Reviews

Apocalypse Now is a war drama about a U. S. Army solider serving in Vietnam that is given a mission of assassinating a Special Forces Colonel who has gone insane. The film was released in 1979 and is rated R. The movie is directed by Francis Ford Coppola. The film is written in the collaboration of Francis Ford Coppola, John Milus, and Michael Horr, who narrated the film. Apocalypse Now is based loosely on a book called Heart of Darkness by Joesph Conrad. Martin Sheen plays Captain Benjamin L. Willard who is assigned a task to assassinate Colonel Walter E. Kurtz, starring Marlon Brando, for his immoral rampage of killing.

There were both positives and negatives about the production of the movie. After I watched the film, I did not know what to really think of it. I decided to watch the documentary of the production called Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse to get more information on the movie. I really liked the storyline of the film. Martin Sheen's opening scene performance was very emotional about his character's trauma of the Vietnam war. It showed true vulnerability and his internal conflict. I also really liked how true the movie was about how American soldiers treated others. They were very Gung Ho on war and did not seem to be cautious of shooting others. It was mostly shoot first, ask questions later even if they are just civilians. A lot of war movies depict Americans as heroes of the war and in this movie, it shows the reality of how horrible American soldiers could be.

Another position was how the movie could be interpreted as how internal conflict could create a monster. In the beginning Willard struggles with his trauma from the war. Colonel Kurtz's character is struggling with his own demons of trauma and him hurting others. It shows how trauma can affect people differently. Both made different decisions in the end.

The production of the movie was quite amazing to see in the documentary. Everything from the explosions to fires and dead bodies, played by actors, were all real. Even some of the props were made. Unfortunately, the weather ruined a lot of sets and equipment.

The negatives of the movie were the writing for the ending. I felt the ending did not have much closure of the movie and left it up to the viewer to decide on the philosophy of the film. Another negative was that a few of the crew's health was at risk for making this movie. Sheen had a bad heart attack during work and Coppola had a seizure. It was also mentioned from some of the actors that there was a lot of drugs and alcohol involved to cope with the stress. The planning for the movie was disorganized due to Coppola wanting to make everything perfect and everything his way. Sometimes he would change a scene on the fly, or he would write a scene on set.

Overall, I really recommend both this film and watching the documentary to gain more insight into how the movie was produced. To me, watching the documentary and seeing the struggles to achieve the amazing quality of the movie was quite amazing to see. It was even cool to see that they used a lot of real objects and not props. There were no miniatures or projections in the movie. All of it was real. Even the guns were real.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Is a play written by Edward Albee. The play was adapted to a film in 1966. The screenplay writer is Ernest Lehman. It was directed by Mike Nichols. The film is about a middle-aged couple named Martha, starring Elizabeth Taylor, and George, played by Richard Burton, who invite a younger couple over from the party they just attended. Before the young couple comes over, Martha and George argue over many problems. Martha verbal abuses George and when he becomes sick of the abuse, George decides to break objects and can become violent towards Martha. They both drink to cope with the toxicity of the relationship. The young couple is named Honey, starring Sandy Dennis, and Nick, played by George Segal. Over the course of the movie, it displays one night consisting of drinking and chaos of Martha's and George's games to hurt one another.

I thought the movie had a lot of intricate mind games going on between Martha and George. I felt that if I was also drinking, the movie would make more sense. The film was very real as if the conversation was made by actual drunk people. The actors describe the characters very well for how they would be drunk. Some of the characters got testy. Some got emotional. The conversation topics between characters bounced around quite a lot. The movie was somewhat hard to follow because I didn't know what character was telling the truth and which one was sputtering nonsense. Either they were telling the truth, or they were telling nonstop lies. I think that was the interesting part of the movie was everything was going very fast. The characters felt very realistic with middle-aged couple arguing and true intentions of the young couple.

Even though the movie can be hard to follow when sober, it's an interesting intriguing movie that shows the realism of a toxic marriage. It shows how verbal abuse can also be used by a woman towards a man which abuse is more commonly related to a male. In this situation the man is triggered by the woman's abuse and reacts violently after he has had enough. The middle and ending of the movie had an unexpected twist. Overall, I would recommend watching this movie for its realistic and intriguing plot.

Monster is directed and written by Patty Jenkins. It was released in 2004. Monster is based on a biography of a serial killer prostitute named Aileen Wuornos usually goes by "Lee", starring Charlize Theron. Lee has been a homeless hooker since the age of 13 and in her 30s she meets a girl named Selby, played by Christina Ricci, that she falls in love with. Afraid that she's going to lose Selby due to no money, Aileen starts killing for a living shortly after a physical assault by one of her clients. Aileen's only friend Tom, played by Bruce Dern, helps feed her and checks in with her from time to time. This movie displays the hardships of being homeless and being a sex worker.

