Universal Horror

Horror and cinema are a match made in heaven. It is said you can tell a good filmmaker if he's able to pull off a good horror film. In horror you have the basic elements of a dark atmospheric look, people screaming, and probably some blood and gore thrown into the mix.

Horror is almost as old as cinema, it's usually credited at the beginning with German expressionism. "The Cabinet a Dr. Caligari" was a benchmark of that era, which is commonly referred to as the first horror film. Then there is F.W. Murnau's "Nosferatu" in 1922, which is still the greatest realization of the "Dracula" legend.

Today, horror movies remains popular with new types of horror monsters invading the multiplexes. Some of these monsters are inspired, others are not. I usually tend to avoid new horror movies today, I sometimes feel like I respond to a different time, I don't like what people refer to as "torture porn", I couldn't sit through the first "Saw" movie, and I've avoided movies like "Hostel" or the remake of "These Hills Have Eyes". Maybe there is artistic merit to these movies, but I know I will live a happy life without seeing either of them.

Halloween is of course upon us , and this is usually the time to reflect on some the greatest horror films of all time, and this is something I'm always interested in, mostly because I love lists. Most movies that make these lists mostly stem from the late 60s-70s era like "The Exorcist", "Rosemary's Baby", "Jaws", or "Alien".

I admire those horror movies very much, but for me, the most fun horror movies come from the early Universal days most prominently the early 30s. These were the films directed by Todd Browning, James Whale, and Karl Freud, and starring people like Bela Lugosi, and Boris Karloff.

Movies like "Dracula" starring Lugosi, and "Frankenstein" starring Karloff remain special to me, I don't really find them scary, like most people of today who have perhaps seen too much, but I love them just the same. Like most early sound pictures, "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" suffer from a creaky and wooden type of look and acting style, yet that's part of their charm. The films themselves remain quite imaginative, and are also exercises in the art of camp.

"Frankenstein" was the first of these films I saw as a kid, I watched it as a double bill in my basement along with another great monster movie "King Kong". I was probably around ten or eleven at the time. I loved the film even back then, I've always had an affinity for classic black and white movies, and these types of films spoke to my imagination as a child.

A few years later I would watch "Dracula", a film I still have my troubles with, it's probably due to the fact that the film was based on the stage play of Bram Stoker's novel and suffers from not being very cinematic, which is why today I still prefer "Nosferatu" as well as the remake by Werner Herzog. Still I am charmed by Lugosi's Dracula, he rises the film above its staged trappings.

There are two films I think are vastly underrated in the Universal monster cannon, which I think are both superior to "Dracula", the first is "The Mummy" from 1932 directed by Karl Freud and starring Boris Karloff. "The Mummy" has a lot in common with "Dracula" story wise, but I found it to be far more interesting, and Karloff relishes in the role as the dead Egyptian Mummy brought back to life.

The second film is "The Invisible Man", directed by "Frankenstein's" James Whale and starring Claude Rains. This film is based on the novel by H.G. Welles, and actually did frighten me as a child, Rains plays a mad scientist who finds the formula to make himself invisible, yet he of course goes mad in the process. I found the story quite chilling, and despite many remakes or rip offs, the original is still the most effective.

Perhaps my least favorite has to be "The Wolf Man", which I find to be overrated, the film stars Lon Chaney Jr. who is fine in the role as a man who is bitten by a werewolf, and the supporting cast is superb as well with the likes of Claude Rains and Ralph Bellamy. However I wasn't impressed by the presence of the Wolf Man, it appears only a handful of times in the original film and he doesn't do much but snarl at the camera. The make up effects are quite astonishing, but his appearance just didn't seem as epic to me as that of Frankenstein or Dracula, or The Mummy.

I often wonder had the Wolf Man not come so late, his first film was ten years after the first appearances of Frankenstein and Dracula. He was limited to the laws of movies after the pre-code era, meaning, you couldn't do anything that was deemed that gruesome or dangerous.

Of course the greatest of all these horror films is the sequel to "Frankenstein", "Bride of Frankenstein" which stands as a masterpiece, and pretty much sums up why I think all these films endure. "Bride" is a gorgeous movie to look at, it's one of those films that belong in the world of black and white, it also is aware of itself like the others weren't before. Director James Whale made a horror comedy, which was obsessed with dark humour regarding life and death. It's wickedly funny, and epically put together. The climactic scene where the Bride becomes alive is probably the greatest of all scenes of its kind, it blends both horror, comedy, and pathos in its shots. I still chuckle with delight whenever I hear the musical score from "Bride of Frankenstein", or hearing Elsa Lanchester shriek when she first touches Karloff's monster, and of course her snake like hisp before she is about to be destroyed. The look and the tone of the film become so perfect, and to me it represents what all of these films strived to be, and almost were.

