Apocalypse Now.

Review #1460: Apocalypse Now.

Cast: 
Marlon Brando (Colonel Walter E. Kurtz), Martin Sheen (Captain Benjamin L. Willard), Robert Duvall (Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore), Frederic Forrest (Jay 'Chef' Hicks), Sam Bottoms (Lance B. Johnson), Laurence Fishburne (Tyrone 'Clean' Miller), Albert Hall (Chief Phillips), Harrison Ford (Colonel Lucas), Dennis Hopper (Photojournalist), G.D. Spradlin (General R. Corman), Jerry Ziesmer (Jerry, Civilian), and Scott Glenn (Lieutenant Richard M. Colby) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (#592 - Dementia 13 and #1139 - Supernova)

Review: 
"We were in the jungle, there were too many of us, we had access to too much money, too much equipment, and little by little we went insane"

The 1970s were a tremendous decade for Francis Ford Coppola, so it only makes sense to cover the last film of that era, one characterized by the highs and lows of the "New Hollywood" movement.
He had a hand in six films for the decade: Patton (1970, co-wrote the screenplay), The Godfather (1972, director and co-writer), The Conversation (1974, as writer, producer, and director), The Great Gatsby (1974, screenplay), and The Godfather Part II (1974, co-writer, director, producer), and this film. Coppola was born in Detroit but raised in Queens, New York as the son of music composer Carmine Coppola (who would work with his son on a couple of his films). He graduated from both Hofstra University and the UCLA Film School (the former in theater arts and the latter in film), with one notable influence on Coppola being Dorothy Arzner, a former film director who was on the staff at the time. Coppola's career in film started in 1962 with three films: The Bellboy and the Playgirls, Tonight for Sure, and Battle Beyond the Sun (the first and latter were English edits), with his next feature being the cult classic Dementia 13 (1963). He spent the next few years doing a few scripts and further directorial efforts (such as the hit You're a Big Boy Now) before the aforementioned luck in the 1970s, where he won a total of five Academy Awards on fourteen nominations.

This was inspired by Joseph Conrad's novella Heart of Darkness, written in 1899 under the inspiration of his travels on a river steamer sailing up the Congo River (both focus on a character named Kurtz). The screenplay was written by John Milius and Coppola, with narration by Michael Herr (a war correspondent most known for his book Dispatches that detailed his experiences in Vietnam). The initial director in mind to do the film was George Lucas. He worked for years with Milius to develop the project while busy with other scripts, and he had wanted to do it after THX 1138 (1971) with the intent to shoot in both California and South Vietnam on a modest budget of $2 million with 16mm cameras and real soldiers, although this did not come to pass. Coppola was eventually drawn to the script and initially aimed to produce the film before eventually pressing on to do it himself, which he had described as a "comedy and a terrifying psychological horror story". It would take years to ultimately plan and shoot the film, since it was originally set to be a four month shoot in the Philippines for release in 1977. There were of course a few obstacles that made this impossible. The original choice for the Willard character was Harvey Keitel (since others like Steve McQueen did not want to leave America for a significant amount of time), but Coppola soon found that Keitel was not quite right for the role, which led to Sheen being brought in. Describing the amount of production quirks almost sounds like a routine of dark humor. A typhoon wrecked a majority of the sets not long after production started. Sheen had a heart attack that took him off filming for a month (with his brother Joe filling in as a double and voice over at times). Brando showed up to the set severely overweight and hadn't read the script or the book. The film premiered in May 1979 at the Cannes Film Festival while not fully finished at three hours (where Coppola famously stated that his film was not about Vietnam but rather was Vietnam). Nowadays there are multiple editions to possibly view, such as the original 153 minute version, Apocalypse Now Redux (2001, which re-inserted deleted footage that runs at 196 minutes), and Apocalypse Now Final Cut (2017, which was trimmed to 183 minutes).

