized vision of Batman which broke from the classic but cartoonish Batman of the Adam West era.

In the beginning of the film, Batman (Keaton) is a mysterious vigilante who is feared despite the fact that most people think he is merely an urban legend. The caped crusader's rise to fame coincides with the Joker's (Nicholson) rise to power in Gotham City's criminal element. The two tussle it out for a while, and the good guy wins. (There's also a sub-plot in there about Bruce Wayne falling in love with Vicky Vale [Basinger], a photo-journalist on Batman's trail, which eventually overlaps with the main plot.)

It's hard, in the shadow of Heath Ledger's later acclaimed performance, to put some perspective on Jack Nicholson's take on the Joker. But Nicholson's performance in this film was totally earth-shaking. He managed to tie his work to the Jokers of the Adam West era (especially with his terrifying cackle) while also forging new ground with the character's deadly charisma. It's unfortunate that he never had an opportunity to reprise the role and develop his Joker any further.

Beyond Jack Nicholson, the entire cast should be credited for filling out their roles well, regardless of the number of lines and scenes they had. Jack Palance dazzles, as always. Michael Gough establishes the gold standard for Alfred, Bruce Wayne's butler (sorry Michael Caine). It's too bad that Billy Dee Williams didn't get enough of a chance to flesh out his part as up-and-coming DA Harvey Dent, but his handful of scenes revealed a lot of potential that never was harnessed.

To be honest, the special effects and sets did not hold up since the film's original release. (This problem was magnified because I saw it on the big screen as part of a local theater's classic film series.) There's a low-budget sense to the movie, despite the fact that it was a big-budget movie at the time. For example, the different settings are relatively blank and ill-defined. There is no sense of scope or scale for Gotham City - locales seemed to be created as mere background spaces for the characters to interact, with nothing to differentiate one street corner from another. Considering that Gotham is supposed to be an extremely large city, most of the scenes are noticeably devoid of people, or any feeling of hustle-and-bustle.

Earlier, I mentioned Tim Burton's deterioration as a filmmaker. "Batman" stands as a testament to the potential he had as a director. It's a dark and weird film (and the series got darker and weirder with his sequel, "Batman Returns"), and stands out as a classic of the superhero genre. He took the Batman concept and gave it his own flavor, re-envisioning the archetype and leaving this film as a touchstone by which other superhero films were measured for a long time. I hope Tim Burton can eventually come back to the creative muse that inspired him to make "Batman," rather than resting on his laurels and his name and pumping out lame unimaginative rehashes of previously brilliant films which are mostly popular because they have the name Johnny Depp attached to them, as he has of late.

Sunset Boulevard

Directed by: Billy Wilder

Written by: Charles Brackett, Billy Wilder, D. M. Marshman Jr.

"Sunset Boulevard" is one of the great films of yesteryear, and I'm so happy I had the opportunity to see it on the big screen at my local Classic Film Wednesday.

Joe Gillis (Holden) is a down-and-out screenwriter who, while trying to avoid the repo man, stumbles upon the decaying home of silent film great Norma Desmond (Swanson). Gillis finds himself struggling to remove himself from the deluded machinations of Desmond and her loyal butler Max (von Stroheim). Too late, he finds himself tied down to her and caught up in her schemes to return to silver screen glory.

So much can be said about this film (and much of it already has, elsewhere and better).

To start: Gloria Swanson's portrayal of Desmond's descent into total madness is one of the greatest performances of the era, if not of all time. The audience, like Gillis, is captured by her spell. She makes the climactic moment absolutely unforgettable, and delivers several classic lines that have been quoted (and parodied) ever since.

The way the story is told is also incredibly well done. We see everything almost exclusively through Gillis's eyes, which enhances the dark and mysterious atmosphere of the film - quite literally, we don't know what will happen next. Only at the end of the film, when the last key element revealed, is the audience able to see from a greater perspective.

