Cross of Iron

Cross Of Iron takes an atypical view, particularly for an American film of the time, where he it examines World War II through German soldiers. The film though naturally is an examination of cynical, yet caring, men who continue on through a war they don't believe in, knowing the they will lose sooner or later. This is against the one passionate Captain, well played by Maximilian Schell, who is hell bent on earning a Iron Cross from the higher command, a symbol recognition his fellow soldiers have earned yet have no interest in them. Although I should note this film is somewhat imperfect as the fact that it was not completely finished does seem evident in the rushed finale, however that does not defeat the remarkable efforts from the rest of the film. This is an excellent example of Sam Peckinpah's ways as a director who would never shy from the most brutal violence, in fact one could argue he glories in it with his use of slow motion to emphasize it, however there is this real warmth in his style all the same. There is always a sense that Peckinpah deeply cares for his characters which is pivotal here as it realizes the day to day life of these men attempting to get by in the war despite the odds being against them, as well as their own immediate superior. It's a fascinating film that works in actually often being made up of the little moments between the soldiers, so often of the little joy they still can find in their lives, which results in a powerful film about these men as much as a story about the rot of the Nazi army. It works as the latter as well, but it aims higher than this and succeeds in creating a brutal yet moving portrait of good soldiers on the wrong side.
4.5/5

Paths of Glory

Paths Of Glory is actually a bit of an outlier in Stanley Kubrick's filmography. Although the technical prowess of his direction found in his films is on display the film itself is by far his most humanistic film. Although Kubrick will allow a conduit for the audience to sympathize with or emphasize with to at least some extent he usually plays around with the supporting characters who are purposefully distant and strange. This is not the case in this film which seeks to find the humanity in every one. This includes even the worst characters, such as the cowardly Lieutenant Roget is granted a surprising degree of sympathy, and while this is not granted to glory seeking General Mireau his desperation for that glory is shown within a certain context. He's not made something grotesque, his actions are what grotesque, while we are allowed to see the man who beneath them. This approach realizes Kubrick's most emotionally resonate and powerful film. There is such care given to the soldiers that he allows one to witness the cruelty of the injustice within the system of war, where men are randomly selected for cowardice in order to act as a scape goat for the failures of battle. This isn't a film directly about the horrors of war, rather the horrors of the system that allows it and the insanity and insecurities that allow it thrive. Kubrick allows glints of optimism here, most notably through the powerhouse performance by Kirk Douglas, but just in the general tenderness towards his characters throughout. This is most notable, in Kubrick's greatest scene, which is saying something, where the group of soldiers find a respite in the song The Faithful Hussar, before going off to war once again. It is one of Kubrick's masterpieces, and the success of the film makes me ponder what he might have done with a few more film of this ilk.
5/5

Drive

The question about Drive is why is it a masterpiece? The story isn't anything new in fact you can find both Driver and Thief to see similar plots. Drive is a testament though that execution can matter sometimes more than originality of the plot, especially when the originality can be found in that execution. Drive has a well worn plot yet never feels tired. This is in part due to the downright brilliant direction by Nicolas Winding-Refn which realizes scenes that have certainly existed before in ways one has never seen before. This can be a more overt way such as in the opening where he places you within the getaway car in the opening heist/car chase. A potential gimmick beautifully realized to create a visceral unique sequence unlike any other in the genre. Now as much as the direction excels within these breathless actions sequences this extends to any given moment in the film far beyond where you'd even expect. There is a mastery within this style that Winding-Refn makes even just a scene of day in the wilderness is something so captivating. As with so many of the all time great films it effortlessly melds this style, with character, and its simple yet compelling plot. No facet is lost in this and this is one of the films I'd describe as realizing the magic of film in a way. Every aspect of film so effortlessly is melded together from the cinematography, to the writing, to the great acting, the sound, and of course the incredible music. Winding-Refn is the star of this film though in how well he utilizes all of this together to make a masterpiece that could have been a fairly rote action thriller in the wrong hands. Take the elevator scene which I'd put with among the greatest scenes of all time, where the full power the visual medium can be seen. Not a word is said yet in its gorgeous lighting, precise action of the scene, the specific acting particularly from Ryan Gosling that conveys such an incredible emotional weight that makes the moment one of the most romantic in cinematic history, and one of the most violent. That scene is one of the reasons I love the film, but also why I love film.
5/5

