Tag Archives: based on a book

War Machine – Review

21 Jun

In 2012, a book titled The Operators by Rolling Stone editor Michael Hastings was released. It details the times that Hastings spent with General Stanley McChrystal, who was the commander of the International Security Assistance Force. Soon after Hastings published an article featuring McChrystal and his team, which featured a lot of trash talking certain high level government officials, McChrystal was pretty much forced to resign his position. Now we have another look at the story in a fictionalized, satirical account of what happened by writer/director David Michôd and his latest film War Machine. I’ve heard a lot of mixed things about this movie, so I was a little hesitant going into it, but I have to say I really had a blast with this movie, despite some of its minor storytelling set backs.

General Glen McMahon (Brad Pitt) is a man of principles, conviction, confidence, and opinions. While all of those words do perfectly describe the officer, he’s also loud mouthed, arrogant, and a buffoon. He’s also the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan at the tail end of the war. Along with his team of sycophants and cronies, McMahon has a plan to bring peace to the Middle East with the payoff being a huge boost of his ego. Of course, along the way he has to deal with bureaucrats and politicians cutting into his plans while also trying to manage relations with Afghanistan’s new president (Ben Kingsley). While formulating a plan to head into enemy territory in a major assault that will be the high point of his career, McMahon agrees to have Rolling Stone reporter Sean Cullen (Scoot McNairy) join the ranks to see the inner workings of his squad. This, along with every other bad decision of his career, will ultimately be his downfall.

The first thing that I really came to appreciate after watching War Machine is the film’s tone. It’s silly and often times over the top, but it never falls into the realm of stupidity. The dialogue has some corny jokes, but it also has some pretty whip smart moments of really good satire. While all of the humor is well and good, I was also surprised to find some depth and drama to the storytelling. I was really just looking to have some laughs with this movie but I felt a little more than that. By the end of the film, I started to analyze the character of McMahon and his intentions and the consequences of his action. There are even a few quieter moments that were actually kind of sad, and that’s an area I really wasn’t expecting the film to go based on the trailer. This isn’t just a surface level movie that exists to provide some cheap laughs. War Machine has a message and actual depth to it to support the laughs and the sillier moments in the movie.

So, War Machine is a movie with a message and it’s one that I can agree with. Unfortunately, the film’s biggest problem lies with how this message is conveyed at certain times. Throughout the movie we hear Scoot McNairy’s character doing a voice over and explaining certain things that are happening in the film or describing a character we are meeting for the first time. This helps since there are a lot of minor characters in this movie and everyone is constantly traveling around. While this helps with certain things, it also comes across as annoying more often than it should. The character of Sean Cullen is fine when he’s actually with McMahon and the other soldiers, but his voice over is so cynical and snide, while also beating the viewer on the head with the opinions being expressed in the movie. It was kind of annoying being told how I should be thinking. If the writing of the voice over was toned down just a little bit, that would have been great. I can figure out the messages and themes of movies, so I really don’t need them explained to me in this way.

One of my main draws to this movie was to see Brad Pitt in yet another role where he’s playing someone completely out of the ordinary. Pitt takes this part of McMahon and completely embodies it. From his odd posture, to his facial ticks, and even the goofy way he walks and runs, he’s perfectly believable as this character and it’s easy to forget you’re watching an actor, even if his face is so recognizable. Sir Ben Kingsley is also hilarious as the off the wall president of Afghanistan that McMahon is trying to cooperate with, even if they’re both not on the same page with each other at all. Kingsley is really hardly in this film, but most every scene has Pitt in it. Unfortunately, while everyone else around them do their jobs fine, they aren’t given a whole lot to do other than the bidding of McMahon, and while there are funny moments surrounding their characters they don’t really have too much that stands out.

At the end of it, War Machine is a pretty funny film with a memorable lead character and a sharp satirical look at America’s goings on in the Middle East. It isn’t really a heavy film, so if you’re looking for serious war and drama, look elsewhere. War Machine is packed with great satire and a tad too much cynicism for my taste. Still, as far as comedies go, it’s definitely one that’s worth a look.

