The Deer Hunter (1978)

Rating: 95%
The third to last best picture winner and the second to last one from the 70's, here's The Deer Hunter.

Plot: Mike, Nicky and Steven are Russian American steel mill workers who are drafted to fight in Vietnam. Shortly before this, Steven gets married to his pregnant girlfriend Angela, and the three friends along with their other friends Stanley, Axel and John go on one last deer hunt. What happens after that...I'll keep my mouth shut on.

I was told that this movie was good, but that didn't stop me from being surprised at how specifically good it was. The story was very well told, the acting was great, the choice of cast was rather remarkable in a way. I mean we have Robert De Niro, Meryl Streep, John Cazale, even Christopher Walken was in this film giving a pretty good and likable performance, and I don't say that often when it comes to that guy to be frank. I should also note that this is sadly the last film John Cazale performed in before he died. He had terminal cancer and the studio had to be convinced by the director, Michael Cimino and Meryl Streep whom he was dating at the time (yeah I know right? who would've thought?) to be allowed to perform in the project and he sadly didn't live to see the film. But anyway, one of the main complaint people will have about this film is how in Vietnam, the Vietnamese are using Russian roulette with their POW's when it's been reported that there wasn't even a shred of that in the actual war. But other people like Roger Ebert argued - to which I agree with - it worked better that this film had that because it gave a really good symbolism that gives an ideal about war in general, not just Vietnam. And as the film progresses, it went much more into what war does in both symbolic and literal ways. However it there is one down I would find it that the film is a little bit too long. Not so much that a huge chunk should've been let out, but it still could've been a slight bit shorter.

And that's my review for The Deer Hunter. it's not recommended if you're after a historically accurate view of Vietnam, but it still tells a great story with excellent acting, very good symbolism, and is just a great film altogether with little wonder that it won best picture.  

Going My Way (1944)

Rating: 90%
Okay. Only four more best picture winners to go, let's get to the second to last winner to review from the 40's, Going My Way.

Plot: St. Dominic's is a catholic church that for the past 45 years (46 in October *drum Rimshot*) has been under the leadership and care of Father Fitzgibbon. When the church is facing financial problems, the bishop assigns Father Chuck O'Malley to help. But O'Malley goes on a rough head start when his informal appearance and attitude gets him into trouble. Nevertheless, O'Malley uses his charm and cleverness to try to transform the church and the people in the town for the better.

This is another film that's very light, charming and simple. But this one may have more charm, emotion, wit and dramatic moments then You Can't Take It With You at certain points. Bing Crosby as Father O'Malley was a very likable guy with his charming sort of optimism and cleverness on how to change the way things went in St. Dominic's and tries to help what's happening to Father Fitzgibbon and the townspeople. Bing Crosby's performance has been known to have been so good that he unsurprisingly won Best Actor for his performance for this film and also played the same character in The Bells of St. Mary's where he was at least nominated again for the same category. Now one argument against this film that I kind of noticed when I saw this movie again for reviewing is that O'Malley might not necessarily be a particularly well done character. That in the rough words of one audience reviewer in Rotten Tomatoes, Jim Hunter, he's not entirely good as a character because he's too perfect. And I can see that; he wasn't really challenged buy what was happening and there wasn't really a side that was any different from him appearing as anything less then practically flawless. But with this kind of movie, he's not really suppose to be. Even if some of the things he does is arguably too simplistic and some solutions to some problems are practically handed to him with ease, that doesn't exactly make him and therefore the film bad. Because even if that is the case, they handle it really well, sometimes with really good wit or charm, but otherwise with some really good emotional moments too. And there isn't exactly no conflict at all - there's one turn during the last half hour or so of the movie that for the most part was pretty dramatic and well timed. And it's not just O'Malley to pay attention to. Some of the other characters like Fitzgibbon and also Father O'Dowd were also very enjoyable. In fact Barry Fitzgerald was nominated for both leading and supporting role for being Fitzgibbon and won supposting. (Yeah I don't know how being nominated for both worked either.)

