The Movie Jar Series: Week 4

Casino: 

It is no secret that Martin Scorsese is my all-time favorite director. While I’ve seen many of his films, I didn’t watch “Casino” until I pulled it from my movie jar! I am so glad I selected it, because now “Casino” ranks in my top three favorite Scorsese films. This 1995 film stars the one the only, Mr. Robert DeNiro, alongside Sharon Stone and Joe Pesci. It is about the inner operations of corrupt casinos in 1970s Las Vegas. DeNiro stars as Sam “Ace” Rothstein, a bookie running the mob-owned Tangiers casino. Ace’s best friend, Nicky Santoro (Pesci), joins his side, hired by the mob to look out for him. Ace proves to be dynamite at running the casino, benefitting the mobsters who are skimming money off of the successes of the operation. Nicky is a loose cannon, which puts Ace’s position in constant jeopardy. Sharon Stone plays Ginger McKenna, a Las Vegas hustler and social climber who conditionally marries Sam for his money. Tensions rise as Sam grows deeper in love with his unattainable wife, and as Nicky seeks higher gains across town in the mafia world.

In true Scorsese fashion, this movie is over-the-top, gritty, and intense. Many of this iconic director’s trademarks are evident in this film. We see violence, greed, corruption, glamor, betrayal, and more. De Niro and Scorsese’s partnership proves to be highly effective yet again. De Niro narrates the entire film as well- in many of Scorsese’s films, the protagonist of the film also narrates to the audience. Excessive profanity, another signature trademark, is also evident in “Casino”.  Another quintessentially Scorsese feature is fantastic old-school music. Scorsese favors classic rock, namely the Rolling Stones. “Casino” is full of great songs that certainly add to the ambience of the film. From “Nights in White Satin” by the Moody Blues, “Go Your Own Way” by Fleetwood Mac, and “Gimme Shelter” by the Rolling Stones, there is no shortage of classic seventies tunes in this film. 

“Casino” may be a three-hour feature, but let me tell you- those three hours will fly by. Between the fully-fleshed character development and the compelling plotline, you’ll never wish this movie was any shorter. I felt truly immersed in the glitz and glam of a 1970s high-end casino. The set design is flawless. Scorsese is known for pulling out the stops when it comes to set design. His films are designed to completely immerse viewers into the universes he’s created. Las Vegas is as much of a character in “Casino” as any other. The color scheme is full of hues of deep red, shiny gold, forest greens, and fluorescent yellows. I can assure you could freeze any frame in the film and a passerby could guess that this was 1970s Vegas. Perhaps my favorite component of the entire film is the costumes. Namely, the costumes worn by Sharon Stone throughout the film. Her character, Ginger, represents just how wealthy Ace is. She trapses around Las Vegas in lavish furs and head-to-toe jewels slipping lofty tips into people’s pockets. Ginger’s outfits are also reflective of her state of being throughout the film. When we meet her, she’s the woman on top, tossing poker chips in a gorgeous sequin dress. By the end of the film, her appearance is noticeably more disheveled, trading her gowns for more sporty, beige attire. The attention to detail of this film is transportive. 

De Niro and Pesci always give incredible performances. But in my opinion, Sharon Stone really stole the show in “Casino”. Her performance as Ginger is absolutely captivating. She effortlessly depicts Ginger and her vastly dimensional persona. We meet Ginger as an uber-confident hustler. She utilizes her sexuality to get what she wants in life. Once she gets involved with Ace, we get a glimpse into the complexities of her life. This gorgeous, materialistic woman breaks down throughout the film, unraveling to reveal her true nature as a damaged woman. She is initially content with the extravagant gifts from her husband. Ginger receives more furs, jewelry, and clothing than any one woman could ever use. As her relationship with Ace becomes more fragmented, she becomes more dependent on pills and alcohol, sending her in a downward spiral. Sharon Stone brought such depth to this character. Ginger can be utterly glamorous and in complete control of everyone around her. She can also be on the verge of a mental breakdown, throwing tantrums and jeopardizing her familys’  happiness. 

Over all, “Casino” has quickly become one of my favorite films of all time. I find myself constantly thinking about it. From the set design and costumes, and score, to the insane plot and fascinating characters, I’m hooked. I will always recommend “Casino”, whether you’re looking for a glimpse into the life of the wealthy or into the underbelly of a corrupt organization. There’s no shortage of entertainment in this Scorsese hit. 

Shadow of a Doubt: 

“Shadow of a Doubt” is a 1943 noir psychological thriller directed by Alfred Hitchcock. I was excited to pull this title from my jar and expand my Hitchcock viewings. It is about a teenage girl named Charlie, who’s living with her family in Santa Rosa, California. She lives a completely average life (which in her mind is quite dull). This all changes when her uncle, also named Charlie, comes to pay the family a visit one day. No one has heard from enigmatic Uncle Charlie in years. Young Charlie quickly comes to idolize her Uncle Charlie, seeking his approval and company. As time passes, however, his behaviors become more suspicious, and young Charlie questions his motives. His niece slowly notices that Charlie is wanted for murder. She takes it upon herself to get to the bottom of this mystery. 