The Universal films remain fun films for me to revisit, I recognize their weaknesses, yet I still have great pleasure in watching them, they remind me of that first piece of horror I felt as a child watching my first horror film, I love them because they represent a time when film was still new, and still inventing itself, they may be primitive today, but still I'd choose them over torture any day.

Million Dollar Baby

Clint Eastwood has made many great movies throughout his career both as an actor and a director. It could be argued that he has had the most endurable career of anyone in Hollywood. The last film Eastwood starred in was "Gran Torino", which was number one at the box office its opening weekend. Eastwood is now in his 80s, his acting career may be behind him, of course I wouldn't count him out, yet he still manages to average at least one film per year that he has directed. There always seems to be a place for Clint Eastwood, he's carved his only little niche.

The films Eastwood has directed also have its own style, and like the man himself, they aren't fussy, some of them remain laid back and soothing, yet the story remains important. His style has only refined through the years, but perhaps it was perfected with "Million Dollar Baby", which is definitely one of his masterpieces.

"Million Dollar Baby" had a strange birth, Eastwood took the first draft of the script by Paul Haggis, claiming it was perfect just the way it was. Eastwood's instincts were probably right, Haggis' original script stuck to the bare bones, and like the best of Eastwood's pictures didn't have any excess to it.

The story is set up like an old fashioned Hollywood movie, Eastwood plays Frankie an old boxing manager who has been in the business all his life. Frankie owns a gym, and runs it along with his longtime friend Scraps (Morgan Freeman) who is the janitor. At the beginning of the film, Frankie is managing a boxer who gets the chance at a title shot, something Frankie has never had, yet by playing it safe, he loses his boxer to another manager.

Enter Maggie (Hilary Swank) a girl who sees Frankie and wants him to train her to become a champion. Maggie comes from a trailer park upbringing, she feels boxing is the only way for her to attain a future, Frankie on the other hand doesn't want to train her due to the fact that she's a girl. Maggie is determined she's worth it, she continues to come to the gym to practice herself, and soon Frankie can't resist, he decides to take her on.

The relationship that blossoms between Maggie and Frankie is the heart of this film, Eastwood manages to make it into something that plays against cliche. Both Maggie and Frankie are missing something in their lives, we hear Frankie has a daughter he writes every week, yet his letter are always returned to him, it isn't even specified if his daughter is alive. Maggie grew up admiring her father who died when she was young, the rest of her family are lazy trailer trash who are on welfare. There is a deep caring and love that comes in this relationship between Maggie and Frankie, and it only becomes more meaningful in the heartbreaking finale.

"Million Dollar Baby" could've been a film made in the 1940s era, it has that feel of it, of course many of Eastwood's films feel like they come from another time, he always seems to be beating to the sound of his own drum unlike many filmmakers of today who may have forgotten the importance of story over style. Eastwood takes his time telling his stories, and developing his relationships, he's always able to get good performances from his actors because I believe he's willing to give them room to create full bodies characters. It's almost as if Eastwood's style is invisible when he does this, yet it's there only slow and methodical, this is a man who doesn't feel he has to prove anything to anyone. With "Million Dollar Baby", he gets a tremendous performance from Swank who has since this film gone on to play many strong willed women. Morgan Freeman also gets his time to shine in this film, it's become rather a cliche to cast Freeman as a narrator, which is one of his jobs in this film, he's also Frankie's closest friend and conscience. He's the one who knows Frankie the best, and perhaps knows what he should do better than he does.

"Million Dollar Baby" might not have been as special had it not been for Eastwood's reluctance to treat this as a regular Hollywood formula story, it in fact only starts off as that, the tone of the film remains somewhat sombre, Eastwood never forgets he's dealing with bruised characters, all of whom have something to prove, yet there are consequences.

The final act of the movie has caused much controversy, some have considered it manipulative, while others feel Eastwood made a fatal error by reducing Freeman as a narrator, breaking the structure of the whole film. The ending is in fact the key to the whole story, and it works because we have taken a journey with Frankie and Maggie, and it ends on the right note for both characters. Eastwood's films usually have a dark edge to them, and this film is no exception, Eastwood bathes the film in contrasting shadow and light images, and it works well with the tone of the film, yet it's also a story you can get so caught up into. I loved seeing the relationship of Maggie and Frankie grow, it is perhaps one of the best relationships put on screen in modern film.

