The Rainmaker (1997)

John Grisham has proven himself to be the literary lawyer. His books open the courtrooms to the masses, and allow the underdog to rule the day. With that said, not every Grisham novel is best told in the cinematic language. From “The Firm” to “A Time to Kill” and now to “The Rainmaker” directors and studios have tried to bring the elaborately well written stories to the screen with the same panache and excitement that is in the binded world – and yet every time, they fail. The films are entertaining, but after one viewing – the ability to view a repeat performance has lost momentum. Recently, “The Rainmaker” came across my DVD player, and I was forced to endure a repetitive story, one-dimensional characters, and a predictable ending that left me gasping for some originality. One must admit that Francis Ford Coppola does attempt to bring a level of authenticity to the screen, but it is the mediocre Matt Damon and the always odd Danny DeVito that force this film to flounder. Also, condensing a 443-page book into just over two hours is difficult. There is quite a bit lost within the translation, and “The Rainmaker” is no exception. From the lacking cardboard-esque relationship between Damon and Claire Danes all the way to the less-than-exciting courtroom element, “The Rainmaker” struggles to hold on, and after 12 years, it just doesn't remain as pivotal as it once, perhaps, was.

Re-watching this film for the first time in ten years, I wasn't expecting Oscar-caliber performances, nor was I walking in with great unrealistic hopes – which may be the reason it didn't further my desire to watch more Grisham adaptations. All I wanted from this film was an enjoyable two hours, but even that was a struggle. The beginning struggle with “The Rainmaker” comes from Coppola's choice of pacing. There is quite a bit of down time with this film, where we (as audience members) are merely watching small, unimportant character development that led nowhere. Damon cutting grass, hanging out in a hospital, asleep at his desk, or late for his most important case ever – are all within this film, but edited stronger – leaving these small unneeded bits out – would have tightened this story further. Coppola feels as if he has more information than this film can process within the time allowed. This hurts not only the film as a whole, but the individual parts (i.e. the characters, the tone, and the intended drama) as well. Because the editing was loose, we are lost when Damon heads to help his questionable love interest Claire Danes. We are lost as to the direction of Damon's relationship with “Bruiser”. We are lost as to the focus of DeVito's character, who represents himself as smarter than Coppola gives him credit for. So, to add to the mix of disheveled actors this plot that fails because of the lack of editing and character development, we have a sloppy film that is liked by too many.

Plot. Aristotle said “plot matters”, and it should be believed that those involved with “The Rainmaker” should have paid further attention to this decree. “The Rainmaker” is a film about a newbie lawyer taking his first big case which is in essence the simplistic story of big business versus the little poverty of America. It is a strong beginning, but we loose focus when we add other elements that are never fully explained. Is Danes really in love with Damon who is portrayed as someone merely eager to help her, not fall in love? How influential was “Bruiser” to Damon's upbringing as a lawyer? Did anyone else believe that when Danny Glover was introduced as the sympathetic judge that this case was predetermined? Wouldn't anyone notice DeVito wasn't a lawyer – as smart as the defense was? Voight was slimy, but was it just his accent that made him that way? Then, we have the utterly realistic, but completely misplaced ending that felt cheap instead of honest. There was supposed to be emotion from the family who suffered the loss, but we are left with such little time dedicated to either side, that we just feel bored. Not a tear was struck with the emotion pulled out at the end, and I think that is an indication of how poorly Coppola directed this film.

Overall, “The Rainmaker” leaves you with further disappointment than originally thought. A courtroom drama is always worth at least one slick move, at least one important cameo, and one highly emotional scene that leaves you with the impression of how good these lawyers and genre's can be. “The Rainmaker” had none of these. Scaling this film among those like “A Few Good Men” or even Grisham's “The Firm”, it falls well below. If you walk in with no expectations, than perhaps this film will uplift your spirits. Alas, for me – there was just a lacking plot, a terrible edit, and wafer-esque characters that hurt the determined tone of this film. It was an embarrassing outing for Coppola as a director, but also the courtroom drama genre. There are better films that fit the bill out there, avoid this one.

Found within my "Reel Views" book, the first book, and it is the first in this book that is going to get a yellow mark with black line. It was just disgustingly bad from beginning to end. The level of excitement faded after the opening credits. One can find better courtroom dramas than this. I will not be watching this film again - nor expecting friends to watch either!

