The Railway Children (1970)

What is enjoyable about watching random movies at random times is that one never quite knows what to expect or where the next great piece of cinema will emerge. Recently, my viewing has taken the form of stapled classics like “Raging Bull” or “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, but this time my VCR took me away from modern conveniences and plopped me right down in front of Lionel Jeffries’ “The Railway Children”. This is a skillfully directed film about three youthful children, a mysterious event with their father, relocation to the open fields of England, and eventually the rewards inherited by merely waving at trains. At first glance this seemingly simple children’s film doesn’t seem all that hopeful as it has been lost on VHS rarity for some time, but within the first fifteen minutes of this film, one realizes that it is more than just your common place children’s movie – “Railway Children” was created during a time when purity was more than just saying “no”, when family meant everything, and where adventure was ready for you around every railroad track bend. This is more than an adorable film, it has amazing cinematic techniques used, it keeps the regular viewer glued to the screen with unanswered questions, and gives three perfect companions to follow along this 110-minute voyage. “Railway Children” is a lost treasure that needs to be seen by families and film aficionados alike.

There are several moments that stand out proudly in “Railway Children” that transform this from mediocrity to excellence – one happens to be our three children; Bobby, Phyllis, and Peter. Modern cinema assures us that these three children cannot provide ample darkness, laughter, and insight into the world surrounding them, but Jeffries’ children prove otherwise. From intelligently spoken lines (both from acting and the script), to sincere kindness and dedication to this small village, all the way to the final meeting at that train stop; these children are more than just child stars advancing a story, they are leading us with emotion, persuasion, and a realism unseen by today’s children. There is more imagination packed in this small VHS than I have witnessed in film for years. A favorite scene that could have been handled with generality, of which I have seen in other films, was the birthday scene for Bobby. The way that Jeffries floats her between guests and gifts was exciting and refreshing, keeping our eyes excited about each scene, as well as our mind. Another scene that captured my attention was when the children were working on gifts for Perks, when asking one man for a gift, Jeffries has him merely state, “No, I will not. I don’t like Perks.” The children’s reaction is hilarious – providing moments for both children and adults to enjoy throughout. Filmed in the 1970s, this tiny feature provides genuine laughs than most modern comedies. It is a creative film coupled with great choreography and direction.

That is to say, as much as I loved this film, it wasn’t perfect. Jeffries does a great job of keeping us guessing as to what happened to father, but it did feel like the event occurred, the children were kept in the dark, and it suddenly resolved itself by the end. More detail to father, not much more, would have solidified his character and given us the opportunity to see more of the children’s reaction. Also, there is one scene in this film, one of those grandiose wide-screen shots of the English countryside that is just breath-taking, but when looking a bit closer you happen to see cars in the background. It made me chuckle, but didn’t distract too much from the overall picture. Cinema like this is sorely missed today, and oddly, it seems that only the British have the gumption to produce it. Films like “Love, Actually” or “Vicar of Dibley” demonstrates the power and excitement for community towns, places where everyone knows everyone and we aren’t afraid to be neighborly. This is more of a theme that American audiences could have more of – more understanding of what is happening outside, instead of remaining secluded to your own events.

Overall, I loved “Railway Children”. I didn’t know what to expect when I first put it in the VHS player, but from the opening scene, to the exploding train set, to Perks birthday, Jeffries proved that he could handle the most child-friendly story with ease. His ability to make the child actors feel like real characters, to involve the adults less, and to involve the children like they were adults was outstanding. This is a film to be viewed as a strong alternative to anything Disney releases. The continually occurring themes of friendship, kindness to strangers, and forgiveness blasts through the TV with grace and power. “Railway Children” is more than just a kid’s film; it is a feature that should be a staple to modern audience viewing. Not only does it give a great visual to the English countryside, but it also teaches (and shows) how life would be greater with an emphasis on imagination and courage, instead of fighting any CGI bad guys.

Discovered in my "Time Out's 1000 Films to Change Your Life" - this is my last film for now in this book. What a wild ride these five films have been. No negative ones - but mediocre and positive across the board. I am impressed. I am going to begin some anime and other influential films tomorrow. Wish me luck! For this film, "The Railway Children", it is getting a green mark with blue stars. It will be watched again - and obviously shown to my two neices soon!