Final Grade: B+

Advertisements

Drugstore Cowboy – Review

28 May

In 1990, a novel by James Fogle was released. The text told an autobiographical tale of drug addiction, crime, and the consequences that come with the decisions to engage in that type of lifestyle. Interestingly enough, a movie called Drugstore Cowboy came out in 1989 which is based off of the novel that came out in 1990. Well, that’s a weird circumstance, but a lot of it had to do with the fact that Fogle was still in prison in 1989 and wasn’t released until the following year. With Gus Van Sant in the director’s chair and source material such as this, this film was bound to become something special.

Bob Hughes (Matt Dillon) is living life to the fullest. He has a beautiful girlfriend named Dianne (Kelly Lynch), he has friends that are willing to follow him to the ends of the earth, and he spends his days free of any kind of employment to live his life as a free spirit. He’s also addicted to all sorts of drugs, and will go to any lengths for a fix. His main source of pharmaceutical income is to rob drugstores blind. His luck seems to be coming to an end when a particularly invasive run in with Detective Gentry (James Remar) forces him to leave town and find new means of getting his fix elsewhere. Unfortunately, Bob and his crew can’t seem to catch a break and it doesn’t take long for tragedy to hit the group harder than they ever expected. This forces Bob to really examine what he’s done with his life and wether he’s willing to give it all up to finally find some stability or stick with his usual ways and live a life where death is right around the corner and paranoia is his right hand man.

In 1996, Trainspotting was released and changed the way films about drugs could be made. In 2000, Requiem for a Dream was released and this film redefined these rules. Before all that, however, was Drugstore Cowboy. This was a modern look at drug addiction that helped pave the ways for these other classic films. By today’s standards, Drugstore Cowboy is pretty tame, but it stands tall in the world of film history. This was a movie that showed a realistic and disturbing side to drug addiction, while also being darkly funny in its dialogue and minor idiosyncrasies that are present in all humans, even if they are addicted to world altering substances. This is where this film shines. It shows characters with deep flaws, other than the obvious, while also showing their strengths. It’s clear that Van Sant didn’t want to take sides, but rather depict addiction in its true form when it comes to physiology and the law.

With its meandering plot points and unfocused direction, Van Sant successfully portrayed the lifestyle he was trying to depict. In any other movie, this would be a fault, but since we’re talking about addicts who will hit the open road whenever they want to and completely relocate their lives, it works well. Something that doesn’t work all too well for me is how Van Sant examines the consequences of their actions. There are a few excellent scenes where the characters get what’s coming to them, and those are some of the more satisfying scenes of Drugstore Cowboy, because it makes the choices the characters make have more weight. Then again, there’s something that happens in the middle of the movie that doesn’t end up being resolved by the end. It’s also a little hard to believe these characters can remain so calm and appear so cool under certain circumstances right after how they just got done saying how desperate they are to get high. Maybe Trainspotting just spoiled me.

The writing in this movie is definitely unique. For most of the movie, we have characters in situations that I could really see happening. Matt Dillon is excellent as Bob Hughes, the leader of this gang of miscreants. He plays well with Kelly Lynch, James LeGros, and Heather Graham. Graham and LeGros have a chemistry all their own, which also adds good moments of comedy and serious drama. It’s also a real treat to see William S. Burroughs as a drug pedaling priest. The dialogue they are given often works well, like when Bob is talking about his different superstitions. There are times that it feels a little bit too theatrical, which is something I’ve seen in Van Sant’s work before. For a movie that is trying very hard to be realistic, it kind of loses me when hear a line that sounds like it was written for a movie and not for a character I’m supposed to believe is real.

Drugstore Cowboy is definitely a movie in this subgenre of drug movies that holds a firm spot in film history. It was an honest look at the lifestyle of these wandering addicts that I haven’t seen depicted before this film. I will say that I would have liked it to go a little bit farther. That means the movie could have been a little longer or maybe if the boundaries were pushed a little bit more. Still, despite the lack of grit that I would have liked to have seen, it shows characters that I’ll have no problem remembering and scenarios that are completely unique to this movie. It’s not my favorite movie on the topic, but it’s still a very good film.