I'm sure there is a lot to say about the film's subtext (or, perhaps not-so-subtext) regarding the changing winds of Hollywood, and whether or not that topic can still be applied to the modern film industry. Unfortunately, I just don't have the will to talk about it here. But, come on - think about it. Do I have to explain everything?

Something I noticed in this film that is worthy of discussion is the set design. A significant amount of the film takes place in Norma's grand and decaying mansion. There are several small details, like the missing door locks, which are perfectly executed. The mansion itself becomes a reflection of Desmond - once great, now diminished - and the set helps create this effect. The rooms are vast, but mostly empty. There is beautiful ornamentation and evidence of massive conspicuous consumption everywhere, but it has obviously been neglected for some time: the pool being the perfect example.

I could gush on and on about this movie. It's near perfect in most ways, and it's hard for me to criticize it in any meaningful way. I kind of want to watch it again right now...

Vertigo

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Written by: Alec Coppel, Samuel A. Taylor (screenplay); Pierre Boileau, Thomas Narcejac (novel)

It may hard to imagine now, but Hitchock's masterpiece "Vertigo" was apparently not well received when it was released. In retrospect, though, it is clear what a cinematic achievement the film represents, and its influence is hard to ignore.

Detective Scottie Ferguson (Stewart) has been forced into retirement after a terrible accident in which his acrophobia resulted in the death of another officer. But when his old friend Gavin Elster (Heldmore) asks him to follow his wife Madeline (Novak) around, Ferguson agrees to take the job on. It seems that Madeline is periodically possessed by the spirit of one of her ancestors, and Ferguson becomes obsessed with breaking her of this problem until she throws herself from a church bell tower. Her death, though, is not the end, and nothing is quite as it seems.

The film starts off slow - almost tediously slow. As Ferguson stalks Madeline around various locales in San Francisco, there are long droughts lacking dialogue or meaningful action. But be patient - the payoff is absolutely worth it. (Also, it's fun to look at old San Francisco.)

There are several major twists placed throughout the story, so don't get too comfortable thinking you know what is going on. I'd seen this movie before several years before, and I was still surprised at one point. There are layers and stories-within-stories which can make trying to follow along somewhat dizzying. (Hence, the title.)

This may not be James Stewart's most spectacular performance, but it is definitely one of his most believable. After a few early scenes, he easily shakes off that "Hey, you're watching Jimmy Stewart!" feeling. He manages to play his character subtly, providing him a rich range of feelings without necessarily needing to show all those feelings.

Lastly, it was fun to see the film which plays such a large part in another one of my favorite films - "Twelve Monkeys."

"Vertigo" is an excellent starting-off point for those unfamiliar with Hitchcock's work. It is easily the most accessible film while also being representative of his style. It is absolutely a classic.

Love Actually

Written and Directed by: Richard Curtis

I'm a bit behind on my blogging, so I'm only now getting to a film I saw in the days leading up to Christmas.

To start, I'm not a fan of movies with huge ensemble casts featuring piles of mega-stars. Most of the time they end up being incredibly massive puddles of puke. Typically, they pull their actors from as many different age and interest groups so as to attract the biggest audience as possible, while simultaneously watering down the plot and removing any drama to make sure that not a single person in the audience is offended or turned-off. (See: "Valentine's Day" and "New Years's Day.)

But, Richard Curtis's "Love Actually" is different. From the first time I saw it, it exceeded my wildest expectations and has now become annual viewing during the Christmas season.

There are too many different plots interwoven together for me to bother breaking down here. Suffice to say that all of them touch on the topic of love, although from many different aspects and angles. Present at different times throughout the movie are newfound love, unrequited love, love as inspiration, fading love, brotherly love, love for family, love across language barriers, and even youthful lust.

What makes "Love Actually" a great movie is that it somehow convinces you to like and care about all the characters. The characters are sincere and feel real, even if they are not necessarily believable. (Hugh Grant as the Prime Minister of England? No way!) The audience is drawn in to each character's desires.