Raining Stones (1993)

"Raining Stones" is one of those films that initially looks like it is going to be painful to watch. The despair of the blue-collar English, working hard to make ends meet, the idea that religion is a part of the family, and a proud father willing to do anything for his daughter feels more like a Mike Leigh film than a Loach drama, but Loach stands up and demonstrates his ability to produce amazing cinema. It is a scene we have seen many times before, a father down on his luck with his family and life does anything (sewage, bounce, and sheep stealing) to provide a brand new dress for his daughter's first Communion. He is determined to give his daughter a memory she will always cherish, but he is also determined to prove his worth to his entire family. This is where the drama and real humanity of all Loach's characters begin to shine.

This didn't initially seem like a film worth watching, hesitantly I worried this would be one of those over dramatic family dramas that pulled everything out of you only to leave you bored, desensitized, and counting the final minutes - within the first ten minutes of Loach's film, I knew that I was wrong. To begin, our main protagonist, completely full of flaws, but boiling over with pride, captures your attention. Our patriarch, Bob (played delicately by Bruce Jones), is immediately recognizable and relatable. Loach gives him that blue-collar, everyman appeal that isn't sugar-coated or fabricated. The instances may seem episodic at times, but what happens to Bob is real. Add to this mix his devotion to the Catholic faith, and we have a powerfully well-rounded character that leads us in and out of difficult times. With Bob is his conscious, or voice of future, the unemployed Tommy creates this very sad world, but it isn't bleak. Jobs are found, dresses are ordered, and money is used - it is the destination with this film, not the journey. Bruce Jones' ability to control each scene, whether it is getting a bitter or going door to door searching for work, he is someone that we stand proudly next to. Loach has crafted a man that screams sympathy. During every moment of this film, we root for Bob, we cheer when he finds work, and each downfall we feel as well. That is a great accomplishment as both a director and an actor if each scene can bring out such emotion.

Not only is the acting Oscar worthy, but Loach's (with Jim Allen) story is outstanding. From that opening scene, he pulls you into this world that feels real, that seems plausible, that demonstrates the struggle without being vulgar or gross. It is a normal town, these are trying times, Bob wants to provide for his family, and what he goes through to accomplish this is breathtaking. As Loach introduces religion into this story, a very vital element to this film, it seems only natural that when in trouble, when you feel like you can turn to nobody, the Church is there, God is there, your local priest is there to talk you through the trouble. It isn't overbearing, it isn't preachy, it is a way of life for these characters and Loach doesn't force this down our throats. It is again, this feeling of realism that makes "Raining Stones" stand above other films of this nature. If there were a complaint about this film, it would be the sense of timing with Bob. In one moment he has no money, in another he is suddenly debt ridden. It happens rather quickly in a 90-minute film. Also, would a man with no money to his name really spend that much on beer during the week - wouldn't he save it? Or was this Loach's commentary on the blue-collar worker? Never enough money for things that count, but plenty of time for beer and religion. An odd twist...

Overall, this was an impressive film from the beginning all the way to the final moment that put this smile on your face. It was dramatic, it was grounded, and it was passionate for all the right reasons. Loach has proved himself as a director with "Raining Stones", and this is a perfect example of a "don't judge" cover. Again, this wouldn't have been a typical film for me, but what came out of the DVD player was a cinematic dinner. Everything was in place, and you were satisfied by the end. I can only recommend this film to everyone excited about a low-budget, no CGI, drama that shows humanity at its best and worst. It will make you think, make you smile, and make you understand the struggles of life.

Watch this film!

Found in my "Reel Views" book, this is my first entry with the "R"s, and if this is any indication of what lies ahead - I am excited. This is getting a green mark with blue stars in my book - I cannot wait to watch this again and bring it into my store for others to enjoy as well. This needs to be a watched film.