Final Grade: B+

Starship Troopers Series – Review: Part 1

15 Sep

Science fiction is one of my favorite genres of film, and when you add the themes of war and militarization along with the enemies being giant bugs from another planet, I’m completely on board. This makes the Starship Troopers movies right up my alley, but not all of them have gotten much praise. Based off of a 1959 novel by Robert Heinlein, the story of humanity in a utopian, yet oddly fascist, world in the 23rd century who go to war against a race known as the Bugs provided a lot of heavy handed messages that the author believed in. It seems pretty ripe for feature film story telling, and in some ways it worked. This series, like many others, certainly has its fair share of ups and downs.

Let’s start with Paul Verhoeven’s original cult classic from 1997, Starship Troopers.

starship_troopers_dvd

By the 23rd century, the Earth is now classified as a federation that is ruled in a fascistic and militaristic way. It’s a strange utopia that condones violence to survive and the only way to become a citizen is to serve in some branch of the military. That’s exactly what Johnny Rico (Casper Van Dien) intends to do once he graduates high school. Along with his friends Carl (Neil Patrick Harris), Carmen (Denise Richards) and Dizzy (Dina Meyer), Rico joins the military and is assigned with Dizzy to Mobile Infantry. After a race of giant insects called the Bugs shoot an asteroid across the galaxy and completely wipe out Buenos Aires, the Mobile Infantry and the Federation’s air fleet mobilize to the Bug planet of Klendathu, where a bloody war begins for the survival of the human race.

When it was first released, Starship Troopers was not met with too much success critically and the box office return was less than what was expected. Over the years, however it’s gained a status as a cult classic. When the film first begins and a lot of time is spent at the high school and basic training, I was worried that this would be an uneven mess with a disappointingly low amount of action. The first 45 minutes seemed to drag, but when the action does begin, I became thankful for all the time setting up the characters’ personalities and relationships. This makes the war scenes all the more impactful, and when someone gets hurt or is killed, I really felt like something was lost. Believe it or not, this is not a mindless movie and does evoke some real emotion, even though the acting is less than stellar.

Let’s face it, though, this is a sci-fi war film, so let’s get into the real nitty gritty. Paul Verhoeven may have had some missteps as a film maker, but it’s much easier to remember his films like Starship TroopersTotal Recall, and RoboCop. This movie stands as one of his achievements. The special effects are out of this world for the time and were even nominated for an Academy Award. When the Bugs swarm the soldiers, the movie gets so intense and action packed, which is where it really shines. There’s also lots of what I like to call “Verhoeven gore,” which, if your like me, adds some fun to the movie. He just seems to love blowing people up. Finally, this film works great as a satire of fascism and blind love and devotion to the military. The 1959 novel this film is based on got a lot of flack for seemingly glorifying a Nazi-like utopia. Verhoeven used this, flipped it on its head, and created bitingly funny satire that’s the backbone of this entire movie.

While I was planning on not really liking this movie when it first started up, I ended up loving it as the credits began rolling. It’s such a fun movie loaded with action, great special effects, and hilarious satire that starts in the very first scene. I was even surprised with how much I cared for the characters, despite some rather tone deaf performances. This is a movie I wish did better when it was first released so Verhoeven would have returned for a sequel. Nevertheless, it is what it is and this particular movie is a total sci-fi blast.

Final Grade: A-

I feel like I was just talking about direct to video movies with my review of the Darkman films, and here I go again. The original Starship Troopers was the only film to make it to theaters, and all the sequels went right for the home viewers. Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation premiered on Encore (now known as Starz Encore) in 2004, and then went on DVD a few months later. The reasons can not be more clear.

starship-troopers-2-movie-poster-2004-1020257941

The war against the Bugs has been raging for nearly 5 years, and while the humans are victorious in many places, there are fronts where the Bugs have the clear upper hand. On one such planets, a group of troopers are overrun by a swarm of Bugs and are forced to retreat to an abandoned outpost called Hotel 1-8-5. With their commanding officer, General Shepard (Ed Lauter), missing, the squad is under the new leadership of psychic Lt. Dill (Lawrence Monoson) and Sgt. Rake (Brenda Strong). As the Bugs find the outpost and prepare to attack, Pvt. Sahara (Colleen Porch) releases an imprisoned officer, Captain Dax (Richard Burgi), in the outpost to help fight against the swarm. What these troopers don’t know is that the Bugs can now infect people and infiltrate squads from within, which spells danger for these soldiers confined to this small area.