For a film that runs at a significant length and with such production quirks, it is amazing how well the film works as a look upon the dark parts of a man's soul when it comes to the horrors of war with such tenacity and depth to make for one of the most seminal films of its era and for epic war films as a whole. It is an experience like no other in ways that other films could only dream to do in terms of haunting timelessness, because it is something that can linger in our mind now more than ever. For a man who had his quarrels with Coppola and takes his time to show up in full detail, Brando generates a tremendous performance of stature, a poet warrior's voice from the dark that is intently fascinating to view in those moments for the clear-minded-but-darkened-soul that doesn't have to say much (Coppola edited down a rambling monologue by Brando to only a few minutes) to generate awe. Sheen follows along with great ambiguity, a passive presence that we have absolutely no trouble in following along with in a path of weariness as a changed man of war, right from the very first scene where he punches a mirror with his bare hand. Duvall makes for quite a fanatical presence in such a quick amount of time, a man that we can smell the napalm with in clear detail. The others in the cast prove worthy to travel along with, including a young Fishburne and a dazed Bottoms to go with the eccentrically on-point Hopper and bit highlights for Spradlin and Ziesmer. This is not a film that tests one's patience as much as it is one that probes into your patience, filled with a tremendous look by Vittorio Storaro in cinematography that makes a devastating classic worth checking out as a portrait of what can drive a man to certain actions in war under the guise of morality that leaves its audience fully stunned and ultimately satisfied for having watched it.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

One-Eyed Jacks.

Review #1405: One-Eyed Jacks.

Cast: 
Marlon Brando ("Kid" Rio), Karl Malden (Dad Longworth), Ben Johnson (Bob Emory), Katy Jurado (Maria Longworth), Pina Pellicer (Louisa), Slim Pickens (Lon Dedrick), Larry Duran (Chico Modesto), Sam Gilman (Harvey Johnson), Timothy Carey (Howard Tetley), Míriam Colón (Eedhead), and Elisha Cook, Jr. (Carvey) Directed by Marlon Brando.

Review: 
"You work yourself to death. You're the first one up in the morning... I mean, we shot that thing on the run, you know, you make up the dialogue the scene before, improvising, and your brain is going crazy"

Being an outsider can prove interesting when it comes to cinema, whether you are an actor or director. Marlon Brando certainly proved himself in cultivating a career in the former category with characters on the outside with a great deal of naturalization in acting that made him a presence to behold on screen for several decades, from the highest of highs to lowest of lows, and the 1960s were certainly an interesting one for him in his life and career. He appeared in thirteen films in this decade, which is considerable since it was the most he did in one decade in a 39 film career that spanned over five decades. He grew a reputation as demanding and troublesome on set in this decade with films that audiences felt where inconsistent in quality, ranging from Mutiny on the Bounty (1962, where he had conflicts with director Lewis Milestone), A Countess from Hong Kong (1967, where initial joy to work with Charlie Chaplin turned to disappointment over his directorial style) to Burn! (1969, which he felt was some of his best acting). In any case, this film proved to be a unique experience for Brando, who would direct for the first and only time in his career. He stepped into this because of massive turnover when it came to writing and directing for a film under his production company Pennebaker Productions. For example, the first draft of the script (an adaptation of the 1956 novel The Authentic Death of Hendry Jones by Charles Neider) was done by Rod Serling. Then the plan shifted to having re-writes by Sam Peckinpah with direction from Stanley Kubrick. Calder Willingham and Guy Trosper both contributed to further re-writes, and they ultimately became the writers credited on-screen in the final product. A disagreement between Kubrick and Brando resulted in the former leaving the production weeks before it was slated to began, and the latter volunteered to serve as director.

Perhaps it should prove unsurprising that the film ran for 141 minutes, since Brando had apparently did a first cut that ran for over four hours, since he shot hours and hours of footage that amplified a budget from under two million to six, and it did not return well at the box offices. It certainly is an interesting Western, one that sets a trail of clichés about revenge with attempts to make complex characters with intensity and realism that make a curious movie in Brando's filmography. In a role that seems to pull from historical figures like Billy the Kid, Brando pulls off a tremendous performance, a contradiction of reserved intensity that certainly threads a different needle than the usual "main hero" present in Westerns (fitting in a decade with plenty to offer in that department) that seems fitting of psychoanalysis more than adulation. Malden, noted in his career for his versatility as a character actor with everyman qualities of intensity and authenticity, accompanies him as a father figure with his own complexity as adversary and authority figure filled with half-truths. Johnson and Pickens accompany the film at times with composed grime, while Jurado (who carved an image for herself in both Mexican and American cinema) makes for a calming presence and Pellicer (who appeared in five films before committing suicide at the age of 30) makes for quiet chemistry with Brando. This is a film that soaks with paradoxes of moralities and myths, packing a swift climax that makes a fitting end for such nihilism, even if Brando felt a bit disappointment in how the characters seemed to be "black and white, not gray and human as I planned them." It meanders at times, but at least the cinematography by Charles Lang is nice to look at to make things palpable. On the whole, this is a film with plenty of intensity and ego on display in it its star and director, a fitting curiosity that any actor/director would surely be proud to have done, warts and all.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Men.