The Magnificent Seven (1960)

It is a hard order to fill if you want to reinvision Akira Kurosawa set within an American western using a hodgepodge of ethnic actors. Not only are you attempting to recreate the same symbolic references and deep moral elements of an already established cult classic, but there are so many other outside elements that may be harder to control than simply samurai’s saving a small village. None the less, director John Sturges tried, and the final result was the abysmal “The Magnificent Seven”. Not to plot my course to early, but being a large fan of Kurosawa’s masterpiece, I had to put that aside and see this film for what it was – what Sturges envisioned – instead of just making comparison after comparison. With sloppy characters, lacking detail, American-ized natives, and a grossly unoriginal villain – this 1960 classic is only memorable for a couple of key performances and an energetic score. Outside of that, Sturges uttered blasphemy on Kurosawa’s work.

Again, I said I wouldn’t compare the two works – so every attempt will be made not to. There were high hopes for “The Magnificent Seven”, a family favorite film that has somehow slipped through my viewing time, but the moment this film began my attention began to fade. With a weak opening, and a lackluster retrieval of heroes to protect the village, “The Magnificent Seven” came out of the gates with a mere gallop, and eventually didn’t even finish the race. As mentioned, our villain has these long monologues of corruption and greed, but when it comes down to it, Calvera didn’t have the true evil gene. He was corrupt, but it was only skin deep. Outside of the typical ransacking of small villages, his character demonstrated no true evil – albeit with a PG rating, what could he do – but I don’t believe Calvera could strike fear in any child today. Eli Wallach is to blame for this. Yet, he wasn’t the only one dragging his feet. This film was bombarded by lackluster acting. Yul Brynner, the obvious lead, seemed to sputter his lines without a moment of emotion or spirit. His pathetic portrayal of Chris Adams, the main cowboy hired to protect, fell flat and was boring to the average viewer. That same description could also be used for most of those that he recruited (what is the saying, flies attract flies?), sans Steve McQueen. As a fan of McQueen’s work, I was impressed by the way he picked up the lacking flag of the others. While he didn’t provide much to each scene, he was interesting to watch, obviously caring more about the overall performance than Brynner did. Unlike Kurosawa’s epic, this didn’t focus as much on the men of the mission, just that they could be there to attack whoever descended onto the village. There was no individual character development, and when there was (see: Robert Vaughn’s nightmare) it was rushed and ill-focused. Whereas in “Samurai” we felt something for each of the heroes, in this – nobody seemed to have the courage to stand forward and introduce themselves to us.

I must admit – this film was boring. From the introduction, to the recruiting, all the way to the repeat battle – “The Magnificent Seven” provided little-to-no entertainment. With no character to stand behind, it was left up to the action to drive the focus, but alas, this seemed to fall short as well. I can agree that there were some decent moments that spoke for the western genre, but nothing challenging. Evil riders would ride in, gunshots would smoke, people would fall, and finally there would be celebration. Thinking about it now, it felt as if Sturges was providing us a cheapened Cliff-Notes version of the original tale. With a running time of a mere 128 minutes, there is no way you could capture the intensity and drama behind Kurosawa’s original 203 minute epic. Again, not to compare side by side – but what made the original work was the characters, the story, the intensity that Kurosawa was able to push through your television set. “The Magnificent Seven” felt like a rushed Hollywood project that had big stars, but no heart.

Overall, I really wanted to like this film. The cast itself sells this movie, but as a viewer of cinema, it just seemed like a poorly constructed feature. Hollywood was attempting to make a dime on Kurosawa’s original idea, and it failed. I cannot watch this movie again, nor would I. The acting is atrocious, the story is choppy, and there was no real threat. The idea that these villagers could survive year after year of this attack forced me to believe that perhaps Calvera wasn’t robbing them blind. We weren’t given enough history of the violence prior to the introduction of our heroes. This just felt rushed from the beginning, but remained dull after seeing the sheer brilliance of “Seven Samurai”. Watch this, if you must, for the music and McQueen, everything else is pure rubbish.

Found in my "Cult Movies" book - this is the final M for now, alas, we just wimpered out by the end. We had some high points, we did some fun ones, but overall - this wasn't the greatest outing. So, with disappointment - I am giving "The Magnificent Seven" a black mark with yellow highlight. It was a pitiful film that wasn't anywhere near the brilliance of "Seven Samurai". Now, onto the "R" - let's see how modern treats us!