I returned to "Million Dollar Baby" after a few years of not watching it, the film didn't seem to age, it just felt so familiar, but that could probably be said with most of Eastwood's films. Eastwood has proved himself as an American Auteur, there is a certain feel to all of his films that show his trademark. A film like "Million Dollar Baby", everything clicks so beautifully with the material, the script, and the cast, Eastwood is unstoppable, this story just seemed perfect for his brand of storytelling, and it is truly one of the great classics of the last ten years. Like the man himself, Eastwood's films never seem to get old, just wiser, and more interesting as time goes by.

Movie Review: Hereafter

It takes a bold film to attempt to tackle such universal issues such as the afterlife, let alone one that is a mainstream Hollywood movie. Clint Eastwood's "Hereafter" succeeds beautifully in giving us a human story about life after death in a way that I thought was very life affirming.

"Hereafter" concerns three separate stories of people who in some way are affected by questions of the afterlife. Matt Damon gives one of his most affecting and understated performances as George, psychic who actually seems to have the real gift to communicate with people's loved ones. George however doesn't look as this as a gift but a curse, he seems to be unable to touch a person without seeing a vision. In another story, french actress Cecile De France plays Marie, a newswoman who dies for a moment during a tsunami. She survives, but while she was clinically dead, she has also experiences visions of a possible afterlife. Then there is young actor Frankie McClaren playing Marcus, a boy who recently lost his twin brother Jason (Also played by McClaren). Marcus wants answers and tries to find someone who is able to communicate with Jason.

"Hereafter" follows a formula such as "Crash" or "Babel" where these three stories are in some way linked and by coincidence they intersect at some point. Eastwood however doesn't stress this link, he cuts from one story to another in a very straight forward and simple way, I never felt I was being manipulated.

"Hereafter" is a very gentle film, it's quiet and reflective like much of Eastwood's work. He focuses on these people who are all in their way lonely and trying to make a connection so they don't feel as lonely. Damon in particular does a good job showing his character's struggle to live a normal life, by taking on a job at a construction plant, and doing a cooking class all in an effort to fit in. He has an all too brief encounter with a girl (Bryce Dallas Howard) he really likes, but things change when she discovers he's a psychic.

McClaren is very affective, he gives a sense of not being a professional actor, I'm not sure if he is or not, his face sometimes doesn't seem to change, yet we always seem to know what he's thinking, the scenes with him and Damon are particularly touching.

France's character is perhaps the one who speaks for the majority as someone who ponders the questions we all ask: "What happens to us when we die?" It's such a common question in which we know we won't get an answer until it actually happens, yet it has always fascinated us. Marie becomes so obsessed, it threatens her career and her personal life, yet coming from one who has thought long and hard about this question, I could understand her pursuit.

All this being said, I'm not sure if "Hereafter" is a perfect movie, yet it is probably the film that has affected me the most all year, I am fascinated by the subject, and Eastwood's approach, this is probably his best film since "Letters from Iwo Jima". No matter what the subject he tackles, Eastwood keeps a calm and sober style, like his music score, Eastwood plays his films like jazz, he deals with moments and scenes that on the page might seem cliche, but he understates them in a way that make them seem real and more meaningful. With Damon, he has found a great leading man for these kinds of stories, he brings the same kind of soft and understated approach to these scenes and they work beautifully.

In the end "Hereafter" becomes more a film about living with death in our minds and being able to live our lives happily, afterall life is the only thing we can be sure of, and we might as well make the most of it. This is a film not to be missed.

You Can't Take it With You

It's easy to become reflective in one's life, to weigh our contribution to the world. Perhaps we could say we have lived a life of wealth, or perhaps we have lived a poor one. There are two schools of thought on the subject of wealth; perhaps being literally wealthy with money is what you could mean, but then when all is said and done, what do you have to show for it? The other type of wealth is the more intangible kind, where you are measured by how good of a person you are to your fellow man, and the love and friendship you've received throughout your life. These are the two schools of thought brought up and analyzed in Frank Capra's "You Can't Take it With You."