Rain Man (1988)

This discussion needs to begin with the idea that whatever critique comes of this film; it is not in direct correlation to those that suffer from autism. The words written herein are only used to discuss the film “Rain Man”, not to have a lengthy discussion on my thoughts with this serious condition. With that said, I recently had the opportunity to sit down and watch “Rain Man” commercial-free, and unedited by TV – viewing it the way audiences may have seen it in theaters – and I wondered – is “Rain Man” that wonderful of a film, or we just all taken-aback by the intense performance by Dustin Hoffman? This is a tough question as I was somewhat bored with the story that Morrow and Base put together, yet each scene that Hoffman was in I was glued to the screen watching his idiosyncrasies, his apt ability to make this character out of merely studied influences. Hoffman deserved the Oscar for this film, but again, looking back – was it deserving of everything else that it won?

“Rain Man” recycles this age old story that Hollywood is familiar with, a dying family member leaves a will to another, unknown, family member that eventually becomes the savior of the film. The groundlings to this story are not anything new to direct-to-video markets, but with Hoffman and Cruise headlining, there is more of a mass appeal. What pulls this film up is, as already stated, Hoffman – continuing to prove his worth – but yet slips downward yet again with Cruise. He seems to be a bit of a loose cannon in this role. For the first moment that we see him, he is this fast-talking, smooth sailing entrepreneur that seems to be going through this financial crisis. Randomly he is able to leave, drive from California to Florida and finally making a pit stop in Ohio for his father’s funeral. Upon arriving he becomes bitter and more sinister as he learns that he is not inheriting his father’s wealth, but instead has a brother that will have it all. As we discover whom this is – our film changes from this family plight to this road movie – going all over our great nation to demonstrate brotherly love. Yet – from the moment this voyage begins, we see less and less of the Cruise’s initial character and we are welcomed into the third stage of Cruise, caring man who is just trying to survive.

Where “Rain Man” gets itself into trouble is that Hoffman is so good, we are unable to fully develop Cruise’s character. We are glued to Hoffman on the screen, and thus Cruise can get away with anything (slipping in and out of character within scenes) because are eyes are focused on one man, and one man only. Cruise does give a performance in this film, but it seems stale and disjointed. His emotion never seems to come out, especially with the very dark ending – leaving us with no hope for the future? The bleakest of endings, I was left wondering how much this would have worked if we were to focus on Cruise’s character throughout, only giving us glimpses of Hoffman throughout the film. I would have liked to see his inner turmoil, his struggle without the glossiness that was handed to us. As a man with no money, he was easily able to maneuver anything that his brother wanted? The suits for Vegas were not free. Yet, we seem to let this slide off our backs when we talk about this film because we are all in awe of Hoffman, which we have every right to be. Personally, Hoffman deserves all the kudos for his role, but watch Cruise carefully; I believe he gives one of the worst performances of his career.

Then there is Barry Levinson. There is so much that I like about him as a director and there are moments in this film that he pulls your heartstrings hard – and with the greatest of ease. He never gave us a false impression of autism – there are these moments where we believe Hoffman will say something that doesn’t fit, there are plenty of music-leading moments, but instead he pulls the rug and gives us honesty and truth. I appreciated that and adored Levinson’s choice of cinematography, but the ending needed work. Once we were out of the car, we were rushed to a conclusion. The less-tender moments at the end didn’t congeal well, leaving us with false hope and darkness. This isn’t a happy film, and I just don’t think Levinson had a way to wrap it up. The train scene was disappointing and disastrous to say the least.

Overall, I think I am going to answer my own question. “Rain Man” doesn’t seem to last the test of time. Hoffman’s performance kept the over two hours worth the viewing, but I don’t think I could watch this again. “Rain Man” is a mediocre film fueled by one great performance. There isn’t any meat to the overall story, and at times it just seem to flop around on the floor waiting for something to put it back into the vastness of cinema. “Rain Man” did sweep the Oscars that year, giving everyone that feeling of joy – but nearly 21 years later, it just doesn’t remain a memberable film.