Review #1377: The Men.

Cast: 
Marlon Brando (Ken Wilocek), Teresa Wright (Ellen), Everett Sloane (Dr. Brock), Jack Webb (Norm), Richard Erdman (Leo), Arthur Jurado (Angel), Virginia Farmer (Nurse Robbins), Dorothy Tree (Ellen's Mother), and Howard St. John (Ellen's Father) Directed by Fred Zinnemann.

Review: 
"If you want something from an audience, you give blood to their fantasies. It's the ultimate hustle."

We all have our own challenges to face in life. If one rises to the occasion with courage or dedication, they may find themselves with success or at the very least something to be proud of. In the case of Marlon Brando, it was opportunity that fell onto him, as he had a knack for mimicking since he was a youth. He eventually set out to study acting, the one thing he enjoyed and felt accepted with. He credited the teachings of Stella Adler and Elia Kazan in acting, more specifically the Stanislavski system, where one is encouraged to look into what makes the character they are playing inside and out with realism. He found himself on Broadway in 1944, but his big break came with Kazan's direction of the Tennessee Williams play A Streetcar Named Desire (1947) as Stanley Kowalski. He would later reprise the role for the film adaptation four years later, but his debut film came in this feature, where he accustomed himself to the role by remaining in a wheelchair on and off the set for filming. One should not be surprised to find Fred Zinnemann behind the director's chair for a film with stark realism that certainly seemed to take risks outside of the usual fare for dramas. He had grown up with ambitions of music before graduating with a law degree in his time in his native Austria, but he found himself interested in film and how they were produced, which is where he became a cameraman. One of his first films he worked on was People on Sunday (1930), but he soon moved to America, working a variety of film jobs such an extra or with Robert Flaherty, and his debut film came with Redes (The Wave) in 1936, a documentary-turned-drama about the plights of a small fishing community in Mexico. He eventually found films with darker reach such as The Seventh Cross (1944), which featured German refugees in some of the roles, and The Search (1948), which depicted the attempts at reuniting families separated by World War II. In a career that spanned over five decades, Zinnemann would make over 20 films, with two of them winning Best Picture (From Here to Eternity, A Man for All Seasons), while Zinnemann won a total of four Academy Awards (two for short subjects, two for directing).

One can always applaud the efforts to make a compelling social drama that strives for honesty, whether it involves adjustment back to society or adjusting romances, which both applies to this film, with paraplegic veterans trying to adjust back to society. The film was written by Carl Foreman, who had previously collaborated with producer Stanley Kramer with films such as Champion (1949). The film utilizes actual patients from the Birmingham General Hospital (located in the town of Van Nuys, California that closed down in 1950), which Brando lived for a month to study people there. He proves himself with a worthy debut, one that is tragic and absorbing, whenever dealing with his condition or with the world at large while having to act in either a bed or in a chair, which works to an actor like Brando. Wright makes for a fine show of professionalism and patience, reflected in the careful chemistry demonstrated with Brando that makes for a few quiet highlights. Sloane shines in a resounding patient role, while Webb (noted for creating and starring on Dragnet, which started on radio the previous year) shines with a mix of cynicism and humor, such as when he recites lines from Shakespeare. In any case, the film runs at a fair pace with 87 minutes, reaching most of the points it wants to make without seeming like an overreach when it comes to its message or seeming outdated. It is a film that approaches its subject with a sense of honesty and sensitivity, highlighted by a dynamic debut from a transcendent actor like Brando and capable directing from a maverick like Zinnemann to make a little gem of a film count now.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Superman Returns.

Review #1077: Superman Returns.

Cast: 
Brandon Routh (Clark Kent / Superman), Kate Bosworth (Lois Lane), Kevin Spacey (Lex Luthor), James Marsden (Richard White), Parker Posey (Kitty Kowalski), Frank Langella (Perry White), Sam Huntington (Jimmy Olsen), Eva Marie Saint (Martha Kent), Marlon Brando (Jor-El), Kal Penn (Stanford), and Tristan Lake Leabu (Jason White) Directed by Bryan Singer (#008 - X-Men, #010 - X2, and #584 - X-Men: Days of Future Past)

Review: 
In honor of the 80th anniversary of Superman's debut in Action Comics #1, I figured that this would be the best time to finally cover this movie. I hope you enjoy this review, which I didn't try to stretch too long.