And that's my review for Going My Way it's a charming and witting film that despite some arguments, does have a fair amount of emotion and drama at some points and has some memorable characters, but most notably Bing Crosby as Father O'Malley. It's not the most conflicting or complex film, but it doesn't need to be to be a particularly enjoyable film. 

You Cant' Take It With You (1938)

Rating: 85%
Alright so finally I get to the last best picture winner to review from the 30's. So let's finish this decade with You Can't Take It With You.

Plot: Tony is the son of a wealthy banker, Anthony P. Kirby who has fallen in love with his secretary, Alice. Alice tries to arrange to have Tony's parents meet her eccentric family, but they all find out that her grandfather, Grandpa Vanderhof is the person responsible for stopping Anthony from destroying his neighborhood for a large deal.

This movie is kind of hard to review because it's definitely one of the very nice, very charming kind of films that are a little hard to find anything particularly unlikable about it. While it can be a little slow and more or less predictable at what happens at the end, it's for the most part a light and simple film with charming characters, a great cast to perform them, some cute comedy that's rarely used but is still done pretty well, and a good fun simple story all around. The most notable actors/characters are Lional Barrymore as Grandpa Vanderhof with his optimism, wit and wisdom, (though I can't believe that's the same guy that plays Mr. Potter in It's A Wonderful Life), Mischa Auer as Kolenkhov mostly because of how her delivers his lines for whenever he says that something stinks, and of coarse James Stewart as Tony. Why? BECAUSE IT'S FRICKING JA-...you know what? Most of you regular viewers out there have probably read my review for The Greatest Show on Earth, so you know how I feel about the guy. Anyway, the only real complaint with this film that some people seem to have is how it's message can seem preachy. And I can see why people would feel that way with how it plays a bit more into the 'money can't buy you happiness" kind of theme more or less, but for the most part, that's what make this film so simple, it leaves a good message that is a cliche today but isn't necessarily less important then it was back them it came out. Plus they told it in a rather unique way considering how particularly eccentric the Vanderhof family are, and that's a good thing to have I think with such a message.

And that's my review for You Can't Take It With You. Even if it's somewhat slow and predictable and has a message you've probably hear before, it still has a fun cast, with unique characters, and a story that make this a nice, simple enjoyable film to watch.        

Monsters University (2013)

Rating: 75%
Well last night the parents decided to see the latest Pixar film as a family. We all came with mediocre expectations, and this is how it turned out for most of us.

Plot: Before the events of the first film, Mike went to Monsters University with the dreams of becoming a scarer. He eventually meets Sully who is basically a jock for his ability to scare and so they become rivals over who is the better scarer. But when both of them fail their scare exam at the end of their first semester, they have to prove themselves by forming a team with a group of nobodies in the Scare Games and try to earn their right in the University's Scare program.

I'll be honest - and I mean brutally honest. When I went to see this movie, I had some low expectations to be anything higher then just mediocre. And when it comes to Pixar, when I say that, I mean that they were so low that I was just playing the My Little Pony mobile game on my iPhone most of the time that we were getting tickets and buying candy for the movie without a care. Not cool? I agree. But to be fair, when the best they have after Toy Story 3 so far is Cars 2 and Brave and their next film is a prequel to a movie like Monsters Inc., it is a little reasonable to have the expectations be fairly low. But as it turns out there was a little more of what makes Pixar, Pixar then what I and my family were going to give it credit for. Granted, the first hour or so into the movie was meeting my expectations with certain aspects of the story and some somewhat cute jokes here and there. But the last half hour - while still not perfect - gave an impressive amount of cleverness and creativity with its characters and where the story all around was going. There were twists, turns, and while there wasn't too much tension to what was happening seeing as this is a prequel to a movie everyone knows, the directions that they take still leave you curious on how it all ends with Sully and Mike working at Monsters Inc. And while it's still not at Pixar's complete best, it all comes pretty close and is altogether quite an improvement from the last two films. If the rest of the film was more like the third act, who knows how good this movie could've been? Another down is that there wasn't as many creative monsters as I expected. There was some, don't get me wrong - The Dean especially was awesome. But for the most part, there wasn't a whole lot of different, unique monsters to look at. Which is kinda disappointing because considering how the first movie showed us all of different monsters, it seemed a little obvious to me that they would at least try to continue to really give us a ton of monsters to enjoy watching.