With Hero of the Federation, we go from the knock out action, special effects, and satire from the first one and just downgrade it to what comes close to the lowest it can possibly get. I understand that a t.v. movie isn’t going to have the budget of a Hollywood feature film, but my goodness this movie looks hideous. Aside from the fact that it was shot on HD video, it’s just a dark and colorless film. All of the exterior shots are filmed at night with only a small area lit or sand completely covering up any scenery that could’ve given me an idea of where everything was taking place. Once the soldiers get into Hotel 1-8-5, things remain dark and colorless, but everything now just looks old and gross. I give the film makers credit for the claustrophobic feeling, which is nailed really well, but this is just not an easy movie to look at.

Phil Tippett, who is known for his special effects work on Jurassic Park and the first Starship Troopers, returns to direct this film which helps in a lot of ways. For one thing, for a t.v. movie that’s then released right to DVD, the special effects are really good. They aren’t stunning, but there are some scenes that had really impressive practical work. I can’t really say the same about his work with the actors. The acting in the first film really wasn’t anything special, but this is a different story completely. There are some line deliveries that made me either cringe or burst out laughing. The fact that this isn’t a big budget film really isn’t much of an excuse since I’ve seen t.v. movies with impressive performances. I feel like the ambition of this project just didn’t meet the standards of what was actually possible in making a good movie.

Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation is more than a disappointing sequel. It hardly even registers as a sequel. Not only was it released almost 8 years after the original, but it was also a t.v. movie that loses a lot in translation to the small screen. The acting is subpar, the cinematography is bland, and the only saving grace is some cool special effects and an action filled ending. If you want to watch a movie with close to the exact same storyline, watch The Thing, or forget this storyline and just put on the original Starship Troopers.

Final Grade: D

So far we have a one great movie and one that really bugged the hell out of me, pun definitely intended. We still have a few more movies to go with this series, but that review will be coming soon. For now, stick with the original.

The Right Stuff – Review

8 Mar

To me, the idea of going into space is like the worst thing ever. I’m quite comfortable staying down here on good old planet Earth for the rest of my life. For some people however, that just isn’t enough. Take for example the Mercury Seven, the American astronauts that were some of the first people to go to space, and the very first people to orbit the Earth. This is the story of The Right Stuff, a movie by Philip Kaufman based off of the book by Tom Wolfe. It’s a very interesting and adventurous movie that tells the stories of these astronauts very well, and for that I applaud it. On the other hand, this movie is goes on for what seems like forever and could have been either trimmed down or made into two separate movies.

Right_stuff_ver1

The story begins back in 1947 when there was a belief that it was impossible that it was impossible to reach the speed needed to surpass Mach 1 and break the sound barrier. That is until UNSAF pilot Chuck Yeager (Sam Shepard) stood up to the challenge and pushed the Bell X-1 jet faster than any before it and broke the sound barrier. This opens up many doors for scientific aeronautic progression for the United States, and pressure begins building as the United States enters the space race with the Soviet Union. The rest of the film follows the Mercury 7 astronauts (Dennis Quaid, Ed Harris, Scott Glenn, Lance Henriksen, Scott Paulin, Fred Ward, and Charles Frank) and their different experiences training, finally going into space, and the effect it has on their social status and families.

No one can really deny that the story of The Right Stuff may be one of the greatest stories ever told. In all aspects, it’s a story of bravery, camaraderie, and love all woven together by historical truths and the knowledge that most of what we see really happened. The events shown in this movie are crucial scientific breakthroughs, and that being said, I wish this was a longer movie. Well, sort of. Watching this film in one sitting was pretty daunting, and by the end I was ready for it to be over. What I mean is that this is another one of those movies that would’ve have been a lot better if it was turned into a mini series. There’s so much history in The Right Stuff that sometimes feels glazed right over. Despite it’s run time of three hours and fifteen minutes, I still felt that there was more of a story to tell.

the-right-stuff-1024x576

The Right Stuff got its limited release in October of 1983, while Return of the Jedi got released in May of that same year. I’m saying this because I want everyone to have an idea of what sort of special effects could be accomplished at that time. For 1983, The Right Stuff had some pretty incredible special effects that still hold up today. Using practical effects like models, stock footage, and other unique effects, the effects in this movie gave it a very authentic feel. I also have to mention Caleb Deschanel’s beautiful cinematography that helps bridge the gap between authentic and cinematic.