Great American Re-Watch #1: The Magnificent Ambersons (1942)

Nearly five months after originally watching this film, I came across it again in the now-infamous "Cult Film" book that has Martin Sheen coming out of the bog. (One of these days I will actually put the real name of that book in here). Not only did I upgrade to the Criterion Laserdisc version of "The Magnificent Ambersons" from the VHS, but upon a second viewing I was able to capture more of the tone that Welles' wanted to demonstrate. I was able to see the searing forge between Eugene and George stronger, and the demonic introduction of the automobile into society. Welles has crafted a stronger, more impassioned story about the human character with "The Magnificent Ambersons" than he has with "Citizen Kane" - and in my books - a better film to be quoted as, "Best Film of All Time".

Yet, it is forgotten. Vowed only to watch on VHS or on Laserdisc (which demonstrates great crisp images and an amazing score), this is a movie that requires, nay, demands repeat viewings. It is a powerful film that pushes the boundaries of our lives and the stronghold of wealth and privilege in this society.

I wish Criterion would release on this DVD, and in fact - I am going to send them a message today about it. None the less, I rewatched this film on 8/11/2009 on Laserdisc. It is the first of my rewatches, and I cannot wait to see what comes next. Now, "The Magnificent Seven", let's see how my first western will do!

Mad Max (1979)

"Mad Max" is one of those films that is on everyone's top film lists. Not only did it introduce us to Australian cinema, but also a young 21-year old newbie named Mel Gibson. "Mad Max" was dark, it was brooding, it was destructive, and it never gave us that glimmer of hope for humanity, but now - nearly 20 years later - does it still remain the classic that it started? Sure, it was impressive to watch the crash scenes, it was powerful to see the world through Mr. Miller's disturbed eyes, but is it re-watchable? Does it have the appeal to see new things throughout if watched and watched again? For me, the answer seemed to float near "no". While I loved what "Mad Max" represented, what it was - a full body of color and action - it wasn't something to be watched again and again. Gibson does a great job as Max, a man torn between the evils of the road and his personal philosophies. He begins as an ominous optimist, able to stop crime as it occurs on the streets, but then as his sense of normality is turned upside down, his ability to react and adapt is seen. The final moments, he has transformed from the man we were first introduced to into something quite terrifying. One could also compliment Mr. Miller's directorial outing, at times it felt a bit episodic with tough edits placed, but for the majority he told a deathly story with great ease and excitement. So, again, there is no arguing that "Mad Max" is an important film, one that I am glad to have finally seen, but once was enough. It seems to be lacking that re-watch excitement.



But why has that conclusion been made? What makes "Mad Max" mediocre instead of powerful? It is hard to pinpoint the exact scene, but the sense of "alright, I've seen it - now what" was definitely present by the end. Yet, there were points that I just loved. Gibson was perfect. He was incredible as Max, and the world that Mr. Miller created was intense. The opening scene, the car crashes as our bearded villain just yelled "Toecutter" was fantastic. "Mad Max" has one of those openings that just pulls you in, that makes you excited to watch a film of this intensity, but then where do you go? Miller seemed to indicate that more car crashes, more violence, more cliche family drama would indicate a stronger film. At times he was right, his ability to create different scenes set across the same backdrop demonstrated his originality, but then there were times where it just felt recycled. One scene that stands out, is where our gang of bikers track down a couple that happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, they chase them down and demoralize them as Max and his partner find them - then, almost repetitively, it happens with Max and his girl later in the film. In this post-apocalyptic world, there seems to be no problem finding someone. Space seems to not be a problem. This was another unexplained moment - where the coincidence of discovering Max or finding the biker gang should have been more difficult. These repetitive, essentially simplistic scenes seemed to detract from the power of what Max represented. One also needs to ask about the story, the unknown of what time or place we are following Max - would this have strengthened the story knowing what world we lived in? The understanding that this was a low-budget film was rooted in my mind, the techniques provided were impressive, but should that have been neglected for mediocre storytelling? Perhaps I misread this film, perhaps I missed the joy of why this is hailed as such a cult success.


