To many of us, there are few things scarier than Nazis. And to even more of us, there are few things scarier than dentists. Marathon Man presents a man who is a Nazi dentist, and played by the great Laurence Olivier. Does it get any more terrifying? It's hard to imagine a character more frightening.
Marathon Man stars Dustin Hoffman as Thomas "Babe" Levy, a graduate history student just trying to make his way through graduate school, who is obsessed with running. He is unwillingly brought into a dangerous situation involving stolen diamonds when he finds his secret agent brother Doc (Roy Scheider) stabbed. Henry dies, and Christian Szell (Olivier), who Doc was doing business with, thinks Babe might know something about the diamonds, and he and his band of thugs hunt down Babe and attempt to extract the truth from him. Also involved in the story is Peter Janeway, another agent who was an associate of Doc and tries to help Babe, and Elsa Opel, who is Babe's mysterious love interest. The plot is filled with double-crosses and the audience isn't quite sure who is on who's side until the latter parts of the film.
John Schlesinger, the man who brought us the good but overrated Midnight Cowboy, directs. His direction is much better here, 7 years later. The movie is filled with scenes of almost unbearable intensity, in which the viewer knows something bad is going to happen, but the tension builds to an agonizing point as Schlesinger shows little mercy. There is a terrifying torture scene in which Szell gives Babe a nightmarish dental exam. We see the various instruments laid out on the table, and we know something horrible is going to happen to Babe. But first, Szell converses politely with Babe, and prolongs what we all know is coming, and we don't know if we'll ever be ready for it. Another scene of incredible intensity is when Szell's thugs break into Babe's apartment, and we know Babe has no chance for escape, and yet we watch the whole scene unfold slowly, as the sinking feeling begins to take over our gut.
Marathon Man is a unique story of a normal man brought into incredibly dangerous circumstances, not by any fault of his own. He is merely brought into the situation because of his brother's work. Babe seems like someone we know, and we feel like it could happen to anyone, despite the situation being extremely unusual. Hoffman creates a very sympathetic character, someone we identify with and are horrified by the things that happen to him. We want him to escape, we want him to fight back. Olivier's Szell is a perfect foil, as he is a completely unlikable character. He is a Nazi who only cares about himself, who is willing to kill and torture to get what he wants. Olivier is at his most menacing, it is actually somewhat of a shocking role for Olivier, who usually plays less extreme characters. It is a brilliant clash of styles as the older, classically-trained Olivier squares off against the method acting of Hoffman. The performances of these two and their interactions on screen are what makes this movie.
Marathon Man is not without its problems. It is an extremely effective thriller, but besides Babe and Szell, the supporting characters are somewhat weak. We are never completely sure about the character of Doc, as he is not fleshed out. Elsa's motivations are unclear, we don't see enough of her to get a sense of why she makes the choice she does at the end. Peter Janeway is a very generic character as well, who we've seen before hundreds of times.
Despite its flaws, Marathon Man accomplishes its goals. It wants to keep you guessing, and wants to keep you on the edge of your seat. It accomplishes those for certain. Olivier and Hoffman's performances are enough to carry the film, despite the weak supporting characters. Schlesinger's methodical approach to the more intense scenes works very well, as the tension builds to an almost unbearable level at times, which makes it all the more enjoyable to watch. Marathon Man is far from perfect, but is undoubtedly very effective.
Rating: 8.5/10
5/30/09
5/29/09
Good Night, and Good Luck.
Once again, I am including movies I see in theater and watch on DVD, so older ones will be mixed in with brand new ones. It may amaze you that as a Journalism student and as a movie buff, I had yet to see Good Night, and Good Luck until very recently. Indeed, I should have seen it much earlier, because it not only shows the power film is capable of, but the power that journalism done right is capable of as well.
Edward R. Murrow was the father of American radio and television journalism. He brought reporting to a new level during World War II, when he would actually get right near the action, and once went along on a plane during a paratrooper drop. He then took the power of journalism to a new level when he took a stand against Senator Joseph McCarthy, who was spreading the Red Scare of the 1950s by claiming there were communists in the United States government, and smeared the reputations of several innocent people. Murrow decided to put his reputation and career at stake in an attempt to put a stop to one of the most powerful men in the country at that time. The film Good Night, and Good Luck chronicles Murrow's battle against McCarthy and the Red Scare.