Uncle Charlie is a classic psychopath. He is charming, good-looking, and knows just what to say to win over someone’s trust. Young Charlie is up against quite a villain. However, she is a very observant young woman and is just the right person to take down Uncle Charlie. “Shadow of a Doubt” is a satisfying thriller, giving the audience hints here and there, while still keeping them guessing. It definitely felt like a classic noir film. The conflicting relationship between young Charlie and her uncle is what really draws the audience into this movie. It is an understated film, which serves to its advantage. There is something far more sinister about an eerie estranged relative than there would be about a classic horror movie. Joseph Cotton, who played uncle Charlie, did not over-act his character, which was key. His understated performance as the villain allows the audience to be shocked at every twist and turn, no matter how subtle. “Shadow of a Doubt” may not give you nightmares, but its eerie premise is enough to keep you on your toes. I would certainly recommend this film to anyone looking to dip a toe into the Hitchcock pool. 

Chariots of Fire: 

1981 Best Picture winner, “Chariots of Fire” is known for its iconic score. Quite frankly, I was entirely unfamiliar with this movie aside from its theme. “Chariots of Fire” is based on a true story. It is about two runners training for the Olympics in the United Kingdom in the 1920s. Moreso, however, It serves as commentary on the class and religion-based divides prominent during that time. Eric Liddell (Ian Charleson) is a devout Scottish Christian competing against Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross), a Jewish man facing severe prejudices. Eric is desperate to win the race to serve as a testament to his committed faith, and Harold is driven to win to prove that Jews are not inferior. Even though I generally find films touching on these subjects quite compelling, “Chariots of Fire” didn’t draw me in. It doesn’t help that I’m not super keen on the subject of running. Honestly, the fact that this movie was made forty years ago was pretty evident. It simply felt dated! While I can see that this is technically an important and quality film, I was bored. 

This is the kind of movie that I can envision enjoying the year it came out, but it didn’t hold up in 2020. It felt quite stuffy, with forced dialogue and a slow-paced, anticlimactic plot. I’m glad I got around to watching “Chariots of Fire” but I won’t be likely to rewatch or strongly recommend this film. I can certainly see how this film was successful in the eighties. It is an uplifting story about patriotism and overcoming prejudices. It is fairly understated, with no major actors cast and minimal effects. Over all, I think if the themes of this movie interest you, and you’re willing to watch a movie that is clearly decades old, you just might enjoy “Chariots of Fire”. Just not for me! Stay tuned to see what I think of my next selections next week. 

The Movie Jar Series: Week 3

 Silkwood: 

“Silkwood” is a 1983 movie starring Meryl Streep, Kurt Russell, and Cher. It is based on a true story about Karen Silkwood, a woman who worked in a nuclear power plant and ultimately became a union labor activist. Nora Ephron was the screenwriter of this film, launching her ever-successful collaborative relationship with Meryl Streep. "Silkwood" paints the picture of corporate greed, a concept that is far too familiar to many to this day. 

Karen works in a plant that makes fuel rods for nuclear reactors, and this job threatens her with exposure to radiation. She becomes aware of the lack of safety precautions implemented by upper management. Employees are asked to work overtime, falsify reports, and brush off incidences of potential exposure to radiation. Karen joins a union and works tirelessly, lobbying for protection of herself and her coworkers. Complications arise throughout the remainder of the film, painting Karen's life as a portrait of someone suffering due to the selfishness of others. 

Stylistically, the film certainly felt dated. That being said, the storyline is very important, drawing light to issues prominent in modern society as well. I personally enjoyed watching "Silkwood". Like always, Meryl Streep's performance was transformative. This was also Cher's first serious acting role, playing Dolly, Karen's roommate. They are truly a dynamic duo. Kurt Russell, who was known for his action roles leading up to this point, also delivered in his performance as Karen's boyfriend. The performances of these three actors really added to the emotional weight of the story. "Silkwood" is an important film, telling the story of many Middle America blue collar workers. The fact that it is based on a true story makes the film all the more compelling and emotional. It is a fascinating glance into the early years of Meryl Streep's untouchable acting career. Although I think some may potentially be bored by this film, due to its datedness and its not-so-cheery subject matter, it is an important film nonetheless. 