It’s impossible to talk about The Right Stuff without mentioning its truly all star cast. Not only is it a very large cast, but its a cast that does their jobs very well. My personal favorite performances come from Ed Harris as John Glenn and Dennis Quaid as Gordon Cooper, although Scott Glenn’s portrayal of Alan Shepard is also memorable. They’re all just so into their characters, and Ed Harris especially could be John Glenn’s doppelgänger. The only person I feel is underused is Lance Henriksen. I’m a big fan of Henriksen, so the more I see of him the better.

The Right Stuff may feel like it goes on forever and it may get kind of cheesy with its over the top patriotism, but it is still one hell of a movie. The special effects, performances, music, and cinematography are all top notch and it tells a really great story, even if some of it isn’t all too accurate. While it wasn’t met with much attention when it was released, The Right Stuff is now regarded as a landmark film of the 1980s, and I can certainly understand why and wholeheartedly agree.

The Bourne Series – Review Part II

28 Jan

Let’s get back to the Bourne series. In the first review, I stated that The Bourne Identity has been one of my favorite action films since I can remember, and that The Bourne Supremacy is a flawed but worthy sequel. Now we have The Bourne Ultimatum and the most recent entry, The Bourne Legacy. This is going to be a very conflicting review because one of these movies is quite frankly one of the best action movies ever made, and the other is an unnecessary mess that made me feel like I wasn’t even watching a Bourne movie. I think you could guess which one I’m talking about. Nevertheless, let’s get this started.

The series continued in 2007 with The Bourne Ultimatum.

The_Bourne_Ultimatum_(2007_film_poster)

Picking up right where The Bourne Supremacy left off, Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) is trying to covertly make his way out of Moscow. Six weeks after his escape, the CIA begins tailing journalist Simon Ross (Paddy Considine) after he publishes articles about Bourne and is overheard on his phone talking about Operation Blackbriar. This forces Bourne to also track him to find who his source of all this information is. Now  back in the crosshairs of the CIA, specifically Deputy Director Noah Vosen (David Straithairn) and the more sympathetic Pamela Landy (Joan Allen), Bourne fights his way across the globe trying to find answers about his past and Operation Treadstone, which ultimately leads him back to New York City where the truth will all finally be revealed.

Way up high on the Mount Olympus of film, The Bourne Ultimatum acts as one of the main representatives of action. It’s everything you want in an action movie, but then also delivers an intelligent story and rich characters. I will say that the annoying Paul Greengrass shaky cam is still there, but the action is so wild that I could easily look past it. There are stunts that happen in this movie that goes to show you don’t need CGI for everything. One scene in particular shows a car going up a divider and spinning off of it into another car which causes both of them to roll out of control. Watching the special features on how they did that was absolutely incredible and makes this movie even more impressive.

The Bourne Ultimatum is easily the best film in the entire series. It reveals a lot about Bourne’s past, introduces new villains while reinforcing heroes we’ve come to love. There’s plenty of action and espionage to keep the most jaded and critical film goer at bay while also telling a really dark and intelligent story that mirrors the real world in some scary ways. My only real complaint is how Greengrass uses the camera in action sequences, but it really wasn’t as annoying as it was in The Bourne Supremacy. The bottom line is that this is one of the best action films ever to be made and deserves all of the praise and accolades that it receives.

After that masterpiece, there was a lot to live up to. What came next, however, was kind of weird. That was the 2012 film The Bourne Legacy.

The_Bourne_Legacy_Poster

Taking place during and after the events of The Bourne Ultimatum, The Bourne Legacy introduces Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner), a genetically enhanced super soldier who’s part of a CIA black op called Operation Outcome. The consequences of Bourne’s actions mixed with inner departmental problems forces Eric Byer (Edward Norton) to completely shut down Operation Outcome, and by that he means whipe out all of the agents working around the globe. They don’t count on Cross surviving the attack and how desperate he would be to get his hands on the pills that keep him genetically superior. He soon finds and enlists the help of Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz), a biochemist who has analyzed and treated the agents of Operation Outcome. The two travel to the Philippines to inject Cross with a serum that will permanently keep him a step above the rest, but the CIA and local authorities seem to always be around every corner.

