Pulp Fiction

I credit Pulp Fiction for getting me into movies in the first place. I checked it out from the library in high school and I was hooked from the opening scene. The snappy dialogue, the gratuitous violence, and the various homages to film (whether I fully understood them or not) all added to my enjoyment of the film. I wish I could go back and capture my initial reaction to the film. But one of the great things about Pulp Fiction is that you tend to pick up something new every time you see it.

Pulp Fiction is like a swift kick to the head and an overdose of caffeine. There is so much energy in this film that you can't help but be pulled in. The film is mainly driven by dialogue. There are a lot of quotable scenes here, from the opening scene where Tim Roth explains why robbing a restaurant is a much better proposition than most give it credit for to the final scene where he gets his just reward from Samuel L. "Jules" Jackson. 

My favorite thing about Quentin Tarantino films is how well he can build tension in a scene. The first thirty minutes of the film follow Vincent and Jules as they do a hit job for their boss. The tension slowly builds as the two talk to one another about T.V. pilots and foot massages and they toy with the two men they've been sent to "take care of." It all builds until Jules finally loses it, gives a very memorable monologue, and finishes the job. This kind of thing is done several times throughout the movie and it always has you on the edge of your seat.

I really liked the casting here. I can't imagine anyone other than Samuel L. Jackson playing Jules. John Travolta was an interesting choice for Vincent Vega. He wasn't a very popular actor at the time and hadn't had a real hit since Saturday Night Fever and Grease in the 70's. It was a bold move on Tarantino's part. My favorite acting job here was Uma Thurman. When I saw Pulp Fiction for the first time, I had only seen her in Batman & Robin. It was nice to know that she really could act and play a vivacious character without having it feel forced. On a side note, I have to say that, although he is a fantastic director, Quentin Tarantino can't act to save his life. His cameo toward the end of the film feels forced and it took me out of the story and reminded me that I was watching a movie. It might have been better if he'd had a non-speaking role in the film.

The only negative thing I can say about this movie is that it's impossible to fully appreciate it without having seen a lot of the films that Tarantino is paying homage to. There are a lot of obscure movie references here done through dialogue and camera shots, and I still haven't picked up on many of them. But this is a big part of why this movie made me love film so much. Quentin Tarantino's passion is made very apparent in his films and it is infectious to say the least.

This movie is fantastic. I consider it to be one of my favorites and it deserves its top ten spot on the IMDB Top 250.

Score: 9.5/10

The Godfather: Part II

I honestly felt like I had to force myself to watch The Godfather: Part II. It wasn't really a bad film, it just had a lot going on and was incredibly long. There are  two interwoven stories: one is a prequel of sorts which follows Vito Corleone from boyhood in Sicily through his assuming of the role of "Don" and the birth of his sons; the other follows Michael Corleone after the events of the first film as he tries to rebuild and legitimize his late father's crime family.

The prequel story was incredibly engaging and would've worked wonderfully as its own stand-alone film. Right from the very beginning, the young and mute Vito Andolini sees his mother killed by a major crime lord in Sicily and the story grabs the viewer and doesn't let go. The sequel, on the other hand, is somewhat intriguing but tends to get convoluted and dragged a little in some area. Vito's story feels more concise and straightforward, while Michael's feels at times like a soap opera. This film was good, but I think it would've worked even better as two separate films.

The interesting thing about having the two stories interwoven together is being able to see the parallels and differences between the two stories. Vito brings his life and his family together while Michael fumbles and watches his fall apart. An empire is built and also crumbles almost in the same moment. I can definitely see what the film makers were trying to do by having all of this go on in one film. It was a bold move and, on a lot of different levels, I think it worked out pretty well despite my personal misgivings.

I think my main issue with the sequel story is that, unlike the story in the first film, this one does not see Michael Corleone change much. A lot of the appeal of the first Godfather film was seeing Michael come into his own and become the new head of the Corleone family. There isn't a lot of that development in this story and I think that part of the film suffers because of this.