The film also manages to avoid being overly dramatic, though one or two of the plots have some rather dramatic elements. Too often in these types of films, "plot" is confused with "life-changing drama," which can diminish a film if the card is played too often. Instead, "Love Actually" keeps the various plots fresh and moves them forward through smaller encounters and incidents. It was also nice to see how the different stories were woven together

I do have to say that the film does have some drawbacks. About 95% of the film is family-friendly, there is one story line which features nudity and pornography as a prominent element (though, to be fair, it is not pornographic in its essence). With so many plot-lines, a few of the good ones get relegated to secondary status or disappear from the film completely for a while.

Overall, though, it's a fun film, and it succeeds where other films of its type often fail.

Young Frankenstein

Directed by: Mel Brooks

Written by: Mel Brooks, Gene Wilder (screen story and screen play); Mary Shelley (original novel)

"Young Frankenstein" is one of the highlights of writer-director Mel Brooks's career, showcasing his relationship with actor Gene Wilder. (This relationship, according to the man who runs my local theater's "Classic Film Wednesday" series, thrived on improvisation and off-the-cuff acting, leading to an original cut of nearly six hours!)

Dr. Frankenstein (Wilder) is a biologist who is trying to distance himself from his family's name due to an incident with a mad scientist of a distant uncle. But, when given to opportunity to explore his uncle's castle, he manages to uncover his uncle's greatest discovery - the reanimation of dead tissue. Hilarity ensues.

Although I love this movie, I will say that it has not quite held up over the years. It suffers from odd pacing and uneven levels of humor.

Luckily, Peter Boyle (credited as The Monster) and Marty Feldman (Igor) steal the show! The "Puttin' on the Ritz" sequence is still one of the best scenes in any comedy. Although Feldman's scenes are limited, his mere presence elevates the film. The Gene Hackman cameo itself is worth the price of admission!

"Young Frankenstein" may have lost some of its shine over the years, but it's influence is clear and far reaching, including allegedly inspiring Aerosmith's song "Walk This Way." (That's a schoolyard rumor, so I'm not sure if or how to cite it - just take my word for it because I heard it in eighth grade.) (And, as a philosophical aside, is it that the film has not aged well, or has the world of comedy film changed so drastically that "Young Frankenstein" no longer easily fits into the mold? Must discuss.)

If you've never seen it, you're definitely missing out. I'm very glad that I had the opportunity to see it on the big screen.

The Birds

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Written by: Daphne Du Maurier (story), Evan Hunter (screenplay)

Most people are at least passingly familiar with "The Birds" and some of its more famous sequences. Few people have actually seen the film from beginning to end, and I now count myself among those lucky few.

Intrigued by the mysterious Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) after he hits on her at a bird store (really!), Melanie Daniels follows him to his home in Bodega Bay under the auspices of delivering a pair of love birds for his younger sister's birthday. Chaos ensues as the local birds begin coordinating violent attacks on the people of the town, leaving several dead and the rest to wonder if they will survive the night.

What surprised me most was how long it took for the action of the film to develop. For the first half of the film (give or take), the story is merely merely one of cat-and-mouse romance between Brenner and Daniels. Of course, this adds to the tension - knowing that at some point, somehow, the birds are going to start attacking. (Although, this raises the question - if one didn't know that the birds were going to attack, would that tension exist at all? Or is that prior knowledge essential to the film?)

The effects are cheesy. Hitchcock, although a master of suspense and horror, worked best when relying on his actors to pull off the drama. It was hard to be afraid of a bird that either didn't look real, or seemed to be spliced in from stock footage.

The climax is a masterpiece, though. Considering that almost everything that makes the scene scary is happening completely off camera, it's amazing how terrified the film made me feel. The sounds effects, and small but important visual effects, make this scene. Knowing that all the birds are outside the house trying to get in (and that they occasionally find a weakness in the home's exterior) was absolutely frightful without needing any blood and guts. (OK, so there's a little blood and guts - but nothing like a slasher film).