Another weakness against "Mad Max" has to be the relationship between his wife/girlfriend and child. Again, the lacking story helped confuse this viewer as to what dynamic they had, but when we have scenes in which the child is completely forgotten about - it just decimates the reasons behind Max's anger and utter breakdown. There were several scenes in which I yelled at the screen, "What about the child", then finally they would remember - he seemed to fade in and out of existence too often for one film. Then, when disaster strikes, we are forced to believe that suddenly Gibson would release his inner rage? It just didn't work. The same can be said for his wife/girlfriend. A stronger definition of character, and even more lines spoken would have helped me see the relationship. She seemed angry at first, the product of a failed marriage forced by this post-apocalyptic world to stay together, then we were introduced to love, then suddenly, she moved to idiocrity. Who would believe that running down a road, when there are open fields around, is the better option? It was these small inconsistencies that forced "Mad Max" from greatness to just another average action film. Two-plus hour sweeping epics aren't always needed, but stronger characters do help in creating the world that we, as viewers, are to inhabit for 90-ish minutes.



Finally, applause are in order for the villain in this film. The portrayal of Toecutter by Hugh Keays-Byrne was outstanding. The small attention to detail as well as his ability to make you feel like he would do anything to get his way - similar to the portrayal of Joker in "The Dark Knight" - was an up moment for this film. Like a roller coaster, "Mad Max" had these ups and downs, curves and jerks, and when it was all said and done, you really had to question whether you were going to ride it again. "Mad Max" is an important film, there is no question in my mind about that. The door that this film opened for future cinema in America couldn't have been done by a better group of filmmakers, but it isn't a promising classic. I could not watch this film again. The sequels I am ready for, but this ride is over - and the park is closing. I realize that I am in the minority, but "Mad Max" is a low-budget film that uses repetitive filmmaking as its staple - originality is present, but you must search to find it.

Found within my "Cult Films" book where Martin Sheen is coming out of the bog - "Mad Max" gets the middle of the road pink mark. I cannot watch this film again - I liked what I saw the first time, but future viewings will just sour my experience. I could suggest this film to others because I feel it has virgin viewing pleasure, but multiple viewings will water it down. A good film, just not the greatness everyone has spoken.

The Maltese Falcon (1941)

Quick - as a young, energetic, inexperienced director you must make a final decision. As this director, one must either decide to show the audience the famed jeweled bird that has nearly taken up an hour and forty minutes of time, or transform a rather talking ending into a glorified public service announcement. The decision is a difficult one, but one must remember to reward the audience for their patience and time. Alas, that is not the case with this director in his first film "The Maltese Falcon". We are speaking of John Huston and his directorial debut with this live-action version of Dashiell Hammett's famed voice. It is a caper of sorts, a classic "who-done-it" which forces the audience to listen for clues and make their own judgment upon a vast array of cinematic icons. There is the first time introduction to the cultish detective Sam Spade, an early view of Chiklis' Vic Makey from "The Shield", in which Spade is held by no bonds and answers to nobody higher. There is the dame, Brigid O'Shaughnessy, who is the quintessential wild-card of the group, holding nothing but betting all, she sparks where there should be a flame. Peter Lorre's classic Joel Cairo leaves plenty for parody for the next several decades, while Sidney Greenstreet plays the cliché British crime lord willing to believe he is the smartest in the bunch. So we have a beginning - Huston inventing a formula that will be copies, used, abused, and overplayed throughout Hollywood for the rest of days - so ... why doesn't this original feel original?

With our players in place, Hammett's voice spoken with ease, and Huston behind the wheel - this should have felt like a country drive with tension building at the right parts, the take arriving sooner than expected, and Spade proving himself the victor unconditionally. Yet, this wasn't the track "The Maltese Falcon" took. Instead, we begin with a jumbled jigsaw puzzle of facts, relics, and the unknown that makes you feel that you have 5000 pieces and only an hour to complete. Huston begins our story with grace, giving us early indication of our characters and brute honesty that seemed unexplored for the time, but just as we believe we understand the overall plot, he throws in more, on top of more, on top of more to thicken the plot, when in fact he is fully pulling us away from the illustrious "Falcon". This movie is about a bird. It is a rare statuette that promises wealth and power to whoever holds it. It is this bird that scatters our characters all over the place, but ultimately takes them nowhere. Without giving any overbearing plot points away, Spade early on looses his partner uncaringly. Spade, a womanizer with his partner's wife, seems to care less about the death and is literally scraping his name away from the window the next day. I understood Spade to be a loner, a troubled detective whose brains foiled his heart, but this seemed a bit too cold for a character that we were to care about. Huston gives us nothing with Spade - any history that is begun is immediately dropped as a new plot devise is introduced. Bogart lisps his way through the performance, proving that he is just as cold as the criminals, but never quite connects with the audience. Huston will not give us the bird, so instead he detracts our focus away from the statue to Spade, which again, doesn't have enough to build on.