The story is based on a very popular play of the 30s written by George S Kaufman and Moss Hart, but was radically changed by Capra and his constant screenwriter Robert Riskin to suit more Capra's sensibilities. It's about an eccentric family who are encouraged by their patriarch (Lionel Barrymore)to do what makes them happy. The family therefore can be described as unorthodox but lovable within the community. Barrymore is a widower Martin Vanderhof, who in the past had the chance to be a very rich man, but decided he wasn't happy so he decided to devote his time to collect and appraise stamps. His daughter Penny (Spring Byington) enjoys writing plays, her husband (Samuel S. Hinds) likes working down in the cellar making fireworks. The family clan is rounded out with their youngest daughter Essie (Ann Miller) who loves to bake and do ballet, while her husband accompanies her on the xylophone.

The one member of the family who seems to be living in the real world is the eldest daughter Alice (Jean Arthur). Alice seems to be the only one holding down a job as a secretary, but she doesn't seem to mind, since she has fallen in love with her boss, a young bank executive named Tony (James Stewart). Tony and Alice want to get married, which is great news for Alice's family, yet not so much for Tony's. Tony's father is Anthony Kirby (Edward Arnold) a very wealthy businessman who incidentally trying to buy Vanderhof's house in order to create a large real estate deal. Alice is also deemed too common by Tony's mother (Mary Forbes) and looks down on their marriage. Acting in good faith, Tony takes his parents to the Vanderhof home to show them how they really are, yet things don't go as planned.

"You Can't Take it With You", was another gem in the Frank Capra cannon in the 1930s, it gave him his third Academy Award for Best Director, and the film itself also won for Best Picture. Capra was the messenger of hope in the 1930s, which was why he remained so popular. The country was in the midst of The Great Depression, yet Hollywood was churning out mostly escapist entertainment, movies were the one place where people didn't have to be reminded of the hard times going on in the real world; yet that never stopped Capra from commenting on it.

"You Can't Take it With You" starts off as a lighthearted comedy at first, but it soon turns into a more serious film about the state of the world, and also the state of humanity. Barrymore's Vanderhof, and Arnold's Kirby take centre stage in the film's latter half, as Capra uses them to depict two different ideologies. Kirby is perhaps the most interesting, he isn't a bad guy at all, but Capra shows him as somebody who has lost his way, he's at a crucial moment in his life and mirrors what Vanderhof might've been like before he changed his direction.

Kirby is also a representation of the greed of that time, a banker who never thought of what his actions were doing to the rest of the country (Gee, kinda like today!) There is a powerful scene in fact where Kirby is confronted by a businessman played by H.B. Warner, who is ruined thanks to Kirby's actions, he warns him that if he continues to go down the greedy path, he'll be left with nothing. I couldn't help but think of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol", which parallels this where the Ghost of Jacob Marley warns Scrooge what could become of him if he continues with his greedy ways.

Because of these themes of money vs. happiness, "You Can't Take it With You" becomes very contemporary, much of what is discussed in this film make interesting parallels about the state the world is in today. There is even a scene where Jean Arthur is talking to Jimmy Stewart about men who play on people's fears in order to sell them things they don't need, I could not help but think of people like Bill O'Reilly, or Glenn Beck when she uttered this.

Frank Capra was known as a rank sentimentalist, but he was in fact a radical filmmaker, I can't name another mainstream director of that time who tackled such important issues. The Vanderhof family seem very contemporary today, and Capra seemed to admire their eccentricities. Throughout the film, they remain happy by doing what makes them happy, and of course they are persecuted and even accused of being communists, however Capra, who was surely one of the most American of filmmakers is showing that they represent what America should aspire to be, to Capra, the Vanderhof's resemble "the pursuit of happiness", who are we to stop them from attaining it?

The Circus

"The Circus" is Charlie Chaplin's unsung masterpiece. It isn't as well known as "The Gold Rush", "City Lights","Modern Times", or "The Kid", even though it was quite popular when first released. Chaplin actually won a special Academy Award for it in 1927 for writing, directing, and starring in the film.

However as time went by , "The Circus" has been thought of as a minor Chaplin work, however, it remains poignant, and it has a final image of The Tramp that could rival the ending of "City Lights".

"The Circus" is a story of high comedy but also of unrequited love; we begin with seeing a girl (Merna Kennedy) who works as a horse jumper at the circus, we also find out she is the daughter of the circus owner, a tyrannical man who starves his daughter when she messes up on a trick.

Meanwhile The Tramp wonders into the circus after being mistaken as a pickpocket and is chased by the cops. The police chase him into the center ring and his natural clumsiness is mistaken for a real clown act. The audience love him so the manager hires The Tramp on as a clown.