Found in my "Time Out's 1000 Films to Change Your Life", I just don't think I could sit through this film again. It was important to watch sans commercials and editing, but I just feel this was a lackluster film boosted by an amazing performance. Outside of that, it didn't feel noteworthy or collectable. "Rain Man" will get a pink mark for mediocrity - never to be watched again (unless forced by friends).

Raging Bull (1980)

“Raging Bull” is aggravating to watch. As an enormous fan of Scorsese’s pre-2000 work, the catalogue of innovative, dark, gripping, and overall classic works that he did seem to be given the most praise, yet the least rewards. Knowing that DeNiro won an Oscar for this film, knowing that Pesci was nominated (but lost) and knowing that Scorsese was also up for one of those prized trophies, yet lost – is extremely aggravating. Martin Scorsese is one of the most influential directors of my time, and probably my parent’s time as well. His body of work ranges from angry Taxi Drive, to a suspicious boxer, to a documentary about a Band, and even a comedy about New York after hours. The list could go on, yet modern audiences only remember him as the guy that brought us “Gangs of New York” or “The Departed”, two decent films, but nothing of the caliber that his work from the early 70s had. How can anyone say that “The Departed” was more of an Oscar contender than “Mean Streets”? So, upon watching “Raging Bull” for the first time – I was filled with anger and frustration. “Raging Bull” is one of those near perfect films that was released in the 80s, yet still seems powerful and relevant today. Perhaps it is the skill of Scorsese behind the camera to give us a non-linear biography of a man who has no trouble destroying his own life. Perhaps it is the sharp editing that takes, what could have been your average sports movie, and transforms it into this pioneering black and white, quick cut by quick cut, journey into the darkness of man. Or perhaps it is the actors, Pesci and DeNiro doing what was genius at the time (Pesci seems to have never let go of Joey La Motta in any of his future roles), and giving us lines, words, and actions that will remain in our minds long after the film is over? Perhaps. Everything about “Raging Bull” was perfect, yet the Academy turned away for “Ordinary People”, thus Scorsese had to wait for the sympathy win to finally claim his victory. Anyone else find that aggravating?

Enough of me on my soap box trying to justify why Scorsese was robbed early in life, and let’s talk about what made “Raging Bull” so exciting to watch. To begin, the casting of both DeNiro and Pesci was brilliant. The two of them had this chemistry (which would try to be duplicated again and again in “Goodfellas” and “Casino”) which Scorsese could not have imagined. They brought to the screen a true presence of two brothers growing up in New York in the 40s, trying to cope with both fame and possible infidelity. There are points in this film where one has to question the sanity of DeNiro’s La Motta and also be amazed by the way Pesci is able to keep up with DeNiro’s rage. The two of them are the glue to this film. Their scenes are intense, yet delicate. They command the scene, yet give more of their character to you than most of today’s actors. Then, like a pioneer in his trade, DeNiro does this amazing transformation from a guy hoping to make weight to a man gaining to demonstrate his downward spiral. It was like watching Bickle shave his head – you just cannot find determined actors like this in modern cinema.

To add to the amazing caliber of acting that Pesci and DeNiro commanded, “Raging Bull” demonstrated that Scorsese was a force to be reckoned with. Not only did he take the idea of a sports story and spin it on its head, but he also redefined the genre. Black and white cinematography, the slow-motion shots, the use of violence and language set in the 40s, and these brilliant moments where words make all the difference. One cannot watch a Spike Lee Joint today without seeing how Scorsese influenced them – his work, especially in “Raging Bull” can be seen through today’s cinema releases. While my only argument with this film is the length of the picture versus the slowed scenes, I don’t fault Scorsese for that. Schrader and Martin’s screenplay wasn’t perfect, but thankfully with DeNiro, Pesci, and Scorsese at the helm, the fuzzy edges were able to be cleared up.

I cannot say how influential this film was watching it for the first time. It is dark, it is depressing, yet the bold color of the characters – despite the black and white – come through stronger than other films watched this year. The acting is more than Oscar-worthy, they define this film and the early 80s era. My favorite scene was the shots of when La Motta was actually happy with his family – the shots filmed in color allowed us to see these characters as more than just celluloid imprints; they became real. My favorite sound – the flashbulbs going off during each match – this was just brilliant. Scorsese took an already iconic image and showed how his keen perception was able to make it better.