My point is that our characters give us nothing. They may be enjoyable to view on screen, but they are as bland and thin as the paper I write this on. Over the years, they have been unjustly transformed into iconic characters, but I needed to know more about Spade - what made him tick and a bit more detail on his slight idiosyncrasies. While I may have enjoyed watching Lorre's portrayal of Cairo, his usefulness became obsolete by the end. These characters were there, but why? This is a question the inexperienced Huston forgot to include, but Hammett does in detail throughout his book. This is a talking caper, one that doesn't use fancy car chases or large shoot-outs to make their connections, but instead it uses words to guide our characters from A to B. With this said, the words were in place to tell a great story - but Huston could not get his characters to give varied emotions to give us characters. Am I too needy when it comes to early films of this nature? How could "The Thin Man" successfully do this, and entertainingly make me laugh, while as the time moved I cared less and less about this falcon that was supposed to carry this film? Huston just seemed to be missing a big element that should have connected our characters to this bird - we needed something to keep our motives in motion.

Finally, without giving anything dynamic away, the ending was pitiful and unexciting. Finally, we have exactly what we need, the chess pieces are ready to be victorious, but then nothing happens. Huston builds tension, but provides no conclusion. Instead of being an "Indiana Jones" our heroines become sputterer's of life lessons. One doesn't need a lesson, we need a conclusion. The final image of the bird in the light sent shivers down my spine because of the time devoted to this slap-happy mystery. There was no mystery, only a warning about greed. Even with the non-caring Spade, this film didn't mind that it sucked the suspense dry, from both Hammett and the viewers.

Overall, I must credit this film for being an original. Sam Spade's likeness has been used in nearly every detective film both symbolically and overtly. But, just because an icon rests here - it doesn't mean that the film itself is worthy of praise. Hammett's words were not voiced properly in this film, and the dedication towards nothing was outstanding. This was a film about a statue of a bird, but instead we spend more time talking about it than actually finding the bird. Our characters are paper thin, and by the end we care nothing for whomever ends up with it - either good or bad. It was as if Huston had taken all the pieces of a puzzle, bunched them together, randomly hammered them together, and then provided us with a sloppy finished product. I wanted to like this film - it is a dark classic that is honestly overplayed - but I cared nothing for what was happening. Thirty minutes in I was bored. What would Spade think of that? "The Maltese Falcon" is worth one viewing, but any more would be disastrous. The verbose ending ruined my image of Spade - how about you?

Found in my "Cult Film" book with Martin Sheen coming out of the bog in "Apocalypse Now" - this gets a pink mark. Decent, not loved, but not to be watched again. Not a favorite - simply there to be in cinema.

Reviewed originally : July 23rd, 2008

M (1931)

From the elongated opening scene of "M", you know you are in for more than a simple film could ever imagine. The elongated lunch scene as a mother waits for her daughter to return, as we, audience members watch the daughter stray from her journey home with a stranger with a sharpened whistle. It is foreboding, it is depressing, it is mesmerizing. It has been a very long time since a film, especially one made 78 years ago, seemed so delicate, so thought provoking, so timeless as "M" does. From these opening shots, Lang let's us know that this isn't going to be your happy utopia where criminals are caught the next day by the police and our world goes back to liquorish and lollipops, but instead a world where the locals collect like a mob and trust is thrown violently out of the window. With excellent cinematography and a strong balance between humor and honesty, Lang creates this visceral world where the line between truth and justice get blurred, where good and evil are similar, and a man defines his actions as "uncontrollable". This merely scratches the surface of "M", a masterful film that ranks amongst the best this world has offered.