The film opens and closes with Murrow's speech on the state of television, which he felt was in danger of becoming an instrument which was used solely for entertainment, and not for education. This resonates so much today, as television is dominated by entertainment, and has very little news or educational content in general. News programs themselves often focus on entertainment as opposed to hard news. This is why the timing of this film, which came out in 2005, was so important. The importance of journalism needs to be realized now more than ever, with newspapers as well as television and radio news programs falling by the wayside.
George Clooney obviously felt very strongly about the subject, as he co-wrote, directed, and played a major role in the film. Clooney aims to be as faithful to the true story as possible, and has helped ensure Murrow's legacy and message live on. After studying Murrow myself extensively in college, it is my opinion that the film is extremely accurate. Not a single moment seems exaggerated or unrealistic.
One of the film's strongest points is its representation of the pressures the journalists face. The scenes where the reporters and producers discuss the content and approach to the show, the ethics involved and the risks to be taken are exceptional. These were men and women who did something because they believed it was the right thing to do, and put everything on the line to do so. The intensity on the set of the show is palpable, and having been on the set of a news show myself, I can say that it is exactly what it's like, but to a greater degree of intensity. There is always a lot at stake when doing a news broadcast, but it is impossible to have more at stake than the people at CBS had when going after McCarthy.
The cast is incredible from top to bottom. David Strathairn, Clooney, Frank Langella, Robert Downey Jr., Patricia Clarkson and Jeff Daniels all effectively capture the spirit of the people they are portraying. Strathairn earned a well-deserved Oscar nomination for his role as Murrow. Murrow was a man who always played it cool when on air even though off the set he had doubts, who felt very strongly about his work and did whatever it took to give the American people the truth. He had a very distinctive style when he was reporting, which Strathairn captures flawlessly. As much conviction as Murrow brought into his work, Strathairn brings that level of conviction to the role.
Clooney received Oscar nominations for his writing and directing. His attention to detail and meticulous recreation of the time, place and situations the characters face is masterful. Throughout the film there are news clips from the time period, which do not feel the least bit out of place. If the portrayal of the characters and situation had not been well done, it would have been impossible for the actual news clips to fit in so seamlessly and add to the power of the story.
Good Night, and Good Luck is a very important film. Journalists today should strive to be more like Murrow, and the people of America should strive to want more from television than just mindless entertainment. The film is an inspiration of all that journalism can be. It is not just there to entertain, it is there to deliver truth and encourage justice. It is there to help keep our leadership in check, and to fight on the side of the people. Journalism has strayed away from this role, and the message of this film should be taken to heart. This film practices what it preaches, because while it is indeed entertaining, it tells a story that needs to be told, one that enlightens us and inspires us.
Rating: 9.5/10
Edward R. Murrow was the father of American radio and television journalism. He brought reporting to a new level during World War II, when he would actually get right near the action, and once went along on a plane during a paratrooper drop. He then took the power of journalism to a new level when he took a stand against Senator Joseph McCarthy, who was spreading the Red Scare of the 1950s by claiming there were communists in the United States government, and smeared the reputations of several innocent people. Murrow decided to put his reputation and career at stake in an attempt to put a stop to one of the most powerful men in the country at that time. The film Good Night, and Good Luck chronicles Murrow's battle against McCarthy and the Red Scare.
The film opens and closes with Murrow's speech on the state of television, which he felt was in danger of becoming an instrument which was used solely for entertainment, and not for education. This resonates so much today, as television is dominated by entertainment, and has very little news or educational content in general. News programs themselves often focus on entertainment as opposed to hard news. This is why the timing of this film, which came out in 2005, was so important. The importance of journalism needs to be realized now more than ever, with newspapers as well as television and radio news programs falling by the wayside.
George Clooney obviously felt very strongly about the subject, as he co-wrote, directed, and played a major role in the film. Clooney aims to be as faithful to the true story as possible, and has helped ensure Murrow's legacy and message live on. After studying Murrow myself extensively in college, it is my opinion that the film is extremely accurate. Not a single moment seems exaggerated or unrealistic.
One of the film's strongest points is its representation of the pressures the journalists face. The scenes where the reporters and producers discuss the content and approach to the show, the ethics involved and the risks to be taken are exceptional. These were men and women who did something because they believed it was the right thing to do, and put everything on the line to do so. The intensity on the set of the show is palpable, and having been on the set of a news show myself, I can say that it is exactly what it's like, but to a greater degree of intensity. There is always a lot at stake when doing a news broadcast, but it is impossible to have more at stake than the people at CBS had when going after McCarthy.