Charlize Theron really brought Aileen Wuornos character back to life. Her performance of displaying the unstable emotions of anger and sadness of Wuornos felt very real. The movie's storyline and execution were amazing. There were many different perspectives in the movie. The perspective from Wuornos was very sad and heartbreaking. It shows that being a homeless hooker has many challenges such as always scraping by for money and her safety being endangered. Another perspective was Selby and her home life situation. Even at the end of the movie, the director made it possible for the audience to sympathize with the killer. The actors and actresses really brought back what it was like back then as well as the different perspectives listed above.

The makeup for the characters was also great. Charlize Theron looked just like the real Aileen Wuornos. Reading some about Aileen Wuornos, the movie is very accurate about the real-life events happening in the movie. The research for making this movie was done very well. Although Selby is not the real name of the girl in the movie, the director did ask the real people for permission to include their name or not which is very respectable.

Overall, I highly recommend this movie. Charlize Theron was phenomenal in presenting Wuornos's challenges mentally and physically. The movie really sucked me in and absorbed me. The actors and actresses made the film to be believable and was also intriguing to watch. Monster won one Oscar and is by far one of my favorite movies.

The Great Dictator is a comedy written, directed, and performed by Charlie Chaplin. It was released in theaters in 1940. The movie presents a dictator named Adenoid Hynkel, starring Charlie Chaplin, who is trying to expand his empire while enforcing racism against Jews. A Jewish Barber, also played by Charlie Chaplin, and a women named Hannah, starring Paulette Goddard, rebels against the oppression of the storm trooper movement. As Hynkel wants to take on more land to conquer, his rival Napaloni Dictator of Bacteria, played by Jack Oakie, makes moves to gain more land for his dictatorship too.

This film pokes fun of the uprising of Adolf Hitler and the fascist Nazi movement while trying to send a message to the audience. It shows the oppression of the Jews from the brutal storm troopers. While it is extremely hard to make a comedic film about recent horrible events, Charlie Chaplin was quite successful at putting the whole movie together as well as his speech to the world at the time. Chaplin also used many film techniques such as rear projection and miniatures.

I found this film similar to Do The Right Thing by Spike Lee. They both talk about the social injustices of oppression from a different race. For the Great Dictator it describes the political and social issues of the storm trooper movement and a Hynkel rising to a higher level of dictatorship. Some of the Jews such as the barber and Hannah rebel by smacking the storm troopers with a pan and other objects such as a paint brush. In Do the Right Thing there is racism everywhere from all sides. Most of the racism is mostly verbal until a fight breaks out in a small pizza shop where the police officers were called, and police officers killed one of African Americans on purpose. This started a big riot. Both movies also deal with authority brutality. Police brutality and racism against the African Americans in Do The Right Thing and in the Great Dictator the storm troopers abused their power against the Jews.

I personally did like the movie quite a lot. I loved both Chaplin's characters. Both played extremely well. The Jewish Barber and Dictator Hynkel are opposites of personality. Hynkel wants to rule the world while causing violence towards Jews and the Barber wants freedom and universal love. I thought it was smart for Chaplin to use rear projection and miniatures for the movie. I did not find it extremely funny, but some scenes did make me smile even though the movie is about a serious topic of the fascist Nazi movement. I really liked how some of the characters would also talk directly to the audience about the serious issues that needed to be discussed. Overall, I would recommend this movie to watch for small moments of smiles and the storyline of both Chaplin's characters.

The Raging Bull, released in 1980, is a film that is based on the autobiography book by Jake LaMotta. The film is directed by Martin Scorsese and is written by Joesph Carter and Peter Savage. The film tells the story of the famous middleweight boxer Jake LaMotta, starring Robert De Niro, who succeeded in his career and led the downfall of his personal life through violence and anger issues. Joey, Jake's brother, supports him as his boxing manager. He is played by Joe Pesci. During Jake's early boxing career, he meets a young girl named Vickie, starring Cathy Moriarty, and falls for her.

Even though the film is black and white, the actors, particularly Robert De Niro made the film remarkably successful. His acting as well as the effort he put in to become Jake LaMotta both mentally and physically was astonishing. Throughout the movie you can see that De Niro's weight fluctuates with his eating habits and boxing career. For a moment I thought a fat suit was being used but then I realized that it was the real actor's body. This puts a lot of pressure mentally and physically on De Niro and few actors would go to such lengths to emulate their character.