What makes "M" shoot ahead of anything modern, anything by cult directors, anything close to popular? It begins with the actors, goes to the man behind the camera, and finally the skillful craftsmanship of the story. Each of these elements never lack, never fall behind, and constantly build upon each other until that final breath that encourages you to repetitively rewatch. To begin, Peter Lorre. How could you not talk about "M" without mentioning this doe-eyed murderer. From the beginning, we know his role in this film, yet Lang pulls every emotion out of us as we follow his route. We feel sympathy for Lorre when he is tried, we feel scared when he is trapped in the attic, we feel hatred when he voyeuristically looks at the children - and yet, he isn't the only character in this film. Lang introduces us to other well placed personas throughout. The infamous Inspector Lohmann (not to mention that great floor-up shot) is the perfect example of Lang's impressions on the local German police. The fact that Lohmann whistles, counter productive to what Lorre represents, only solidifies that idea. To add to these already dynamic people, we have the background criminals that decide to take the matter into their own hands in hopes to eliminate the looming police presence. The "Safecracker" is idealistic of what Germany was to become, the classic SS look, with the idea of eliminating the opportunity to be tried in a true court of law. Each one of these characters provide humor, excitement, and full-blown emotion to the screen, adding to the overall impact to this film.

With Lorre already bedazzling us with his range and taut emotion, it is up to Fritz Lang himself to ensure that edits, angles, and direction doesn't hinder the power of his actors. Lang steps up to the plate and delivers with his avant-garde film making. I use the words avant-garde because the techniques used in this film are far beyond 1931. Lang incorporates powerful close-ups, amazing track following, and shots nearly unseen at this time. The overhead shots, the ability to make the crowds look ravenous, the camera puns adds just as much as another lead would. If you were impressed by his ability in "Metropolis", "M" is only going to solidify that idea of Lang. A favorite is the raid on the office complex by a group of criminals. Every shot, every detail is directed with ease, but complexity. It is easy to be in awe of this film, but to take the time to see Lang's ability behind the camera will take "M" to a whole new level. Personally, it is my belief, that he announces himself with this film. A pioneer of the camera, a grandfather of what cinema is today - one cannot watch anything released today and not see Lang's influences. See Fincher's "Zodiac", a nearly identical film in themes to what Lang was trying to produce here.

Finally, we have acting and direction, but one must also credit the story for being not just creative and unflinchingly original, but for supporting a strong message. The idea of being more careful was impressive to watch due to the time being 1931, a time well thought of that children could be anywhere without any worry. The story brings evil into an American thought that good guys always prevail, that suburbia is always safe, and that the police actually do keep the streets safe. The story of "M" challenges you as a viewer even today, one could argue even more so today than in 1931. With crimes continually on the rise in this country, with the idea that pleading insanity cures the disease of murder (or is an easy innocence) the idea of "M", especially that final dialogue seems more important today. The fascination also arises with the concept of the mob within this story - the horror that simple events, kindness even, could turn on anyone in a moment of panic. Police arresting anyone that even looks at children in a peculiar way - a fascinating concept that Lang is not afraid to develop. Imagine if this film were made two years later, what a different theme Lang would have tackled.

To conclude, I loved, perhaps loved is a soft word, I worship this film. It is intensely powerful and timelessly accurate for a 78-year old film. I cannot wait to watch it again - not only to bath in Lang's glory, but to really see if the "true" killer was caught. There is plenty left unknown, and I just want to ensure that points connect. This is a slice of cinema that could be watched again and again, knowing that something new would be encountered each time. A deeply enticing film, Fritz Lang proves that he was a ground breaker in his field. Not only could he handle Science Fiction, but nearly every other genre imaginable. "M" is no exception to his skill. If you have not seen this film, watch it - experience it - know what it means to be marked like Lorre.

Found in my "Cult Films" book where Martin Sheen is coming out of the bog in "Apocalypse Now" - this is going to get a green mark with blue stars. I cannot wait to watch this film again as well as give it to friends and family. This is my favorite film this year 2009, and I cannot wait to see what else is around the corner.

Made in USA (1966)

There is no questioning the power of Godard. His cinematic talent reaches much farther than my mind could even begin to escape, and upon watching some of his lesser known films these days - his sheer imagination was something that is decidedly missed in today's film experience. Watching "Pierrot Le Fou", the vivid color, the uncontrollable ability to combine any genre into one frame, and the dedication of his actors was demonstrated. A less-fan of his "Breathless" film and more into his experimental work, "Fou" was right up my alley - yet, watching "Made in USA", I was completely flabbergasted. This film was confusing, colorful, intelligent, philosophical, brutal, and a slice of what America was producing at the time, while all the while being completely Godard. Destined never to be a favorite among purists, "Made in USA" requires more than one viewing and an accompanying owner's manual to navigate, but the final destination is worth all the work. Using Anna Karina as our guide, this spy-thriller (if I could say that) takes off with a huge step and never looks back.