The cast is incredible from top to bottom. David Strathairn, Clooney, Frank Langella, Robert Downey Jr., Patricia Clarkson and Jeff Daniels all effectively capture the spirit of the people they are portraying. Strathairn earned a well-deserved Oscar nomination for his role as Murrow. Murrow was a man who always played it cool when on air even though off the set he had doubts, who felt very strongly about his work and did whatever it took to give the American people the truth. He had a very distinctive style when he was reporting, which Strathairn captures flawlessly. As much conviction as Murrow brought into his work, Strathairn brings that level of conviction to the role.
Clooney received Oscar nominations for his writing and directing. His attention to detail and meticulous recreation of the time, place and situations the characters face is masterful. Throughout the film there are news clips from the time period, which do not feel the least bit out of place. If the portrayal of the characters and situation had not been well done, it would have been impossible for the actual news clips to fit in so seamlessly and add to the power of the story.
Good Night, and Good Luck is a very important film. Journalists today should strive to be more like Murrow, and the people of America should strive to want more from television than just mindless entertainment. The film is an inspiration of all that journalism can be. It is not just there to entertain, it is there to deliver truth and encourage justice. It is there to help keep our leadership in check, and to fight on the side of the people. Journalism has strayed away from this role, and the message of this film should be taken to heart. This film practices what it preaches, because while it is indeed entertaining, it tells a story that needs to be told, one that enlightens us and inspires us.
Rating: 9.5/10
5/28/09
Star Trek
I figured I'd kick off my film criticism career with a review of a popular movie, and a good one at that.
If this fresh start to the Star Trek series is any indication of things to come, this series will certainly "live long and prosper". It was a very bold move, to be sure. With a nerdy phenomenon such as Star Trek, it is difficult to please both the hardcore Trekkies as well as appeal to a wider audience. In fact, it is hard to do just one of those things, but Star Trek has done just that. It is a nonstop thrill ride of a movie, with enough action to please the younger generations, and enough of the traditional formula to please those fluent in Klingon.
Before the release of this movie, the largest question surrounding it was the ability of the actors to live up to their predecessors. It is difficult to imagine anyone other than William Shatner as Captain Kirk, Leonard Nimoy as Spock, and George Takei as Sulu. The casting for this reboot had to be absolutely spot-on in order for the diehards to accept the actors' interpretations of the roles. It certainly passed with flying colors.
Zachary Quinto had the toughest task of anyone, having to stay true to the most beloved of all the Trek characters, while not trying to be Leonard Nimoy. It is especially difficult because this film had a hefty (and very welcome) dose of Mr. Nimoy. Quinto walks a delicate balance between the emotionless, logical Spock and the very emotional Spock we are not used to seeing. The film actually has several touching moments involving Spock, and the character is explored to depths never before seen. It was one of many, many risks that paid off for J. J. Abrams.
Chris Pine is fantastic as the brash, young, and gutsy version of James T. Kirk. Pine makes no attempt to be William Shatner, and frankly no actor would have succeeded in that endeavor. John Cho has proven himself versatile in his role as Sulu, which requires his usual comedy, but mixed in with dramatic moments and action sequences. Fortunately Abrams realized that the more Nimoy to be had, the better. Simon Pegg was the only choice to play Scotty, and Karl Urban returns to prominence in impressive fashion as "Bones" McCoy. Eric Bana is barely recognizable as the evil Romulan Nero, and his level of menace exceeds anything the previous villains had to offer.
Star Trek is, as expected, big on spectacle. The special effects are something to behold, and the excitement rarely lets up. However, the past success of the series has been driven by the characters and their interactions. The original cast had incredible chemistry, and that was why they came to be so beloved, not because of the technical wizardry. The same holds true in the newest addition. It took a lot of trust on the part of the director to allow the actors freedom in their roles, as the expectations were high. The chemistry is just as good as the original cast, and it is obvious that both casts had tremendous amounts of fun working together.
Star Trek had to do a lot right to succeed. In fact, it had to be almost flawless. It does have a few flaws, a few plot holes, which happens a lot when dealing with space-time travel. A few moments are in there just to keep the excitement going, which is understandable but still unnecessary. These pale in comparison to the positives of the film. It pulls off the near-impossible, by living up to expectations.
Rating: 9.5/10
If this fresh start to the Star Trek series is any indication of things to come, this series will certainly "live long and prosper". It was a very bold move, to be sure. With a nerdy phenomenon such as Star Trek, it is difficult to please both the hardcore Trekkies as well as appeal to a wider audience. In fact, it is hard to do just one of those things, but Star Trek has done just that. It is a nonstop thrill ride of a movie, with enough action to please the younger generations, and enough of the traditional formula to please those fluent in Klingon.