 Sleeper:

I know what you're thinking- is she really still watching Woody Allen movies? I can write a whole separate post about Woody Allen's career, discussing whether or not his films should still even be watched based on the highly questionable nature of his personal life, but I will save that for another time. While Allen is a highly controversial figure in Hollywood, to say the least, no one can deny that his movies have had a significant impact on the movie landscape. When I was younger, I received DVDs of many of his movies as a gift. I still have some of them tucked away, and as I was flipping through my books analyzing the greatest movies ever made, I couldn't help but notice there were several noteworthy films of his that I've never seen. Therefore, a handful of his titles ended up in my movie jar, thus will be mentioned in my posts. Feel free to skip over my commentary if you've chosen to hop off the Woody Allen bandwagon. 

"Sleeper" is the fourth film written and directed by Woody Allen. It also launched the start of his partnership with the illustrious Diane Keaton (ah, we have a theme this week- the origins of iconic film duos). In "Sleeper"Allen stars as Miles, a man who has been frozen for the past 200 years. He finds himself in a society in which the government keeps a close eye on the public. Previously, Miles was a carefree Greenwich Village progressive who owned a health food shop. He has trouble accepting his new fate into a society with a big-brother government. This film serves as a social commentary on the government in the year 1973, when the film came out. This is the first Woody Allen movie to have a plot with a true beginning, middle, and end as opposed to a string of sketches. After Miles wakes up 200 years in the future, he is forced to flee when the police are on the hunt for him. He ends up joining a revolution, working to combat the oppressive government. 

It was fascinating watching this film four decades after its release. While many of the references are outdated and very questionable by today's standards, it is interesting to see how the year 2173 was crafted through a 1973 lens. The early 70s visions of futuristic architecture were very clever, and people sure do wear a lot of white. 

"Sleeper" is chock-full of one liners and slapstick comedy, making it in my opinion one of Allen's funniest films. It is highly quotable and most of the jokes pack a punch. Keaton and Allen really have great comedic chemistry, and there was no shortage of it in this film. It was a short, inventive, and entertaining film that is very intriguing to watch decades after its release. "Sleeper" is great if you're in the mood for a quick film with a little bit of science fiction and a whole lot of laughs. 

The Kid: 

Believe it or not, "The Kid" is the first Charlie Chaplin film I've ever seen. I don't know why it's taken me 24 years on this planet to finally get to a Chaplin film, but I finally did it! "The Kid" is a 1921 silent film starring the one, the only, Charlie Chaplin. This was his first full-length picture. It tells the story of his famous character, the Tramp, who finds an abandoned baby in the street and decides to raise him on his own. This movie really took me by surprise. Considering it is nearly 100 years old, I expected it to be a little dull with age. I suppose it's unfair, but I did expect to find it boring for some reason. I was so pleasantly surprised! "The Kid" should be mandatory viewing. It was equal parts hysterical and heartfelt. Being that this movie is just over an hour long, I don't want to give away too many plot points. It explores the trials and tribulations of the Tramp raising his adorable little boy. The two are a hilarious pair and will steal your heart. After viewing, it is clear how "The Kid" is a fundamental building block for both comedic and dramatic films to come. This movie is so short that I would highly encourage everyone to give this classic a whirl. 

The Movie Jar Series: Week 2

In A Valley of Violence: 

Starting off week two, I watched “In A Valley of Violence”. This is an indie-western movie starring Ethan Hawke. I have quite honestly never heard of this film nor ever heard a soul speak of it. However, it was on HBO and had pretty stellar reviews, so into the jar it went. This film, released in 2016 by the popular independent production company, A24, tells the story of a drifter and his beloved dog traveling through the old west. It essentially takes a comedic approach to a classic telling of a new cowboys’ unwanted arrival in an old western town. The protagonist, Paul (Hawke), and his dog Abbie find themselves passing through the small town of Denton en route to Mexico. The motives of their journey are kept relatively vague, though it is revealed that Paul is escaping his past, which includes a wife and child. This nearly abandoned town is run by a father and son duo. The son, Gilly, seems to call the shots of everyone in town. His father is the sheriff, who strives to keep the peace of Denton (played masterfully by John Travolta). Paul and Gilly quickly become enemies, raising tension between Paul and the citizens of Denton. 

I was most impressed by Hawke and Travolta’s performances in this film. Ethan Hawke is a very gifted actor, and does a tremendous job in this role. Paul is a fairly closed-off character, but Hawke’s mannerisms allow viewers to get to know him just ever so slightly more than his dialogue lets on. Also, the dynamic between Hawke and the dog in this film is remarkable. You’ll be rooting for the savvy dog, Abbie, throughout the movie. She is astoundingly attentive and loyal, and is sure to steal viewers’ hearts. 