The other great scene in the film occurs in the local diner, when the birds begin their first major attack on the town. The way the different personalities in the diner interact with each other and react to the situation is priceless. Although the dialogue isn't the strongest, the scene feels very real - as though that what normal people would do given some kind of avian apocalypse. That scene alone makes the film worth seeing at least once.

Although I'm often a fan of the "No explanation given; no explanation needed" philosophy, I'm afraid "The Birds" relied too heavily on that concept. We have no idea why the birds are doing what they're doing, how they're communicating with each other, or, well, anything. It's basically senseless violence. (Although, as I type this, now I'm wondering if there may have been a message about senseless violence in our society sewn into the film? I will ponder further.) The lack of explanation and the slow pacing of the first half of the film are definitely the major flaws and hinder the film from really taking off (pun intended).

Although I enjoyed the movie, I wouldn't recommend it as a starting point for Hitchcock. It's not one of his strongest films, nor even emblematic of his work in general. It's worth seeing at some point because of the two scenes I mentioned, and because of it's place within the canon of American horror, but that's as much as I'll say for it here.

Unforgiven

Directed by: Clint Eastwood

Written by: David Webb Peoples

Hands down, one of the best westerns of all time. No further comment.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Directed by: Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones

Written by: Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones, Michael Palin

To say that "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" is a classic would be an understatement. The film is a cultural asteroid which destroyed the world of comedy that came before it and reshaped the landscape of cinematic humor forever. (Alright, maybe I exaggerate a bit. But only slightly, in this case.)

For weeks, I anticipated seeing this movie as part of the Classic Film Wednesday series at my local theater. I originally saw it when I was far to young to understand most of the cruder jokes, but could repeat many of the slapstick gags and scenes ad nauseam. It remained a staple of semi-annual viewing all the way through high school, but I hadn't seen it since I went to college and realize that just about everyone I knew had already seen it and could also repeat just about the entire movie. At that point, my special edition DVD (with all the deleted scenes and extras) became a bookshelf decoration and I moved on to experiencing different pop cultural mainstays.

All this to say - the time had come to re-see the film I had memorized by heart, rehearsed a million times, and filed away in the back of my brain.

The good news is that my memory is pretty darn good. I managed to remember just about every line in the film, perhaps fumbling a bit with a few of the words and phrasings.

It was nice to appreciate the film on the big screen for once, having seen it hundreds of times on my parents' postage-stamp television.

For the first time, I was able to appreciate some of the technical aspects of the film, such as the ability of the Monty Python actors to play multiple roles - sometimes even within the same scene. Some of the meta-film features made more sense than before, too. ("Look! It's the old man from Scene 24!") I won't even get into all dirty jokes which went over my head as a kid (and even a few that I missed as a teenager).

I was afraid that I wasn't going to enjoy this film, having never actually seen it in years. I was not disappointed, though.

Top Gun

Directed by: Tony Scott

Written by: Jim Cash, Jack Epps Jr.

In the U.S. Navy, the best fighter pilots are sent to a special school in Mirimar, California - Top Gun - to hone their skills. Seriously. This movie, though, has both everything and nothing to do with that premise.

Maverick (Cruise) is a navy fighter pilot with an attitude and a bad reputation as being reckless. Fate intervenes, and he and his co-pilot Goose (Edwards) are given a chance to prove themselves as the best pilots in the country. To succeed, Maverick must both overcome the ghost of his father and control his feelings for his flight instructor Charlie (McGillis).

(Even that plot description is a stretch and gives a lot of credit to the film. But more on that later.)

"Top Gun," when taken piece by piece, is awful. But somehow, as a whole, it overcomes its inadequacies to become one of the definitive films of the 1980's. Tom Cruise's acting is a perfect example of the film's contradictory nature. Cruise is campy and hammy, but he's also charming (in a 1980's kind of way). The film is both action packed, but, considering that most of the missions are training, devoid of any real danger.

The songs on the soundtrack are awesome - until you realize that almost all of the music in the film is made up of variations on just three songs. (But then again, those three songs rock, so...)