As I was watching The Bourne Legacy, I was really trying hard to get into it. Edward Norton and Rachel Weisz both give good performances, and Jeremy Renner makes Aaron Cross a very memorable and fully realized character. There were even a few scenes that were really cool, like a long take that has Cross scaling a house, going into a window, and shooting someone. That’s where it all ends. This movie does not feel like an addition to the Bourne series. There’s only a few scenes with characters from the trilogy and brief mentioning of things that Bourne is doing. Cross doesn’t even really qualify as a “legacy” because he’s part of Operation Outcome and not Treadstone. I don’t understand this movie in the least.

The Bourne Legacy is really missing out on a lot of key elements that make the other movies great. For one thing, the sense of completely grounded realism is gone for me with the introduction of these pills that make super soldiers. Another thing is that the action is less than stellar and even boring. Finally, there just isn’t enough of a connection to the other movies. It’s one thing that Jason Bourne isn’t even in this, but there was still a lot of room to make a spin off that really brings the movies together. Unfortunately we got this mess of a movie.

Well there you have it. The first three Bourne movies are spectacular action movies that helped redefine what the genre should be while also telling a story full of intriguing characters and memorable twists. Just don’t let The Bourne Legacy sour what those movies accomplished.

GoodFellas – Review

11 Oct

Here we go, ladies and gentlemen. This review is a doozy since I will be looking at one of the most acclaimed, praised, and altogether adored American films of all time. This, of course, is Martin Scorsese’s 1990 gangster epic GoodFellas. I don’t really know if I have any new opinions to add to table that haven’t already been said, so this review might just be a reiteration of many other critics and fans. What can I do, though? This film truly is a classic and I really had to review it eventually. Many people say that this is the best mob movie ever made, but I have to go with The Godfather: Part II. Even so, GoodFellas is an incredible movie and the landmark film of Scorsese’s illustrious career.

goodfellas

For as long as Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) could remember, he wanted to be a gangster. He gets his wish at a fairly young age when local mobster Paulie Cicero (Paul Sorvino) takes an interest in him and starts him off with a couple of jobs. As the years progress, Hill becomes a more respected member of the family along with his two best friend Jimmy Conway (Robert Di Niro) and Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci). The three have become accomplished professional criminals and enjoy living the luxurious life of a gangster. As time goes on, however, the three friends soon find out that this idea of mob life was just fantasy, especially when their friends begin dying at a much more rapid rate, drugs begin taking their money, and their family lives begin to crumble around them.

I felt like I said the word “epic” too much in my previous review for The Martian, and this is another one of those times where that word is going to be thrown all over the place. GoodFellas is an epic crime story that, to me, almost seems impossible to pull off. I think it would’ve been if it were in any other hands other than Martin Scorsese. The biggest feat that Scorsese accomplished with this movie was cramming thirty years into two and a half hours. All of the important times of these people’s lives are shown, but I never felt like I missed out on anything else because of the intelligent uses of montage to skim over more unimportant parts, but still give the audience the full story.

Goodfellas-Tribeca-Film-Festival-screening

Of course none of this epic storytelling would have worked if there wasn’t an excellent cast backing everything up. At the forefront, GoodFellas has Ray Liotta, Robert Di Niro, and Joe Pecsi. Ray Liotta gives the best performance of his career as Henry Hill. It’s interesting watching Liotta here because it shows a range that I haven’t really seen in his acting anywhere else. Di Niro works great as always, but Pesci really steals the show as the sadistic Tommy DeVito. Pesci took home the Academy award for Best Supporting Actor for his performance as well. Other than the three leading roles, I have to also give a lot of credit to Lorraine Bracco, who plays Henry Hill’s wife. The arc her character goes through is great, and she remains consistently on point with her character as the years stretch on in the film.

GoodFellas, believe it or not, is actually based off of a true crime book called Wiseguy written by Nicolas Pileggi in 1986. Scorsese got into contact with Pileggi, and both of them excitedly began working on the screenplay. What I’m getting at is the brilliance with which they handle the writing. Scenes were written with action and dialogue, but they knew that they had to let the actors act as naturally as the possibly could. The actors that were assembled were so talented and the writing was so real, that a lot of improvisation and natural reacting took place, which makes everything really seem to jump from the screen. This isn’t a glamorized version of mob life, and that’s exactly what the intention was. The writing combined with the acting makes it seem real, gritty, and altogether miserable in the end.