Perhaps the greatest surprise in this film is John Travolta’s performance as the town sheriff. In recent years, Travolta has taken an intentional step out of the spotlight that shone upon him many decades earlier. I don’t know about you, but ever since he played the mother in “Hairspray” I haven’t been able to think of him in the same regard as I once did as an actor. I was shocked to find that his performance as the sheriff absolutely blew me away. His character is portrayed as the true leader of the town, a man who proudly defends Denton’s honor. The character ultimately doesn’t take himself too seriously, and as the violence heats up, so does the comedy. This strange phenomenon, the link between comedy and violence, is difficult to summarize. Basically, “In A Valley of Violence” pokes fun at the classic tropes of a spaghetti western. As the tropes present themselves, witty dialogue counteracting the action is quick to follow. 

If you think you’d appreciate an original mix of violence and comedy amidst a western backdrop, you’re sure to enjoy “In A Valley of Violence”. More than anything, it is reminiscent of a Cohen brothers movie, namely “O Brother Where Art Thou?” (another true modern classic). This movie was very unique, and I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. 

Yanks: 

“Yanks” is a classic example of a movie that’s been sitting on my shelf for years, unwatched- and now I know that’s with good reason. It is the definition of an exactly okay movie. This 1979 film is a war romance, starring Richard Gere. We follow multiple characters as they fall in love during World War II in England. As the title would suggest, Gere plays an American soldier, Matt, stationed in a small town in England. In the leading storyline, he falls for Jean, an engaged daughter of a shopkeeper. We also follow the story of an affair between a commanding officer and a married Englishwoman (played by Vanessa Redgrave). This storyline was secondary, and was given such little attention that it was nearly impossible to get invested in their relationship. 

This film explores the trials and tribulations of relationships during the war. I appreciated the fact that it shined light to the impact of war beyond the battlefield. It reminds audiences of the effects of war on civilians on the homefront in addition to soldiers. I can imagine this storyline would draw in an appreciative audience, but to me it felt a little color-by-numbers. Okay, I thought it was a bit of a snooze-fest. It was a schmaltzy romance, and I can get on board with that from time to time. But this 70s movie felt quite dated, not holding up in modern day. I found the storylines derivative and painfully predictable. Of course, a young Richard Gere makes for a more pleasant viewing experience. He may be a 1970s heartthrob, but he did not shine in this role, making a dull character even duller. Over all, if you’re in the mood for a sappy WWII melodrama and a young Richard Gere, you probably won’t hate this movie. I just believe there are so many better films out there, that this one isn’t particularly worth two hours of your time. 

Oldboy:

Next up, I watched “Oldboy”, a South Korean film from 2003. It is a neo-noir action film centered around the theme of revenge. It is about Oh Dae-su, a man who was imprisoned in a room for 15 years without knowing why. Once he is released, he embarks on a revenge mission towards his captor. This sounds like the plot of any old action film, but “Oldboy” is truly one of a kind. While it can surely be classified as an action film, it also encompasses mystery and romance. Everything is kicked up a notch in this gory, fast-paced action flick. It is reminiscent of a Tarantino movie, as it is very violent, has a humorous twist, and revolves around a revenge mission. It is not for the faint of heart, as it certainly pushes the envelope in terms of gore and graphic scenes. 

In addition to dialing up the brutality, “Oldboy” also dives deeper into human psychology than many action films generally do. From the get-go, I developed a sense of what it would be like to be trapped in a small room for a decade and a half. The viewer follows Oh-Dae-su’s descent into madness. His time spent in captivity has clearly taken a toll. This sense of a characters’ state of mind is maintained throughout the film. 

“Oldboy” is full of continuous twists and is sure to keep viewers on their toes.. Every time I thought I had a sense of where the film was going, it would take a turn.  As for my personal opinion on the film, I was certainly glad to watch this after years of intending to. It is highly entertaining and unlike anything I’ve seen before. That being said, it is so outlandish and gruesome that it will likely be many years before I have any sort of urge to rewatch “Oldboy”. I’d recommend it to fans of films such as “Inglorious Basterds” and “Parasite”. If you’re not one for intense violence, I would steer clear from “Oldboy”. 

Out of Sight:  

“Out of Sight” is a crime/romance film from 1998 starring George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez. As a longtime fan of both JLo and Mr. Clooney, I was intrigued by this concept. Clooney plays Jack Foley, a seasoned bank robber who finds himself in prison after a failed robbery. Jennifer Lopez plays Karen Sisco, a deputy federal marshal who catches Jack attempting to break free from prison. These two develop quite the complicated relationship. Although Jack is a felon on the run, and Karen is a cop trying to get him back in jail, the two are attracted towards one another. 

This movie has “blockbuster” written all over it. I can see it now- the year is 1998, and a trailer pops up on your TV for “Out of Sight”. It has Jennifer Lopez. It has George Clooney. There’s a romance, there’s action, there’s crime. What more is there to want? I bet theaters were packed.  It definitely felt dated over 20 years later, but it is certainly still an entertaining movie. Honestly, this is not the kind of movie I get particularly invested in. The plot was fairly predictable. It was a fun watch, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to recommend it.