Do not watch this movie late at night or while doing anything that will cause you to glance away from the screen. Every moment in this film is necessary, every word that Godard has our actors speak - while at times confusing and thought provoking - is needed to tell this dis-narrative story. Godard is a master behind the camera for this film - giving us an early glimpse as to what was in store with "Pierrot Le Fou", his bold color and well read characters (each one is always holding a book - Bravo!), are just the crust. What made "Made in USA" stand out was the obvious connections to Walt Disney, the "Big Sleep", and nearly everything coming out of the 60s in America, but what makes Godard impressive, is that one needs to search to see it. He doesn't spoon feed you a narrative that makes your heart gush at the end, Godard creates challenging cinema that will not be enjoyed by all, but if developed - if watched over time - if studied, remains important even 43 years later.

"Made in USA" is another Criterion release that looks and sounds perfectly, but - even with my discussion on how great Godard's work is - isn't the greatest release from the master. Yep, I am a Godard fan, but I am picky. I didn't enjoy "Breathless", but "Pierrot Le Fou" I hold very highly - and this - well, "Made in USA" is intelligent, but perhaps a bit too pretentious. The idea behind this film is solid, but it is the execution that had me nervous. Godard is eloquent in introducing us to certain characters and elements, but gives them names of his favorites like McNamara and Nixon that just feels weighted by symbolism and inside jokes. The viewing took place over the course of three days, not due to the diminishing subject, but because a rewind was needed to ensure that parts didn't go missing or lost. Crafting one part puzzle, one part social commentary, one part comedy is difficult - and for the beginning film watcher - this probably isn't the best film to first experience Godard. Here is what I liked - I loved not knowing. What was exhilarating about this feature was the unknown. The confusing dialogue, the menacing tape voice, the constant barrage of planes flying overhead (if that IS what that noise was), and the possible hope of knowing Richard's last name - keeps one wanting to finish, but getting there is a battle. The dialogue is either a love or hate moment. As there is no linear story, from the spoken perspective, and it is easy to get lost in Godard's cluttered words. For myself, it was at times refreshing - and at other times a disaster. Without a linear narrative, it was difficult to understand how one character fit within the scheme of events. What was happening between Paula and Mr. Typhus? Just thinking about it gives me a headache.

The scenes that stood out in this film were the bartender moments (where you could call him Paul or Bartender, but not "sir"), the pinball machine in the garage, and the billboard store room characters. These made me chuckle and see the humor that Godard was demonstrating, but the others just felt murky and disjointed. Again, I would like to state that every scene was necessary, but were they great? The imagery was spectacular - giving us the color palette that he would later use in "Pierrot Le Fou" - and the cinematography followed suit. For me, it was just the language the bogged me down. I wanted to know these characters further, I wanted to further know the story of the skulled man, and who was double crossing who. "Made in USA" is an important film, I am glad to see it within the Criterion catalogue, but it is an advanced film. The average film watcher will not like this movie, even I felt lost sometimes - but I am so very happy that I watched it.

In another review, this film was quoted as a "B-side" to the Godard cannon, and I couldn't agree more. Could I watch this movie again? Absolutely, but not right away. I look forward to re-exploring this piece of cinema, understanding what I missed, and seeing the inside moments that may have slipped by me the first time. "Made in America" isn't perfect, and I don't know anyone that can take a ten minutes of a tape playing discussing politics, but this self-proclaimed "B-side" finally has a release it deserves.

Found in my "Cult Movies" book - the one with Martin Sheen coming out from the bog - and I think I am going to go with a pink mark. I will rewatch this film again when I come across it as I will with any Criterion film, but it isn't a favorite - it didn't capture me like "Pierrot Le Fou" did. There just seemed like something was missing or maybe I just didn't get it. I think my review of this film will change over time - but for now - pink is the most I could muster.