I cannot wait to watch this film again.

Found in my "Time Out's 1000 Films to Change Your Life", this film took the cake. One of my most favorite films of this year. I cannot wait to rediscover this film again and again. DeNiro was spellbinding and Pesci proved that he can handle these roles. Scorsese delivered an Oscar-worthy film and was subsequently robbed. There is no question at all - this film is getting a green mark with blue stars. I cannot wait to watch it again.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

As a child of the 80s, “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was the epitome of movie making. Two big directors, a huge star, Nazis, the unknown, a spooky finale, action, adventure, humor, far away lands – this movie, this one singular film had it all. This film had something for everyone; man, woman, and child could all sit around and be amazed by Indy’s adventure. Everything about this film is addicting. Watching it then, and even today – Indiana Jones’ theme music stuck with me for hours afterwards. This film is more than just a casual view; it is a part of history in the making. The cult icon that Spielberg and Lucas created breathed a celebrity life into the world of archaeology, but also has handed the world a character that felt real and exciting. With that said, re-watching this staple of my youth today, in 2009, it became a far different cinematic experience. “Raiders” is an important film, it is still an amazing film to watch, it is still two hours of entertaining adventure, but does the DVD do it justice? Is “Raiders of the Lost Ark” only really meant to be enjoyed on VHS? These questions arise from crisper images shouting through my player at night, the lack of detail around the edges (don’t be ashamed of the VHS fuzz), and how bright this dusty hero should have looked. I am not judging quality here, but Indy will always remain a VHS protagonist in my book.

“Raiders of the Lost Ark” as a stand-alone film works better than anything that could be released today. It takes the adventurous introduction of a man in search of a gold statue and juxtaposes it with an image of Indy as a teacher. It is a film that even after numerous viewings, the deadpan humor of Harrison Ford remains funny and repeatable in a group of friends. This, unlike “Crystal Skull” relies on Indiana’s skills, it takes us to places that actually could exist, and builds a mythology that is real. We were not overwhelmed with CGI or great effects, these were the days of stuntmen and real explosions – this was made during a time where realism took precedence over computer. Yet, isn’t that the mantra of Indiana? Isn’t the idea of this film to inspire youthful minds to become archaeologists, to make them aware that modern technology could take a backseat to a fedora and/or whip any day? There is this classic nature of both this character, but of the way Ford portrays him. Ford gives us this hero that is literally an everyman – he bleeds, he has fears, he punches when he should run – these are all great relatable features that still makes Ford’s Indiana Jones so iconic. The costume works, but it is the level of strength that Ford brings that makes me replay my VHS over and over.

What else makes “Raiders of the Lost Ark” perfect? The Nazi element, the idea that Hitler was searching for more than just total world domination was brilliant. Lucas and Spielberg took a trusted villain, a villain from the classic radio era, and made him search all over the world for this Ark of the Covenant. The spiritual element within this film is not overbearing, mostly explained, and it again gives us a task that may not be too out of reach for the average viewer. Watching it today, older, wiser, and somewhat more film skilled, I loved learning that Karen Allen could drink like it was her job. I never did catch the romantic twist forming between Belloq and Allen, but it seemed more relevant as I am older. Our man Dietrich was both hysterical and utterly evil; one of my favorite scenes was when he tricks us into hanging his coat. Brilliant. Proving again that “Raiders” takes you on this journey, a journey that could have been stale and caper-ish, and delivers a story that seems bold, refreshing, and new each time that you watch it – no matter what age you are.

“Raiders of the Lost Ark” is a timeless film. I cannot wait to watch it again – every element from the design, to the characters, to the finale is perfect. Despite the passion that I have for the VHS version, the DVD does thankfully make this film more accessible to the modern masses. This was created during the time where Ford was making skilled movies, a trait that he seems to have forgotten today. Do not watch this series backward, do not begin with “Crystal Skull” and expect “Raiders” to be the same. It is a retro film, a film about using skills sans computers. It is near perfection from everyone filming, writing, and acting within it. I would recommend this film to anyone looking for creativity, excitement, and/or a time where cinema was fun.