The Imitation Game

The Imitation Game has a rich history in the man of Alan Turing. Turing being a brilliant computer scientist essential in the creation of a decoder computer that helped to break the Nazi code during World War II. He was also a homosexual at a time where it was illegal in England which lead to his tragic downfall shortly after the war. An atypical life lead to an atypical film, not in actual execution but through its process of attempting to tell the story of Turing as a mainstream crowd pleaser. The film attempts to tell both stories however these stories are so different it is hard to wholly capture both. The film does not succeed in naturally streamlining this due to mostly its ending which is too much of challenge to cohere to the overarching approach. Now I will say that overarching approach is effective in granting an old fashioned biopic to Turing. It doesn't ignore his homosexual life however it downplays it towards focusing instead on his introverted eccentricity. This does work, largely due to Benedict Cumberbatch's dedicated performance, and the story of the code breaking is potent enough to carry much of the film. It however even in this aspect loses its grip somewhat with its choice to introduce as espionage subplot that adds essentially enough style of film into the overarching one. When it is the streamlined biopic it works, when it falls into the tragic story of Turing it suffers since it doesn't devote enough time to it. The scenes of the past do work but again these naturally fit into the biopic structure. The tragedy is undercut because of the rush to include which sadly feels forced within the rest of the film especially when the film leaves on uplifting note despite the fact our central lead commits suicide.
3.5/5

The Godfather Part III

The Godfather Part III went in really with quite the colossal task. It needed to somehow live up to its predecessors, which already had garnered its reputation as an undisputed masterpiece. That was not alone. There was even a bit of hazards, common to sequels, where for example the key cast member of Robert Duvall had to be written out, and it would seem so many of the character arcs were at an end in the first film. Where was there to go? Well only down this time, as with film trilogies third time is very often not the charm. I should say the Godfather Part III isn't a horrible film, it's just not a very good which is a problem when you come after two films deemed masterpieces by almost all. There are parts of it that are pretty horrible though. A few of the action moments, particularly a helicopter attack don't belong anywhere near a Godfather film and seem far more fitting to a generic crime thriller. Sophia Coppola as Michael's daughter is as a bad as the reputation suggests. Her wooden turn not only burdens every scene she is in, she ruins what is suppose to be a moment of sheer emotional devastation through her all time horrid line delivery of only a single line. Her "dad" is truly a marvel of bad acting. Her father really needed to find an actor for role as his daughter lacked the talent in that area. Also the film has one of the all time worst makeup jobs for a mainstream big budget film in whatever they slapped on Pacino for the last scene of the film ensuring the last shot of The Godfather as a whole was a laughable one. Those are the parts of the film that are horrible, the middle parts are more of just not anything special. The film retreads material from the first two films while rarely really expanding or continuing on it in interesting ways. We get just new Michael with touches of Sonny to come in, we just get a new evil don to take down, we get a new potential intrigue with a relationship with the church that doesn't really go anywhere, and we get a final sequence of death that try yet fail to come close to either of the finales of the first two films. Having said that there is just a touch of the old Godfather greatness to be found amidst a great deal of mediocrity. This mostly is in the exploration of Michael's regrets of his past mistakes. These scenes do capitalize on what came before in natural way and the scene where he confesses to the cardinal over the murder of Fredo is genuinely moving. These scenes though are few and far between. This is not an awful film however it is worthy for the distinction of one of the biggest disappointments of all time.
2.5/5