Elements of the story come and go at the convenience of, well, the story itself. For example, Maverick is supposed to be haunted by the ghost of his father - who was, himself, one of the best fighter pilots of his time, and who disappeared mysteriously on a mission. But, this fact only comes up at random times to explain his behavior within a certain scene, and is abandoned the moment his behavior is different. It's even easy to argue that he is more haunted by his former co-pilot than his father. At times, Maverick's romance with Charlie must be kept a secret from everyone (lest a conflict of interest arise), but at other times they are completely out in the open with their relationship. Baffling, yes; problematic, not really.

Just as Maverick is all torn up inside, so am I in how I feel about this film. I both laugh at and fall in love with "Top Gun." And you should too!

(Please note: I've avoided any interpretations that delve into any depth on the film. But there is potential. It could be a propaganda piece for the military strength of the US in the face of the eminent collapse of the Soviet Union. It could be an examination of the modern American military conscience, needing to overcome its failures in the Vietnam conflict. It could be an examination of masculinity in a hyper-masculinized world. Those are all there. But yeah, I'm not getting into any of those here.)

The Big Lebowski

Directed by: Joel Coen

Written by: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen

The Coen brothers are known for making comedies which are both dark and surreal. It's films like "The Big Lebowski" - following up "Fargo" - which helped them to earn this reputation.

When Jeffrey Lebowski, aka The Dude (Bridges) is the ultimate lowlife who spends his time drinking White Russians, bowling with his buddies, and wearing a robe. When the wife of multimillionaire businessman Jeffrey Lebowski goes missing, The Dude is brought in to solve the case. Through the meddling of his friend Walter (Goodman) and his "ladyfriend" (Moore), The Dude gets drawn deeper and deeper in a case that goes far beyond a kidnapping.

The plot, loosely based on the old noir mysteries of Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett, simply serves as a backdrop for the incredibly interesting characters. Without going too over-the-top, the characters come off as both surreal and hyper-real. For example, we all know someone like Walter, who is just a hair away from totally crazy, and we all know someone like Donny (Buscemi), who never seems to fit in - even as a misfit. Yet, nobody in real life is quite as off-base as any of the characters. Overall, it's the performances - especially the supporting cast - which bring this film to life.

Although the movie was whimsical and abstract with randomness as a premium, I still felt like there was a lot of fat that could have been trimmed, or at least tweaked. For example, I totally enjoyed Julianne Moore's character, but many of her scenes failed to add anything meaningful to the film beyond giving The Dude something to do. Sam Elliot's appearance as The Stranger is a perfect example of a character who, without being central to the story, was made into an essential feature of the movie.

Over the years, "The Big Lebowski" has become a cult classic, and it's easy to see why. It's not a typical plot or action driven movie. The main character would struggle to even be an anti-hero. And there are random dream and dance sequences. But put them all together, and there's a charming synergy which appeals to the Big Lebowski in all of us.

The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!

Directed by: David Zucker

Written by: Jerry Zucker, Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, Pat Proft

Once upon a time, there was a little TV show called "Police Squad!" It came and went rather quickly, but built up quite a cult following. So, what is a studio to do? Make a movie!

"The Naked Gun" tells the story of Lt. Frank Drebin of LA's (fictitious) Police Squad, as he tries to uncover a plot to murder the queen of England. Drebin, with some help from his friends Ed and Nordberg (George Kennedy and O.J. Simpson, respectively), bumbles his way into the plan of millionaire Vincent Ludwig (the always amazing Ricardo Montalban) who intends to use a mind-control device to assassinate Queen Elizabeth II for reasons left unexplained. Along the way Drebin falls in love with Ludwig's secretary, who Ludwig uses to keep tabs on him. All of this leads to the hilarious climax at a baseball game.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen this movie, nor can I enumerate how many of the jokes have made their way into my common conversation. As soon as I heard that it was going to be screened as part of the local Classic Film Wednesday series, I knew I couldn't miss it. Just thinking about the film would make me laugh with anticipation at some of my favorite lines - "Hey! It's Enrico Pallazzo!"