In 1978, Superman (#547) graced the big screen with an epic scale that had a collection of fine actors and a look that still manages to shine through after four decades, with this serving as a pioneer for comic book films. The sequel (#785) continued the good fortune of scope and a bit of amusement, having enough charm and magic to work, even if it was not as good as the first one. The two films that followed (#786 & #787) were terrible in their own right, having ridiculous plots along with bad execution and substance, and it would be nineteen years until Superman returned to the big screen. The film was a mild success at the box office, but it would be seven years before a new Superman film was released, which resorted to being an origin story. This film ignores the latter two films in an attempt to channel the energy of the first two films and make for great entertainment. Does it succeed?

I will first state that on the surface it is certainly an interesting idea to try and emulate the first two Reeve films, as some sort of attempt to pass the torch from the first two films onto this. After all, footage of Marlon Brando from the first film (with some help from some CGI) is utilized in the film, with John Ottman's music being a homage to the music from John Williams from the first one. For all the attempts of the film to follow the same beats, the best thing that can be said for Superman Returns is that it plays itself safe enough to at least feel like it wants to be a winner. The problem is that it doesn't really do much to prove that it is a winner beyond all doubt. It has a fine look to it at points with the cinematography by Newton Thomas Sigel, and the effects are at least satisfactory for the expectations one would expect for the film, but other times it might seem more like it is going through the motions.

Perhaps it is the length of 154 minutes that undercuts the film and makes it feel a bit of chore, but I never hated the experience for being so long. The film rests upon Routh and his shoulders, and at times he does seem like he can live up to the task with some of the sequences. However, he never really clicks into full gear to where we really want to connect with him, particularly when paired with Bosworth. You might say that the gap that the film establishes between the last time the two characters had met (roughly five years) means that the awkward exchanges between the two makes sense, but the real problem is that they don't seem particularly interesting to watch in said exchanges. You could say that they seem a bit too young for the roles (after all, both actors were under 30 when cast), but it really seems more a problem of execution that does them in. After all, it's not like Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder were old when they portrayed their roles, but they had a certain charm and care to them that sold itself in each scene they were in, as opposed to this film. The fact that the film wants to channel the first two films makes the comparisons between those and this film hurt the latter upon examination.

Spacey proves to be fairly sour in his role, and he seems to relish in his lunatic role that actually manages to pull the film toward some sort of gain for most of his scenes, especially when paired with Posey, a fairly good charmer. I think the film probably could've done a bit better with some more scenes between Spacey and Routh, since it takes them nearly two hours to meet. However, that would likely mean having to try and make the film shorter with cuts, since I don't think making it longer would help it at all. Marsden doesn't really make too much of an impression for me, not so much a dull performance as it is just a slightly thankless role. Langella is fine for his time on screen. The film tries to go through so many motions with its plot that it just feels like it is trying to not bloviate itself into oblivion. From its parts with the scheme (which is amusing to ponder about) to its part with Lois and her son to a fairly okay climax, the movie likely has too much going on to really make a good focus. I never hated the experience with the film, but I also never found myself believing in what the film was trying to sell me. I feel that the film probably should've tried to be a reboot (much like Batman Begins (#062), released the year before) instead of trying to play itself a bit too safe with its homage of what had worked better decades prior. Can I recommend the film? I can in the sense that it will likely work just fine for people who are willing to buy into its homage attempt and willing to let the entertainment roll through without skepticism.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Superman (1978).

Review #547: Superman.