Before the release of this movie, the largest question surrounding it was the ability of the actors to live up to their predecessors. It is difficult to imagine anyone other than William Shatner as Captain Kirk, Leonard Nimoy as Spock, and George Takei as Sulu. The casting for this reboot had to be absolutely spot-on in order for the diehards to accept the actors' interpretations of the roles. It certainly passed with flying colors.
Zachary Quinto had the toughest task of anyone, having to stay true to the most beloved of all the Trek characters, while not trying to be Leonard Nimoy. It is especially difficult because this film had a hefty (and very welcome) dose of Mr. Nimoy. Quinto walks a delicate balance between the emotionless, logical Spock and the very emotional Spock we are not used to seeing. The film actually has several touching moments involving Spock, and the character is explored to depths never before seen. It was one of many, many risks that paid off for J. J. Abrams.
Chris Pine is fantastic as the brash, young, and gutsy version of James T. Kirk. Pine makes no attempt to be William Shatner, and frankly no actor would have succeeded in that endeavor. John Cho has proven himself versatile in his role as Sulu, which requires his usual comedy, but mixed in with dramatic moments and action sequences. Fortunately Abrams realized that the more Nimoy to be had, the better. Simon Pegg was the only choice to play Scotty, and Karl Urban returns to prominence in impressive fashion as "Bones" McCoy. Eric Bana is barely recognizable as the evil Romulan Nero, and his level of menace exceeds anything the previous villains had to offer.
Star Trek is, as expected, big on spectacle. The special effects are something to behold, and the excitement rarely lets up. However, the past success of the series has been driven by the characters and their interactions. The original cast had incredible chemistry, and that was why they came to be so beloved, not because of the technical wizardry. The same holds true in the newest addition. It took a lot of trust on the part of the director to allow the actors freedom in their roles, as the expectations were high. The chemistry is just as good as the original cast, and it is obvious that both casts had tremendous amounts of fun working together.
Star Trek had to do a lot right to succeed. In fact, it had to be almost flawless. It does have a few flaws, a few plot holes, which happens a lot when dealing with space-time travel. A few moments are in there just to keep the excitement going, which is understandable but still unnecessary. These pale in comparison to the positives of the film. It pulls off the near-impossible, by living up to expectations.
Rating: 9.5/10
Action!
Hey everyone. My name is Justin Bailey, and this is post 1 of my new blog, "Anatomy of a Movie". I am a student at Michigan State University, who is obsessed with movies. I have seen countless films to date, and hope to see countless more. I quote movie lines as much as possible in real life, much to the bewilderment of my friends. I have no real "credentials", I'm just a movie lover who has studied the fine art of film closely. I will let my reviews make their own credibility (or lack thereof). I love movies from all genres, years, and countries. When people ask me what kind of movies I like, all I can say is "good ones".
This blog will contain my movie reviews. I hope to become a professional film critic, and I thought I should get started now just for fun and see what people think. Most critics will review new films as they come out only. In here, I will try to review each movie I see, in the theaters and outside of them. So I will include new movies, and older movies I have just seen. I will also include movies I consider to be "Masterpieces", which will be like Ebert's "Great Movies" section (sorry for borrowing your idea Roger, I give you credit). These will basically be essays about why I consider the films to be truly among the greatest ever.
I have never been a fan of the star system, I feel the whole 0-4 star scale is really limiting. So my scale will be out of 10. Just in case I need it, I will include 0s. Hopefully that won't be necessary!
So enough talking, I'll begin posting reviews soon. So please comment, let me know what you think of the movies, whether you agree or disagree with my stance, etc. Feel free to be brutal! Let me know if you have suggestions of how to improve this blog. Hope you enjoy!
This blog will contain my movie reviews. I hope to become a professional film critic, and I thought I should get started now just for fun and see what people think. Most critics will review new films as they come out only. In here, I will try to review each movie I see, in the theaters and outside of them. So I will include new movies, and older movies I have just seen. I will also include movies I consider to be "Masterpieces", which will be like Ebert's "Great Movies" section (sorry for borrowing your idea Roger, I give you credit). These will basically be essays about why I consider the films to be truly among the greatest ever.
I have never been a fan of the star system, I feel the whole 0-4 star scale is really limiting. So my scale will be out of 10. Just in case I need it, I will include 0s. Hopefully that won't be necessary!
So enough talking, I'll begin posting reviews soon. So please comment, let me know what you think of the movies, whether you agree or disagree with my stance, etc. Feel free to be brutal! Let me know if you have suggestions of how to improve this blog. Hope you enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