One of the great things about "The Naked Gun" is how even and consistent the jokes are, throughout the movie. Most of the humor is slapstick, with Nielsen playing the perpetual unknowing straight-man to most of the jokes. In terms of slapstick silliness, the film jumps right in during the opening sequence and doesn't miss a beat for the rest of the movie. Most comedies start off strong, but the jokes fade as action is needed to move the plot forward. "The Naked Gun," though, is more consistently paced, and the climax of the film is just as funny (if not more funny) than the rising action.

Although the humor is timeless, the movie is starting to show its age, as some of the cultural references are fading from our collective memory. For example, the first scene makes a joke about Mikhail Gorbachev's birthmark, though you'll be hard pressed to find anyone under twenty-five who can explain the gag. Even O.J. Simpson - whose part took on an ironic twist with his legal troubles - is not as prominent as a cultural icon as he once was. Some of the clothing and hair styles are definitely jarring to the modern eye - just see Priscilla Presley's hair for most of the movie as evidence. Even some of the color palates used simply place the movie outside of the contemporary realm.

It's sad to think that, with Leslie Nielsen's recent passing, these types of purely slapstick parodies may fading from the film industry. I hope that everyone gets an opportunity to see this movie and can appreciate it with an open mind.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Directed by: John Huston

Written by: John Huston (screenplay); B. Traven (novel)

A few weeks ago, I dragged The Wifey to our local theatre's Classic Film Wednesday presentation of "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre." When I was growing up, my dad always pointed to this movie as one of his favorites, though I never quite found the time to see it. Going through a VHS buying binge during college - with local stores clearing out used VHS tapes for as low as a dollar - I picked up a copy, watched it, and immediately fell in love with it.

As the movie begins, Fred C. Dobbs (Bogart) and his friend Bob Curtin (Holt) are American tramps living down-and-out in Tampico, Mexico. After being swindled one too many times, they downheartedly start hoping for just enough money to slip through the rest of their lives. One night at a flophouse, they encounter Howard (Huston), an old miner who promises them modest riches of gold for a few months of hard work. Although their ambitions begin small, as the gold piles up, leading to greed and paranoia between the small mining crew...

Humphrey Bogart's performance as Dobbs is masterful without being overpowering, which is especially impressive considering the attention the role calls to itself. But it is the supporting cast - Tim Holt and Walter Huston - which really carry the film. Holt brings an honesty, bordering on naivete, to his character's hard-work ethic. Huston's ability to remain ambiguous and non-committal at key moments in the film help the audience feel the stress that Dobbs is feeling, fueling his paranoia. And no one who has heard Huston's dry cackle, conspicuously used at significant moments of the film, can ever forget it.

There are also some great subtle moments used to hammer home important concepts. For example, early in the movie, Bogart gets a shave, a haircut, and some clean clothes. Yet, out in the wilderness, as his madness grows, he begins to pay less and less attention to his hygiene. His clothes become stained and his beard grows ragged. There's also some early foreshadowing of Dobb's descent into greed, as he repeatedly begs the same man for money for a meal which he then spends somewhat wastefully.

If there is any complaint about the movie, it's simply that it suffers from a distinct lack of modern pacing. Considering the film's length, not much actually happens. What the movie lacks in terms of plot development, though, it makes up for in character study. The audience is hypnotized by Dobb's madness, wondering how far he will go to keep his gold (which, without spoiling anything, is pretty far).

I won't get into this film being a pretty strong moral allegory against the selfish greed that sometimes rises in capitalism, as represented by Dobbs. It's there if you look for it, although I'll admit it would be a bit of a stretch.

"The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" is a wonderful example of how well were made back during the golden age of film. Without massive special effects or tons of star power (although Bogart brought plenty himself), the overall film is incredibly effective. I highly recommend it, although you do need to make sure you have plenty of time set aside - it's long.