While I do not like the main characters, Jake and Joey, I thought the documentary/narrative truthfully spoke of what happened. There was no sugar coating the characters as good people. Clearly anyone can see that Jake is a narcissist who does not really care about anyone unless they benefit him. The dialect and language used in the film was certainly researched and tried to make it as accurate as possible to that era.

I still have mixed feelings about the film. I did not root for the main character, and I disliked him very much. I was expecting a movie that I would cheer for the main character. Even though I do not like Jake, this was the reality of this person. I respect and really admire De Niro's effort as becoming Jake LaMotta physically and even mentally. I still liked the movie overall for creating a powerful effect of emotions with topics surrounding violence and misogyny.

Overall, I would still recommend this movie even if I do not like the characters. It was a good documentary about a misogynistic abusive boxer. While I did not every feel good from this movie, it also speaks volumes of the struggle's women had to deal with long ago of domestic violence and inequality.

In conclusion, I really loved Robert De Niro's performance. Any actor who is so committed to play their character role to the point of gaining and or losing weight in a rigorous diet and exercise regimen, I really respect and admire.

Vincent and Theo were directed by Robert Altman and written by Julian Mitchell in 1990. The film is produced by Ludi Boeken. The movie is a tragic biography of two brothers named Vincent Van Gogh and Theo Van Gogh. Vincent, starring Tim Roth, is a painter who struggles with many mental health issues and who is financially supported by his brother. Theo Van Gogh, starring Paul Rhys, is a well-known art dealer who has difficulties with his own health and financial responsibilities to him and his brother. It dives into the interpersonal relationships between the brothers and the effects of Vincent's mental illness on each other's lives. The film portrays a realistic perspective of how life was back then and how emotions were managed.

Robert Altman has a profound sense of creativity of positioning the camera as well as re-creating reality with the characters. In one of the scenes Altman chooses to film a scene of Theo and as the camera pans out the audience realizes that the scene is shot from a mirror. I thought this was a highly creative way of showing a scene then panning out to the whole picture. There were a few things that recreate reality with the characters. One of them was a character talking over each other during an argument. People arguing with each other mostly talk over one another. Altman displays this audio as both characters are arguing and they are not hearing each other out. He also displays other sounds in the background during characters conversations which is unusual in films. He used kerosene lamps lighting only to film with which created a more realistic interpretation the scene. I really like how Altman tries to be mindful of creating a film with realistic features such as lighting, sound, and camera position as described.

I adored how the actors expressed their characters emotions. The emotions were very raw, and it seemed accurate how people would behave back in those times such as breaking things when angered. Vincent's emotions and behavior were quite interesting and seemed to be displayed more intensely over the course of the film to the point of causing physical harm to oneself. The film also shows the lack of support for those who struggle with mental health issues other than medicating oneself with alcohol and sex.

Overall, I would recommend this film. The storytelling is intriguing and pulled me in with its realism. In conclusion, Robert Altman directed a beautiful tragic biography of the famous brothers with different camera angles, unique lighting, and recreating reality in film with sound and behavior.

The Grapes of Wrath was formally based off a book by John Steinbeck and was adapted to a movie directed by John Ford in 1940. The film is set in the Dust Bowl era in Oklahoma and follows a family who was driven off their farm due to the dust storms and poverty. Homeless and poor, the family decides to leave Oklahoma to find more work to support financial needs. The family ventures out towards California in hopes of finding employment and a better quality of life. The best-known actors that appear in the film are Henry Fonda as Tom Joad, Jane Darwell as Ma Joad, and John Carradine as Jim Casey.

I personally have mixed feelings about this movie. I will start with the good first. The lighting in the movie. I thought this was interesting because it makes it feel more real and as if you are also there in person. I also like the story and how it was based off realistic events such as the Great Depression. It expresses to the audience what life was like and how moving with little to no money was a challenge. The overall message of the movie that I got was to keep on going even if there are many difficulties.

The terrible things about the movie were how the characters act towards each other, especially when there is a tragic loss. Everyone seemed to move on very quickly or was indifferent after an incredibly sad event. That was overall an unnatural emotion for a particular scene. It was like that event was not important and did not affect anyone. It felt like "oh well, whatever" type of deal. Another detail I did not like was that the characters only referred to other characters as their title name instead of their relationship with each other. For example, when a mother calls their husband "father" even if there are no children present. It bothers me because a mother would call their husband by their name in private without children in the picture. This movie made it unnatural to keep the character titles such as "grandpa" the same and not to going into the family dynamics more.

Overall, I would recommend this movie to watch. Whether it's to enjoy the unique candle lighting or making fun of the scenes that have unnatural reactions. The Grapes of Wrath surprisingly caught my attention and held it through the movie.