Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

Irvin Kershner, 1980

IMDB

4/5

Continuing on to revisiting the second film of the Star Wars franchise. 2 down, 4 to go. Getting a little nervous finishing the originals and venturing on the originals. It should be said I have never seen the prequel films YET. So after all is said and done, it will be a journey of revisiting my past and taking a chance on a controversial trio of films that I never have given a chance to previously. There is a lot of hype surrounding The Empire Strikes Back, as it is widely considered the best film of the Star Wars franchise. This is understandable. A New Hope is basically a set-up piece for the Empire Strikes. By now you are already invested in the characters. And there is an eagerness after Hope concludes to see the continuation of the story because it leaves you hanging. But probably because there’s a sense of extensive detail to the Star Wars universe. You visit it and get wrapped up, don’t want to leave after the final credits roll, and want to go back there again. There is a level of engagement to these films that other franchises would love to have. Some have succeeded, but many have fallen short.

This is one of those beloved films that is truly difficult to criticize. Even reflecting on it now, what the hell is wrong with this film? Is it possible that this is a flawless movie? It’s undoubtedly one of the best sequels of all time. It takes the first film and builds upon it with its bigger budget, exactly what you want a sequel to do. With the Star Wars films in general, its the always entertaining classic battle of good vs. evil. But this film boldly breaks some of the conventional movie rules as well, in terms of challenging the good guy always wins concept. It’s refreshing to see an sci-fi/action film with some gray area. While A New Hope focused a bit more on Luke’s backstory and building his character (and really the good guys in general), Darth Vader has more of a presence in the second film and is more of a showcase of his unforgiving brutality. But between the set design, story, special effects, Empire is a timeless masterpiece. It only reinforces the fact that it’s a great idea to revisit this franchise, including this film specifically, years after seeing it for the first time. There’s new things to see, new things to appreciate. The classic light-saber battle may be in the depths of your brain, but let it come to the surface again. Come back to this one as an adult if you already haven’t, it’s worth it.

The Bicycle Thief

Vittorio De Sica, 1948

Can I Stream It?

5/5

Antonio's (Lamberto Maggiorani) sudden excitement from landing a new job putting up posters throughout the city is diminished when the bicycle he needs to complete his work on a daily basis is stolen.

A truly minimalist story in which the plot could really be summed up by saying its a movie about a man looking for his bike. But of course it's more than that. The pursuit of this precious sole mode of transportation is so important. The Post WWII environment leaves a lot of specialized men desperately looking for work. Desperate to the point where they are stepping over one another in an effort to take what positions they can get. When he realizes that the contingency of his new position is that he needs a bicycle to make the rounds, the bicycle becomes more than just soldered pieces of steel with two wheels. It becomes an idol of his livelihood. He NEEDS this job to prove himself as a provider to his family. In that sense, Antonio is the post-war everyman. He has mouths to feed. His son Bruno (Enzo Staiola being the standout performance of the film) looks up to him, often literally looking up to him from a few feet below as he stands beside him. Bruno becomes his mouthy companion as he scours the city looking for the priceless piece. You get a feeling Antonio is fighting for his life. The city around him feels unforgiving. He fiercely searches for the bike, making sudden turns down stucco alleyways and meticulously exploring the local marketplaces. De Sica's simple story plays out on screen as anything but. The well-choreographed scenes literally come to life as the entire city is seemingly involved in the film, of course by no accident and a real testament to De Sica's abilities. A true needle in the haystack story. So much of the film feels ahead of its time, from the clean editing to the tracking shots. This is one of those classics that should just be in the annual rotation from this point forward.

Manhattan

Woody Allen, 1979

4/5

Woody Allen directs and stars in this classic black and white film about a writer who is torn between two relationships. One relationship is with a young seventeen year old girl named Tracy (Mariel Hemingway), and the other is with his best friend Yale's (Michael Murphy) mistress Mary (Diane Keaton).

The heavy-hearted dialogue is filled with intellectual grit and witty humor. The film explores the concept of opposites attracting. When Allen's character Isaac meets Mary for the first time, he acts as if he can't stand to hear her talk. The attraction grows, after lots of pigtail pulling. The highlights of Keaton's career are certainly her roles in Woody Allen's films, and she really provides an exceptional performance here consistent with her performance in Annie Hall two years earlier. Her confidence on screen is obvious. Hemingway is alluring as the innocent, introverted, culture-hungry high-schooler. Her character is a good example of the younger girl attached to the older man for what might possibly be the wrong reasons. She has no long-term relationships under her belt, and her lack of experience makes her vulnerable to Isaac's wise charm. Isaac successfully channels Allen's neurotic charm and quick banter. It's Woody Allen's love poem to one of his earliest muses - his dear hometown. So many beautiful images that could only be shown in black and white. The planetarium scene, the rain fall in Central Park, and the carriage ride also in Central Park. The skyline shots of with the array of illuminated squares. The classic shot of the bench in front of the Brooklyn Bridge. The deep blacks and the grainy grays are mesmerizing and effectively capture the Big Apple in the late 1970's. It's certainly one of his more inviting films. Romantic comedies are certainly his wheel-house, and he's effective at telling a story of a group of people completely preoccupied by their pursuit of love in his beloved Manhattan. 