The Tramp tries to learn several clown routines (All of which Chaplin himself would've know with his years in vaudeville), but despite his best efforts, he is fired soon after. Another incident happens where Chaplin is chased by a donkey into the centre ring and once again the audience love him. The manager decides to keep The Tramp on as a maintenence worker without letting him know he's the star of the show.

The Tramp then connects with the girl giving her some of his food, he is soon smitten and the two become close friends. When The Tramp finally does find out he is the star of the show, he's able to make demands on the manager for a higher salary and no longer harming the girl.

However The Tramp's fairy tale life is threatened with the arrival of a handsome tightrope walker (Harry Crocker) who the girl falls in love with. In the climactic finale, Chaplin tries to prove he's just as brave by taking the tightrope walker's place and risking his life.

I find everything that happens between The Girl and The Tramp all leads down to the final scene in the film. It's a solitary Tramp who is left behind after the circus leaves town. Chaplin was a master of the close-up, and he gives himself one of the greatest in movie history. He is sitting in the middle of where the big top once was, his face is that of sadness and longing, but also hopeful. This shot sums up what Chaplin's whole philosophy of who and what The Tramp is. The Tramp is a character, but he's also an idea, he's a symbol of the little guy, someone who must face hardships, and lonliness, but also someone who is able to walk on in the face of uncertainty. With The Tramp, Chaplin gave audiences someone to root for, very often in his films, The Tramp did get the girl, but in this one he doesn't, despite it though, he's able to put on a brave face anyway and walk away with his dignity in tact.

Chaplin had a sentimental streak about him, which some critics unfairly use to deem him passe in favour of a more contemporary Buster Keaton. However I feel Chaplin will always be around, he was the biggest star of his period, and you can recognize the face of The Tramp just in sillouette. With "The Circus", Chaplin brilliantly combines high comedy and pathos and in all of his films with The Tramp did it better than anyone else.

Heat

It's been a few years since I've sat down and watched Michael Mann's "Heat", arguably the director's best film. It was somewhat overshadowed in its initial release due to the coverage of it being the first film starring both Al Pacino and Robert De Niro and having them share precious moments of screen time.

Indeed the film is a terrific showcase for both great actors, and the one scene they share together in a coffee shop is quite special just seeing the two of them act and react to one another, it's a great treat. However let's not take anything away from the pure craft and technique Michael Mann had to create such a beautifully shot epic crime saga.

On the surface, "Heat" doesn't offer anything new, it's a story about bank robbers and the police who pursue them. This type has been done since the old Warner Brothers days of James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart, and Edward G. Robinson. Even some of today's most popular films like "The Town" follow the same formula. "Heat" however tells its story in a new modern light. In the film Mann is interested not only in the professional lives of the criminals and the law, but also how their lives seem to parallel the others.

The main criminal here is Neil McCauley (De Niro), a career bank robber, a man who has trained himself to walk away from any kind of commitment or normal life if he feels the heat around the corner. Neil is never settled, his house is isolated and solitary. His friend and accomplice Chris (Val Kilmer) asks him "When are you gonna get some furniture?" he says "When I get around to it." Chris then asks him "When are you gonna get a wife?" he says "When I get around to it." For Neil, his life is his work, he remains disciplined even as he finds himself getting involved with someone (Amy Brenneman), he's still willing to walk away.

When Neil and his men rob an armored car, he is now being trailed by ace detective Vincent Hanna (Pacino), a man like Neil dedicated to his work, despite it taking its toll on his personal life. Vincent is now on his third marriage that is disintegrating before his eyes. He's obsessed with the chase and catching his man, he understands he has to stay as sharp and dedicated as the men he's after.

What's interesting about "Heat" is Mann's attention to detail and authenticity, he makes us understand the lives of these two by showing them both as men of honor but also as flawed human beings. "Heat" never remains black and white when it comes to crime, it's too smart for that, these are people finding their own morality in an immoral world, and it's fascinating seeing that it's coming from both sides of the law.

The main color of "Heat" I would say is blue, it sometimes seems to streak the entire frame, particularly in De Niro's house where he can look out on the ocean, which is just as desolate as his character. It's a beautifully shot film and Mann adds to the atmosphere a sense of realism unseen in genre filmmaking before.

The climactic bank robbery stands alone as one of the best ever shot, merely because of Mann's attention to detail. The intense gunfire is loud and pounding, probably sounding like what a real gun would instead of hearing bullets ricochet in the Hollywood manner. All the men playing Pacino's fellow officer's all seem real, they are men doing their job, there isn't one of them who flies of the handle the way you might see in a regular crime movie.