I miss these days.

Found in my "Time Out's 1000 Films to Change Your Life", this was a breath of fresh air. What a joyous film to take back to my youth, to see what made me excited about cinema, and about the creative possibilities. This was a near perfect film that I could recommend to anyone that walked by - in fact, I may even shout that from the streets. Ignore the "Crystal Skull" film, watch true movie-going experience. A solid green mark with blue stars for "Raiders". I cannot wait to watch this again.

Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002)

“Rabbit-Proof Fence” is a bit of a conundrum. Upon watching this film, I was immediately taken aback with the steady use of widescreen cinematography, which graciously captured the beauty of Australia, despite the racist backgrounds. I was pleasantly surprised by the ending, without giving too much away; I was unaware of the non-fiction elements surrounding these events. “Rabbit-Proof Fence” equally provided an unknown chapter of Australia’s history, while also being an emotional challenge from start to finish. With such powerful, and compelling, arguments for this film, why was there a conundrum? With such strong, documentary-like features, one could expect this to be a brilliant cinematic entry, yet what was troublesome, was that “Rabbit-Proof Fence” was only about average amongst films of this nature. From a historical standpoint, it provided a new chapter unbeknownst to me concerning the racism, or eradication of the Aborigines race from society, but the ultimate pitfall of this film is the lack of depth in a “PG” rating. Not that tortured children need to run the gamut of every historical film, but there was nothing (sans perhaps one scene) that demonstrated to me that these refugees were struggling in any way. From the moment of escape until the emotional ending, not one time did I feel that these children were in danger; every scene possible was of them receiving help from either other Aborigines or from native Australians. When these three girls made their presence known on screen, we were at a happy moment – nowhere within the 900 miles did we see famine, fatigue, or even pain. One could argue that the collapse in the desert is one of them, but it doesn’t arrive until the end of the feature. Up until that point, we are left to assume that this is a simplistic walk and that any cuts found upon their legs were cautiously placed on from a make-up department head on the edge of the framed shot.

I do not want to seem unsympathetic to the plight that these young girls took, it was not only a message to the Aborigines people, but also deflated the power of the Chief Protector (played by Kenneth Branagh – oddly, miscast in this feature). This film was a struggle, it was emotionally draining to watch these girls desire nothing more than to just go home – but where “Rabbit-Proof Fence” fails is the lacking realism. The reality that these girls made this trek is real, the struggles and hardships of what was happening in Australia during this time is real, the help seen from within – both from locals and other Aborigines – was very real, but the physical journey seemed too “glossed” to truly find yourself lost within these events. When the girls are walking, their hair remains in place, they never change weight, and there seems to be no horrifying event happen to them (i.e. bones broken, animal attacks, or even Mother Nature). It seemed perfect, and that is what irked me about this film, the images of hope overweighed the images of struggle. Director Noyce did not give us a balance, thus never quite reaching that true emotional punch at the end.

Secondly, the concept of the “Rabbit-Proof Fence” was surprising, I had no notion that this even existed, and after watching this film I wanted to know more. This was another pitfall to this film. Noyce should have given us, either in words or images, a bit of a history of the fence, and what it represented. The symbolism throughout the film became apparent, but knowing more about this fence would have only strengthened the cause. Finally, did anyone else wish that we could spend more time with the reconstruction camps and not with Branagh? Again, not knowing enough about these camps, I wished to see what the religion was doing to these children. I feel like we didn’t get enough of this to fully see the horrors that were happening. We heard Branagh’s speech about “why” these were created, but it would have been interesting to hear it from the women of the robe’s mouths. There needed to be more of an emotional strain when these children ran away, I wanted to see that they desired to escape the teachings, not just go visit their boyfriends.

With that said, everything else that Noyce did worked perfectly. The score by Peter Gabriel was fantastic, adding to the sounds of the Aborigines. The cinematography was perfect. The widescreen shots, seen on a projector screen, were breathtaking as we traveled along the outback. “Rabbit-Proof Fence” was a decent film. It was a great history lesson, and compelled me to learn more about a country I hardly think about in my day-to-day life. My biggest issue with this film was the lack of “realism” surrounding the girls’ journey. I wanted more emotion, more hardship, more struggle – the lack of such made me feel like I, a average guy could make this journey.