12 Angry Men

Sidney Lumet, 1957

3/5

Twelve men of various ages and socioeconomic backgrounds are on a jury to decide the fate of a boy accused of stabbing his father to death. If there is a guilty verdict, that boy will most certainly be put in the electric chair. They take an immediate casual vote to see if they are all on the same page and can end the case quickly so they can quickly adjourn and get on with the rest of their lives. This doesn't happen so efficiently  The one "not guilty" vote by an anonymous juror creates turmoil. What follows is an examination of morality, compassion, and honesty. While Lumet's Network feels dated, this film does not. These themes are timeless. The film was shot so well, especially given the limited amount of space used. The entire film is basically set in the deliberation room. The room was humid and grimy, with the constant curls of cigarette smoke inching its way toward the ceiling off the broken-in wooden table. The build up of the humidity in the room climaxed with a thunder-storm that paralleled the tension. The perfectly crafted TENSION is brilliantly applied. They enter this room almost certain of their decision. As the lone challenger begins to scrutinize the details of the case, they not only examine the case with such detail but they are ultimately forced to look into themselves and their pasts. Their compassion builds as they put themselves in the shoes of the boy. You as the viewer do the same. By the end of the film I was even questioning my own personal stance on capital punishment. 12 Angry Men was nominated for 3 Oscars and is currently #6 on IMDB's Top 250, and deservedly so. You can feel the influence that it has on so many films that have followed.

Network

Sidney Lumet, 1976

3/5

Network immediately feels dated, but once it settles in you really get a sense of what makes this film appealing. The exchange of dialogue and performances by Faye Dunaway, William Holden, Robert Duvall and Peter Finch is what carries Network. The film itself is devoid of a score, the set design is limited to the confines of high rise office space, and the occasional narration is raspy and monotonal. Its similar to Glengarry Glen Ross in the sense that the dialogue is so hypnotic that you don't really need anything else and it relies heavily on individual performances. I found myself glued to three or four of the big exchanges in the film (most notably the board room scene and the fight between Dunaway & Holden late in the film). The film is definitely guilty of having some overacting. Network achieves its goal of being a satire piece on the relentless pursuit for ratings in television, sacrificing ethics and personal relationships along the way. It's also quite impressive how prophetic the film actually is, given the endless amount of trash that is put on broadcast television nowadays for shock value. This film deserved the Best Screenwriting Oscar without question. While I am glad I saw Network for its historical cinematic importance, it is not something I feel too inclined to see again anytime soon.

Cool Hand Luke

Stuart Rosenberg, 1967

3/5

“Cool Hand Luke” is sort of like having that friend that has a good sense of humor, and then you meet his father and he’s hilarious and you think to yourself: “Oh, THIS is where it came from!”. Without Cool Hand, there would be no “Oh Brother Where Art Thou”. I assume that the Coen Brothers were certainly inspired by this film. It is a somewhat-warm prison film... basically the Anti-Shawshank. The scenery is full of golden sun filled skies and the landscape with lush willow trees. There is a sense of comradery among the prisoners, and they are not threatening. I was thinking to myself: “Wow, this camp doesn’t seem all THAT bad”. I mean sure, there are long work days involved... but if “A Prophet” taught us anything, it taught us it could be a LOT worse.

Luke is an ambiguous, resilient character. He is a non-conformist. He is a lost person in the opening scene. He is confused, not really sure what he wants to do with his life. The irony is he constantly wants to escape this prison (even though its only a two year sentence) which at least would provide him some sense of structure. But he’s clearly not looking for structure. He’s looking for something else. A notable scene in the film is when hes playing cards with one of the other prisoners. He recklessly continues to bluff his hand until he finally has to show it, and he was running with nothing. This is one his characteristics: run head first into the situation, abandoning any fear of a negative outcome (ie. boxing scene). Luke is clearly looking for answers, and he didn't feel he was going to find them inside of those prison walls.

Casablanca

Michael Curtiz, 1943

4/5

What is immediately evident in this film is the attention to detail in set design, lighting, sound & editing. Beautiful scenery such as the nightclub, or the opening scene in the Casablanca marketplace. The tricks they play with shadows is impressive, and of course the piano playing by Dooley Smith in the background greatly contributed to the romantic feel of the film. Humphrey Bogart is the epitome of cool. Ingrid Bergman is magnetic, and the love between them feels natural.