Despite all this authenticity, Mann remains a stylized director, and he throws in some hypothetical scenes to give the movie its weight, the most famous of course being the coffee shop scene with Pacino and De Niro.

The scene couldn't exist outside of movies, it's not often you think of a cop having coffee with the man he's pursuing. Yet the scene is also not just an excuse to get these acting heavyweights in a room together. It actually becomes a philosophical, and existential discussion between these two men who must feel a certain bond between one another. At one moment Pacino talks of a dream he had about all the victims killed by the men he's put away. You leave the scene feeling what these men are all about in relation to the other and it's quite wonderful to see.

"Heat" stands above many of the other modern genre films made today, mainly because Michael Mann has a certain respect for this material. He takes equal time with the criminals and the police to see what makes them tick. Mann of course would come back to this type of film time and again with "Collateral", "Miami Vice", and "Public Enemies". You can sense there is a type of obsession with Mann not unlike Neil and Vincent in this film, and something like that is quite admirable. It takes a very special filmmaker to take a crime movie and make it quite beautiful.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

"The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly" is a great film for many reasons, for me, it's a film that I'm hypnotized to each time I see it on television, it belongs with one of those great action yarns of the 60s with charismatic stars such as "The Great Escape", "Cool Hand Luke", or "The Dirty Dozen". You get sucked into its somewhat simple plot just because it has one of those irresistible stories: three greedy desperate men each know a secret to a buried treasure and will do anything to get to it first.

The idea of this film leads to an inevitable conclusion where these three desperate men must face eachother in perhaps the greatest showdown in cinematic history.

What makes this film stand above all its contemporaries and all its imitators is it's something of pure style, made by the master of the craft Sergio Leone. Leone only made six films, but each of them are visceral exercises of violence, and love of the movies. It's no wonder a filmmaker like Quentin Tarantino chose "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" as one of his favorite films.

The film starts off with a long epilogue to introduce the three main characters; we first meet "The Ugly" Tuco played by Eli Wallach a rat faced killer who is probably the most desperate of them all to get the money. Then there's "The Bad", Angel Eyes played by Lee Van Cleef, he's the usual suspect to show up in westerns wearing the black hat and someone who goes through life without a conscience. Then we meet "The Good" played by Clint Eastwood, he's "The Man with no name" character who appeared in two previous Leone films "A Fistful of Dollars" and "For a Few Dollars More". His name isn't given although Tuco often calls him Blondie. Blondie is by no means the hero with a heart of gold, but in Leone's west, he is the closest to good you come by, he shows evidence of compassion, but he leads his life with a somewhat cynical look at the world, something he has carried with him throughout all three Leone pictures.

At the start of the picture we see Blondie and Tuco working together. Tuco is a wanted man and Blondie is a bounty hunter who turns him in to collect the reward. When Tuco is about the be hanged, Blondie shoots him down and the two ride off and split the money. Each time Tuco escapes, his ransom increases, but once he gets to $3000, Blondie decides to part company and leaves Tuco without any money and a horse, so he exacts revenge.

Tuco soon catches up with Blondie and takes him as a prisoner, his plan is to watch him die a slow painful death in the dessert, but fate takes a hand when they are interrupted by a runaway stagecoach where a dying man tells of a buried treasure hidden in a cemetery. Tuco overhears the name of the cemetery, but when he is distracted, Blondie overhears the name of the grave it's buried in. Without one man trusting the other with his own secret, the two are stuck together until they can find the treasure.

Meanwhile Angel Eyes is conducting his own investigation and he too knows of the treasure, it isn't soon till he catches up with Tuco and Blondie.

"The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly", came at a time when the western genre was at a transition. Leone pretty much revitalized the genre along with Sam Peckinpah. Their image of the west was no longer stuff of legend like the ones of John Ford or Howard Hawks. The lines of who's good and who's bad in these films become blurred. Although, it says in the title, who's supposed to be good, bad, and ugly, Leone doesn't really leave it that black and white. Tuco gets much of our sympathy, although he's a ruthless killer, Leone gives a scene with his brother who became a monk. The idea that one brother became a bandit while another one a man of the cloth was not an original idea, yet Leone along with Wallach's performance (which should've gotten a nomination) give pathos to Tuco, and we are able to realize that he's not all that bad. Leone isn't as sympathetic to Angel Eyes, yet I suppose a film like this needs the usual villain.