The Godfather Part II

The Godfather Part II went in really with quite the colossal task. It needed to somehow live up to its predecessor, which already had garnered its reputation as an undisputed masterpiece. That was not alone. There was even a bit of hazards, common to sequels, where for example the key cast member of Richard S. Castellano had to be essentially recast, it would seem so many of the character arcs were at an end in the first film. Where was there to go? Well only up in my reckoning though also back. Again just throwing in another facet that could have backfired but did not was the use of the dual storylines the future with Michael and the past with young Vito. Prequels perhaps have a worse track record than sequels, however Godfather Part II proved itself past all challenges or expectations to be the greatest prequel of all time, one of the greatest sequels of all time, and one film that I actually find surpasses the original. Foremost everything that was great about the first film was great again in terms of the acting, cinematography, score, production design, the film is not lacking any single part. Now in the story though Michael's arc might have seemed at the end in the first film, however fact that Coppola successfully continues this is astonishing as he shows what it would mean to become and to continue to try to live as this man as well as a Don in ever changing times. In terms of the story we get a different view this time as Michael deals now outside of the Italian families realms dealing with a different type of evil in Hyman Roth, and a different type set of weapons to be used against him. This while through the examination of his growing isolation as this man as he continues to try to secure his family while becoming more alone in doing so. This is best realized through the most potent aspect of the film with John Cazale as Michael's brother Fredo. Fredo was basically an afterthought in the first film, and it is a testament to the brilliance of Coppola to utilize the minor role for something truly substantial as well as see the talent that Cazale had been able to show even with such limited screen time in the first film. Coppola is able to expand on what come before in every respect using the complexities to naturally continue the story. This is all buttressed by the prequel of the story of Young Vito where Coppola excels in expanding on those underlying themes of the American dream within the story, now finding the immigrant experience in such vibrant detail. He gives a whole another world, another side before the first film that is as interesting and perhaps even more captivating in its depiction of the rise of the young Vito. Again though as much as Coppola succeeds in the grand set pieces, every major character moment, the film is as defined by every minor detail that helps to craft this masterpiece of cinema that is a standard both for any sequel as well as any prequel.
5/5

The Godfather

The Godfather is one of the populist choices for the greatest film of all time, well populist with any taste that is, and well that's a fair enough assessment. The Godfather has been always a film I've been slightly hesitant to heap that praise, not because it doesn't really deserve it, but rather because there simply are other great films. The Godfather though in unequivocally a great film anyways, even if I don't quite adhere to the overriding sentiment that above and beyond as these films go. The Godfather still stands in itself, forgetting any other factors, as an amazing achievement. The Godfather realizes the richness of its source material and bests it through Francis Ford Coppola's brilliant adaptation in just about every possible sense. Rather than playing into the tropes of the traditional crime film it reinvented them through a revision to examine it through a far more intimate portrait of this crime family that is more important to the film than the crimes they commit. Coppola has the appreciation for this family dynamic that goes beyond even the immediate family even within the sort warmth in the uncle figures of the Caporegimes. Coppola furthers this in crafting such a vivid sense of the Italian heritage and traditions both in the family, even in the food, but also in the criminal world in which they exist. The sheer vibrancy of the world is remarkable and the popularity of the film could perhaps be partially attached with this as there is even a certain comfort in this despite the violent nature of the story. That vibrancy is beyond atmosphere though coming within every character making actually future archetypes in a way, though with fully realized three dimensional characters. There being the wise don father Vito, the hotheaded Sonny, the very coolheaded Tom, the foolish Fredo, and Michael, the lead who begins as the unassuming reluctant hero to become technically a cold cutthroat villain though with the mindset that everything he's doing he's doing for his family. Where the film takes the characters is as a compelling through that complexity offering the crime world with their own double crosses and motivations, with fascinating figures even if for but a scene in some circumstances. The film seems to be essentially a blue print for a "great film" as it does everything. Brilliant structure, acting, production design, score, costumes, characters, you name it pretty much has it in this respect. This is never an exercise in this either as much as Coppola is efficiency in this his work was daring, whether it is his flawless execution of the non-violent, mostly, wedding sequence, or the very violent baptism scene Coppola strove for a truly cinematic and dynamic storytelling methods. Even as much as it isn't one of my personal favorites as a great film, it is a great film, and anyone who tells you otherwise will only be quoting Family Guy.
5/5