GoodFellas may not be my favorite mob movie ever, but it’s certainly up there with my favorites. Looking back on this movie, there really is nothing to complain about. Everything is so spot on from the cinematography, to the writing, and the acting. Still, the most impressive thing is how much material is squeezed into this movie, all while keeping the pacing fast and exciting. GoodFellas isn’t just the high point in Martin Scorsese’s career, it also marks a high point for American film as a whole.

The Untouchables – Review

5 Oct

The 1930s was an interesting time in American history. The Great Depression hit in 1929 which forced many people to make money to provide for themselves by any means necessary. Since this was happening during the time of Prohibition, a lot of these people used the demand of alcohol to their advantage. One of the biggest names was Al Capone, who built an entire empire and was one of the forerunners of organized crime in the United States. This leads me into Brian De Palma’s 1987 film The Untouchables, based on a book of the same name and a television show from the 1950s. With source material like this, it’s no surprise that this film has become one of the most respected gangster movies of all time and, I think, Brian De Palma’s best film.

the-untouchables-movie-poster-1987-1020259684-1

In the early 1930s, Al Capone (Robert De Niro) practically runs the city of Chicago and makes millions of dollars through the illegal distribution of alcohol. He’s also a dangerous and violent criminal who uses intimidation and murder to force people into doing business with him. This causes the Bureau of Prohibition to create a task force just to bring him down and choose Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner) to be the head of this group. Ness finds working with a whole task force to be dangerous and nearly impossible, so he makes up a team all his own. They are beat cop Malone (Sean Connery), new recruit George Stone (Andy Garcia), and accountant Oscar Wallace (Charles Martin Smith). The group is soon nicknamed “The Untouchables,” but they soon realize that’s not true as the pressure they put on Capone force him to put the pressure back on them.

I hate it when critics use the word “captivating” to describe a movie. It’s such a cheesy adjective and I simply don’t like it, but allow me to be a hypocrite just this once. The Untouchables is a captivating movie. Everything just comes together so well to make a movie that reminds me why I love movies so much in the first place. Normally I hate when a movie is based off true events and is completely inaccurate, but David Mamet’s screenplay makes me forget all that and just enjoy the story that he put together. With Mamet’s screenplay, Brian De Palma’s expert hand at directing, the cast, and Ennio Morricone’s note perfect and unique score, The Untouchables was practically sculpted by the gods.

The-Untouchables-Church

There’s a lot of great actors attached to this movie like Kevin Costner, Sean Connery, Robert De Niro, and Andy Garcia. While everyone does a fine job, there are a few stand out performances that exceed great and wind up in the territory of excellence. These exceptions are Sean Connery and Robert De Niro. Now, De Niro isn’t really surprising, but I never really looked at Connery as a great actor. He can act fine, but his performance in The Untouchables is the highlight of his talent. He brings humor and the right amount of sincerity and drama to the role of Malone, which makes this movie worth watching just to see him act. D Niro, on the other hand, while not being in the movie all that much, makes every scene that he’s in memorable. He plays Al Capone with viciousness, slime, and makes him a very entertaining person to watch.

Like I said before, this movie is pretty far from being accurate. For example, Eliot Ness and Al Capone never actually met face to face during the whole ordeal, and Capone never actually violently attacked back. Also, Frank Nitti wasn’t involved in things like he was in this movie. But, this movie presents a stylized version of reality that makes it so hard to look away. Brian De Palma is known for making highly stylized, but not over the top films. There are scenes in this movie that will be remembered until the day I die, like the shootout on the bridge and the slow motion gunfight in the train station. These scenes combined with Morricone’s score just get to me in ways that movies should.

Brian De Palma’s filmography has had some rough patches, but also some that define film making perfectly. I love Scarface just as much as the next guy, but when it comes to mob movies that De Palma has done, my favorite has to be The Untouchables. It tells a story so perfectly with characters and their arcs so defined, that it’s easy to care about what happens to all of them. It also is reality through a stylish looking glass that shows a world like our own, but somehow just a little different. That’s the magic of the movies, and that’s why this film is a must see.