The film is also one made by a man who enjoys the movies, Leone obviously loved the American westerns particularly the ones of John Ford with his use of vast open spaces. He was the forerunner for people like Tarantino who's own encyclopedia knowledge of movie history would become part of his cinema. That's not saying Leone was completely unoriginal, on the contrary. Look at the final shoot out which is a perfectly choreographed mini-movie in itself. It starts off slowly where the men get into position, perfectly composed in frame. The camera soon gets tighter into each man's faces, with the editing switching fiercely from their eyes to their guns. Leone knows exactly when the payoff should happen. The sequence is remarkably long, probably longer than it would be in real life, it's one of the great moments in cinema. A sequence like that has been copied before and we think of that as a Leone moment.

Sergio Leone was a supreme master of cinema, unfortunately he only lived to make six films, five of them in the western genre. The sixth one was a gangster saga "Once Upon a Time in America" and was probably his most complex story. With each film, Leone's characters and stories became darker, he was growing as an artist each time, it's a shame his career was cut short, but for a man who only had six films, those are some six.

"The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" was also the last film he made with star and muse Clint Eastwood, a man who's character had few words and who's face stood motionless was is probably what attracted the great director to the actor. Eastwood would come out being a huge star/director in his own right and dedicating his masterpiece "Unforgiven" in part to Leone. It's hard to wonder where the two men would be without the other. "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" is a testament between a star and director who were a match made in heaven.

Movie Review: The Social Network

I wasn't sure if it was just me, but there are two moments in David Fincher's "The Social Network", where the conversation between two people becomes somewhat distorted with noise from the movie's soundtrack. This happens in the two scenes with Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) and his soon to be ex/ex girl friend Erica (Rooney Mara). The conversations take place in large public areas, where many people are talking all at once, and loud music is blasting through. Much is said between these two highly intellectual people from different wave-lengths, yet there isn't any feeling of connection.

In "The Social Network", we are meant to believe that this lack of connection Mark feels for his girlfriend is what sets him off to create Facebook, the social scene in the silicon Valley age.

Mark as played by Eisenberg and written by Aaron Sorkin, is a computer prodigy, he lacks the social skills he so desperately wants, yet as some sort of revenge, creates his own social network in his computer in a way he fully understands.

I was hooked in "The Social Network" right from the get-go, to me it is the most entertaining movie I've seen all year. It has a brisk pace that keeps its rythm all the way through without missing a beat. The dialogue is bright and witty, and the acting is done to perfection.

The film, is of course about the creation of Facebook and rather about the time we live in now, to be more specific, the time America lives in now. Mark Zuckerberg in this film has been compared to Charles Foster Kane in the way he's blinded by ambition, but it doesn't make him a bad guy, in fact I found myself rooting for him at time.

Mark is a brilliant guy, who came up with a brilliant idea, yet to say that the idea was entirely his might not be exactly accurate, the film does a nice job in deconstructing the founding of Facebook, and by doing that we get the sense at the kind of guy Mark Zuckerberg was.

We first meet Mark on that fateful date with his girlfriend, which prompts him to go back to his Harvard dorm room, and write nasty things about her on his blog. As sort of a prank, he and his roommates create a site on their computer that rates the "hotness" of different girls on campus. He gets into trouble, but his actions sets off the idea of Facebook in motion.

Mark meets the Winklevoss twins (both played by Armie Hammer), who give him the idea of creating a social network exclusively for Harvard people. Mark then creates a partnership with his best and only friend Eduardo (Andrew Garfield) and makes him CFO of a new website he calls "The Facebook".

The film goes back and forth in time cross cutting between a lawsuit Mark has between the Winklevoss twins, and with Eduardo who sued him in real life. What the film does get across very well was even if Mark should've shared the credit to these people, he was the one with the ambition to see it go big. He gets some help from Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), the man behind Nabster who shows him what Facebook could be.

In the middle of it all we get the sense that Mark isn't interested in the money at all, he does feel this was his idea, he wants the credit. The tragedy of the film comes with the fact that in the end, he's still the same guy he was in the beginning, he can't quite connect with people on a personal level. The real Mark Zuckerberg may not be like that at all, how are we to know, the point is, it makes for a very fascinating character study.

"The Social Network" is a film that I think works on all four cylinders, when you have this much talent, it's hard to see how it could fail. The collaboration between Fincher and Sorkin, sometimes reminded me of Howard Hawks and Ben Hecht. That might've had something to do with the pacing, the rapid fire dialogue, if there were more women in the picture you'd swear this were some sort of screwball comedy.