Found in one of my newer books, "Time Out's 1000 Films to Change Your Life", you may have already guessed it - I am in the "R"s. My first outing, rather bland, but looking forward to what the next chapter will bring. For "Rabbit-Proof Fence", it is a simple pink mark. I can recommend this film to friends, but I could not sit through it again. Just felt unrealistic and lacking in the exciting narrative.

Yangtze Incident: The Story of H.M.S. Amethyst (1957)

After a week of nearly trudging through this dry wartime drama about the attack on the British naval ship, the Amethyst, I have come to realize that what occurred on this ship – in real life – was probably more entertaining than this. Sure, the ship was grounded, shot upon first, and escaped heroically in the dark, but were 113 minutes without any true character development necessary? The question is posed, not just because of random modern day war stories (character driven, historically inaccurate action films), but because this film itself seemed aggressively made, though poorly created. The premise was convincing. The history was in place. The unknown was defined, yet it seemed to drag from one frame to the next. The intensity of the scenes was too thin, causing an apathetic feeling to befall this group of heroic sailors (from an audience perspective). It wasn’t until our third act, when finally something happened, that we were caught back into what these men had to endure. “Yangtze Incident” is a copious war film, demonstrating real ships in action and an unknown “Dr. Who” for the time, but perhaps it was the direction of one Michael Anderson, or my lack of knowledge about this moment in history, but it just felt bland. There was no real thrill or danger in this film, and it distracted from the soul of the situation.

What did work in “Yangtze Incident”? For me seeing those ships in acting, watching a slice of another country’s involvement in WWII, and the cleverness of the officers to use their minds instead of guns to solve the situations at hand that created a decent film experience. It was when we slipped away from these great points that we lost focus with the film. “Yangtze Incident” wasn’t bad, it just wasn’t constructed well. When the Amethyst is first attacked, we spend nearly twenty minutes with stock footage with random inserts of the crew reacting to the obvious staged shots. Without warning, the ship is stopped and continued to be fired upon – Anderson, the director, may have been trying to give the audience the same feeling as the crew (the unanswered question as to why this cleared ship was fired upon) – but there wasn’t anything connecting the incident to real life. From the opening shots, one knows that this is a film – a recreation of sorts, and the British Hollywood isn’t afraid to keep it glossed over. It lacks that reality, or grittiness, that these heroes surely faced while abandoned in the middle of this river. The black and white cinematography does its best for the scenes, but the transfer watched was pathetic. The night scenes were too dark and I finally emerged just as happy to see the sunset as the crew was. Stronger lighting would have helped see that final moment of tension and fear.

Both Richard Todd and William Hartnell do as well as possible with the light characters given. Todd keeps a sense of superiority to himself, while Hartnell continues to be the hard-working deckhand with a heart of gold. The scene in which he tries to make the girl smile is both heartwarming and the only chance we get to see the true nature of these men. My final issue with this film is the lack of focus on the heroes. These men did go through quite a bit to bring their boat to safety, and to see many of them regarded as secondary – it just felt shameful. I wanted to know these people, their lives, their histories, their mannerisms – but nothing but cardboard was decided.

As historians, this is a film that needs to be watched. As a fan of classic foreign cinema, this was a difficult battle to win (no pun intended). “Yangtze Incident” felt slow, it felt shallow, and it was exciting – boring – and darkly exciting again. There was substance there, but it was unused throughout by both the director and the cinematographer. The horrible acting by Akim Tamiroff as a Chinese colonel was embarrassing. I cannot suggest this film to anyone. It was worth the singular viewing, but aside from that – it brought nothing new than history to the table. This was a film full of potential, lacking vision and dedication.

Found as my last "y" film in my "Time Out Film Guide - 10th Edition - 2002", I am happy to finally be finished with this run. It seemed to last forever. Alas, I have to end this note with a yellow highlight with black mark. This film will not be watched again, nor could I recommend it - only to historians that are looking to see a film about the past. Just bland.