Despite all the negative things I've said, The Godfather: Part II is still a fantastic film. Robert DeNiro is great as the young Vito Corleone; he gets the raspy quiet voice down perfectly. Al Pacino continues to do well as Michael even though I didn't find the actual character as interesting this time around. John Cazale does a fantastic job as Fredo Corleone as well. He has a particularly memorable scene with Al Pacino towards the end of the film that really shows his acting chops.

As with Part I, I'm going to give this film two separate ratings: one for Vito's story and one for Michael's

Prequel Rating - 10/10

Sequel Rating - 7/10

The Godfather

I think that one of the most difficult things about reviewing any art form, be it literature, music or film, comes when you run across a piece of work that is so highly praised by so many people that it's almost impossible to write a review that is completely unbiased and free from the influence of the undeniable impact that certain pieces of work have on our culture.

This is the problem I face when reviewing something like The Godfather. I know that people almost unanimously see The Godfather as the perfect film. It is difficult to be critical when approaching something like that, and I have certainly tried. After watching the film, I sat and thought about what I would say. I even went so far as to take a quick shower, as everyone knows we get our best ideas there. And after trying again and again to find some fault with The Godfather, the only even semi-negative thing I can really say is that the film is so engaging and intricate that it's impossible to just shut your brain off when watching it. This is not a popcorn movie or an easy to swallow summer blockbuster. This film demands your attention and keeps it until the final closing-door shot. But I can't really call this a criticism for the film; you really just have to be in the right mood to watch it.
So what are the positives? Virtually everything. The performances are fantastic. Marlon Brando is captivating right from the opening scene. He is a powerful presence that fills the room with the weight and power of his position over the undertaker. Al Pacino as Michael Corleone gives my favorite performance. It's hard to speak about without giving major plot points away, which I'm going to try not to do in my reviews. Suffice it to say that Al Pacino ends up stealing the show in the end. I could go on and on about the other actors, but these are the ones that stuck out to me the most.

The pacing of the film is a bit slower than Shawshank. The film runs around three hours and even though it is very engrossing, I did feel the time going by more so than when watching Shawshank. That's not to say that there is anything wrong with the way that the movie plays out. Everything is set up perfectly in the first thirty minutes or so: the power and influence of the Corleone family, the personalities of all the major family members, the relationship between the Corleone's and various other characters. From here, you witness a story filled with loyalty and betrayal, actions and consequences, war and bloodshed. Everything is perfectly orchestrated from start to finish.

I'm going to give this movie two overall ratings. One for the film as it is, and one as a recommendation for the average film-goer. You really have to give yourself to this film, and not a lot of people want to sit through something that demands so much time and attention. That being said, this really is a perfect film that I can't find any fault with no matter how hard I try.

Overall Film Score - 10/10
Average Recommendation - 7/10

The Shawshank Redemption

I don't think that the Shawshank Redemption is the best film of all time. When I look at the IMDB Top 250, it always strikes me as odd that this film is at the top of the list. That being said, I really do enjoy this movie every time I watch it. It's a triumphant and uplifting experience, which is a lot to say for a prison movie. Something about seeing Andy's journey through prison life makes you feel alive.

The acting in this movie is spot on. I think most people can agree that any movie narrated by Morgan Freeman has something going for it right from the word go. The performances are a big part of what makes this film so immersive. The only negative thing I can say about this movie performance-wise is that there's something about Tim Robbins that seems off to me. Something about his eyes just doesn't sit right with me.

The thing that strikes me most about this movie is the way it flows. It is almost two and a half hours long, but it certainly doesn't feel like it. Usually, movies of this kind tend to drag. But in this case I was along for the ride every step of the way.

Overall I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The acting is great, the story is great, and watching these characters grow and change is an engaging and captivating thrill ride.

Performances - 9/10
Style - 9.5/10
Immersiveness - 10/10
Overall - 9.5/10

My Intentions

As the title suggests, this blog is all about movie reviews. My first goal is to review all (or at least a good chunk) of the IMDB Top 250 films of all time. My reason for choosing this list is because of its fairly good mixture of historically significant films, fanboy flicks, and "hipster" movies. I'll try to go in order, which may prove difficult as the list tends to change every so often, but we'll see where this goes. I'm going to try and review films based on a list of criteria and give a rating in each set on a scale of 1 to 10, followed by an overall grade, also on a scale of 1 to 10.