At times, I did long for more of a female voice, particularly because the Rooney Mara character was so compelling the few scenes she was in, yet I understood that she had to stay distant from Mark in order for the film to work.

I would say "The Social Network" is David Fincher's most accomplished film, he actually may not be getting much of the credit here seeing that this is an Aaron Sorkin screenplay, which has been taking most notice. But watch what Fincher does with these heavy dialogue scenes, sometimes they just show two people sitting at the table talking. Take the seen between Timberlake and Eisenberg in a club, and how he shows Timberlake's character almost menacing in the lights flashing on him.

Much should be said of the editing between people. It sometimes becomes a juggling act, but it pays off really well each time. There is a scene where Eduardo is confronting Mark over the phone about freezing his accounts, meanwhile his crazy girlfriend is setting fire to his bed. Not a beat is missed, and it gives for a great comedic payoff in the end.

"The Social Network" to me is a film with a pulse, you know it's there, you can't take your eyes off it, each frame and piece of dialogue is alive, I was lead out of a stupor and taken in to see something vibrant on the screen, I can't wait to see it again.

Mulholland Drive

To me, a film like David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" is a great film because it does what movies do better than any other art form. It's a film for the sense, not necessarily for the analytical purposes, or for people with literate minds. This is a film that puts you through a maze, I don't think it can be ever figured out, but it rewards with each viewing no matter what.

There is a plot of "Mulholland Drive", and according to Lynch who wrote and directed it, it can be followed. Lynch seems to have fun with his films where he leaves everything open to interpretation.

The history of "Mulholland Drive" has been well documented by Lynchophiles alike; it started out as a television pilot for ABC, but the network dropped it after seeing the final cut. Lynch went back to the drawing board and decided the idea could be made into a feature film. While the pilot was left open-ended, Lynch was able to find a solution that could easily be best described as dreamed up...probably.

The film is a Hollywood story and follows a young wide-eyed girl named Betty (Naomi Watts) who moves to the town from Canada to be an actress. She takes up residence in her Aunts lavish apartment and hoping to land it big. But when Betty gets to the apartment, she's surprised to discover Rita (Laura Harring), a woman who has survived a car accident but has lost her memory. The only evidence to her old identity happens to be a bunch of money that is found in her purse. Betty decides to help Rita find out who she really is.

There are other forces at play here involving a film director (Justin Theroux) who is being intimidated by a group of mystery men to cast an unknown actress for the lead role in an important movie he's making. There is also a hitman (Mark Pellegreno) who discovers a mysterious black book that might be related to Rita; a strange looking cowboy, and a strange looking creature/homeless man living in an alley of a Winkies restaurant, and he might hold the key to the whole mystery, yet what do we know.

About two thirds into the way of "Mulholland Drive", there is a dramatic shift, after Betty and Rita visit a theatre where everything is recorded and we are told by the master of ceremonies what we see is an illusions. Suddenly things change and Watts and Harring become two completely different characters.

You can question the plot of "Mulholland Drive" all you want, I find it interesting that Lynch has opened the door to many different variations, you could come out with a different interpretation each time you view it. For many, the film is an allegory for stardom in Hollywood, and it's Lynch's cynical view of the movie making business. That could be part of the story, seeing how one of Lynch's favorite films is Billy Wilder's "Sunset BLVD." which is also a film about broken dreams in Hollywood, but the film leaves it much more open than just that. Lynch uses cinema as a sensory experience, and while sometimes this leaves the viewer in the dark, it's a radical change of pace to linear storytelling.

Lynch seems to sometimes be working in a stream of consciousness, where he doesn't care if what he is showing makes sense, his images and pure atmosphere usually remain so powerful that it makes for a purely satisfying cinematic experience. One of the problems I had with Christopher Nolan's "Inception" was how it was a film that was trying to remain abstract yet not letting go of audience expectations. Thus, "Inception" became a film about dreams with rules, David Lynch works without rules, he knows that dreams sometimes don't make sense, and sometimes movies don't have to either. I suppose it's a matter of taste with a director like Nolan and a director like Lynch, however I much prefer to be kept in the dark a bit and making up my own mind about what I am seeing.

"Mulholland Drive" is one of David Lynch's cinematic masterpieces, and perhaps his most enjoyable and satisfying. I love returning to it because each time it's like watching a different film, and each time I feel closer to unlocking its secrets, until later, when I realize the secret is part of what makes it great.