Cast
Marlon Brando (Jor-El), Gene Hackman (Lex Luthor), Christopher Reeve (Clark Kent/Superman), Margot Kidder (Lois Lane), Ned Beatty (Otis), Jackie Cooper (Perry White), Glenn Ford (Jonathan Kent), Valerie Perrine (Eve Teschmacher), Phyllis Thaxter (Martha Kent), Trevor Howard (First Elder), Maria Schell (Vond-Ah), and Terence Stamp (General Zod) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, and #356 - Lethal Weapon 2)

Review
Of all the comic book movies I've done on this...show, I suppose, the one glaring omission has been the Superman franchise. Superman was the first major superhero feature movie made (Side note here: There had been three serials made before this movie, such as Superman (1948), Atom Man vs. Superman (1950), and Superman and the Mole Men (1951), along with animated shorts made by Fleischer Studios, a radio and television series), and the movie's success would lead to more superhero films. But anyway, how is the film itself? Let's start with the actors. Brando does well for the small amount of time he has, and his speech to his newborn son is effective, but also powerful. Hackman is a decent villain, he does pair well with Beatty, who isn't half bad in a supporting role. Christopher Reeve is just perfect in both roles, managing to act well enough to make these two personalities stand out effectively. Kidder is good, she pairs off well with Reeve, and the scene where Superman takes Lane on a flight is a really good scene that only shows the emotion the movie has. The movie has excellent effects and manages to tell a good story with only a few bumps along the way. The ending either makes Superman's character fully defined...or a cop out that is actually more confusing in how it works then infuriating. I think it's more of both, it defines that Clark/Superman is here for a reason, a point mentioned by Kent's adoptive father, in contrast to Jor-El's warning about changing history. Superman finds his destiny, and it does make sense, though the time traveling part boggles my mind. Endings aside, the movie is a fine epic that succeeds in nearly everyway possible.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Wild One.

Review #315: The Wild One.

Cast
Marlon Brando (Johnny Strabler), Mary Murphy (Kathie Bleeker), Robert Keith (Harry Bleeker), Lee Marvin (Chino), Jay C. Flippen (Stew Singer), Peggy Maley (Mildred), Hugh Sanders (Charlie Thomas), Ray Teal (Frank Bleeker), and John Brown (Bill Hannegan) Directed by László Benedek.

Review
In the last two films that I reviewed with Marlon Brando (#109 - A Streetcar Named Desire and #110 - On the Waterfront), he did a good job, really conveying everything needed for his respective characters. And so not to spoil anything, I'll tell you that he does a reasonable job once again. The image of Brando in a leather jacket on a motorcycle is iconic, and it does grab your attention. The acting is fine, there's a balance with some good acting and some moderate acting, not entirely detracting from the film. While the film is not without flaws (It is slightly dated, you can just tell it's from the 50's without a guess.), there is some level of balanced entertainment, giving a rocking good time for the most part.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: On the Waterfront.

Review #110: On the Waterfront.

Cast
Marlon Brando (Terry Malloy), Karl Malden (Father Barry), Lee J. Cobb (Michael J. Skelly aka "Johnny Friendly"), Rod Steiger (Charley "the Gent" Malloy), Eva Marie Saint (Edie Doyle), Pat Henning (Timothy J. "Kayo" Dugan), John F. Hamilton ('Pop' Doyle), Ben Wagner (Joey Doyle), and James Westerfield (Big Mac) Directed by Elia Kazan (#104 - East of Eden and #109 - A Streetcar Named Desire)

Review
This film is truly a classic, with great acting from Brando, Saint, and Malden, along with Cobb (who I've already talked about a little in 12 Angry Men). The film is dramatic in tone, never letting go and making you think along with being interested. It shows the lesson to not give in due to suspicions of being left out or possibly death. The film's most famous scene has a reason to be famous, and I feel the last scene is a bit memorable in it's drama and other such things. It's funny how I was slated to review this early, back in February (February 11th to be exact), but I didn't get to personal reasons. But now, I have watched the film in its entirity. And I don't regret it.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: A Streetcar Named Desire.

Review #109: A Streetcar Named Desire.

Cast
Vivien Leigh (Blanche DuBois), Marlon Brando (Stanley Kowalski), Kim Hunter (Stella Kowalski), Karl Malden (Harold Mitchell), Rudy Bond (Steve Hubbel), Nick Dennis (Pablo Gonzales), and Peg Hillias (Eunice Hubbel) Directed by Elia Kazan (#104 - East of Eden)

Review
This film was adpated from the classic play by Tennessee Williams, with Brando, Hunter, and Malden as the roles, with Jessica Tandy as DuBois. In the film, he was replaced by another player of the play (in London). Anyway, the film has good acting, dramatic style, and just plain old fashion writing that you don't see a lot anymore. Leigh steals the show, as she should be, commanding this role easily (winning an Oscar for it along with Hunter and Malden, strangely Brando lost in his catagory). The film is not flawed, not too different from the play, given the circumstances and all. In short, a good film.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.