And that's my review for Monsters University. Its first hour meet the mediocre expectation that I had anticipated, but the third act gave us different directions that were smart, creative and helped make this movie a very enjoyable movie and show that Pixar is more or less getting back on track on what makes them just a great and lovable animated studio. Was it a classic? No. Would I buy it on Blue-Ray? Unless I ever have kids later on in life, probably not. But is it still a good movie to watch? You bet.

Amadeus (1984)

Rating: 80%
Well it's been a long time since I've been reviewing the best picture winners, especially since there aren't a whole lot left to review, so let's go back to them with the last winner from the 80's to review: Amadeus.

Plot: The film begins with an old Antonio Salieri who attempts suicide only to be stopped and put into a lunitic asylum. Later a young priest comes to take his confession, and so Salieri tells the priet his story about how he was devoted to god and music growing up to the point of becoming the court composer for the Holy Roman Emperor. But then he comes across Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart who despite his criticism from the court and occasionally even the Emperor at times, is also an extremely gifted young man when it comes to music. This makes Salieri jealous and also causes him to doubt God because of how he could let someone like Mozart have so much talent. And so Salieri secretly starts a war against Mozart and against God attempting to destroy Mozart for his talent.

I first saw this film about four and a half years ago and both found it very well done but also kind of creepy. This movie was pretty well done. The acting was great, the sets and costumes were spectacular, the music helped a lot with the story with the second half of the film especially, and it's just another one of those films where so much happens and the tone goes from kind of light to really deep and dark.  Considering that both F. Murray Abraham and Tom Hulce were nominated for best actor for this movie, I'm glad that in the end it was Abraham won as Salieri. I mean the laugh aside, Hulce did a great job as Mozart - especially when it came to how his character and everything around him were changing for the worse as the most progress. But Salieri is more the person to focus on in this story. He's the one who is fighting this war over his jealousy over Mozart's talent But it does have its issues. He's the real focus to the movie because he's the cause to a lot of things that happens and you also have to pity him. He's doubting God because someone as wild and lewd would be so much more talented with music then he is and so he's eventually fighting against not just Mozart but God himself. Part of that for me personally is because I am a Christian and so with a lot of his problems and questions, I just wish I was there and give him answers that I wish he got and would help him during all this. But unfortunately he doesn't, and so his personal war rages on resulting in what happens during most of the second half of the movie. And the second half of the movie is what creeped me out when I first saw this movie. Because everything all of the sudden turned really dark and it was really tragic and deep at how Mozart has come to really be a salve to his music and what it's doing to him on top of his other demons. The scene where the Requièm Mass in D minor by Mozart is a very dark  way to conclude the film that I found to be very imitating when I first saw it. But that's my take on it the first time. I didn't get creeped watching this again, but...maybe that's because I saw it during most of the day whereas I saw it really late at night the first time...yeah I"ll stick to that. But this movie does have its problems. One is that it's a little too long. I mean I guess I can agree that it's the way its suppose to be and that there's nothing that should be taken out, but at the same time, it is 3 hours long. Another issue that some people like my brother point out is how really annoying Mozart is - particularly with his laugh. I don't hate it as much as he clearly does, but still...that can get really annoying. Also people complain that this movie is very historically inaccurate, but it's not suppose to be. In fact this movie is based on a play that is also very historically inaccurate. In fact, I've taken a Music Appreciation class a couple of years back and while some things are accurate, the story as a whole with the relationship between Mozart and Salieri is pretty fictitious. As a matter of fact, while I don't remember for sure, I fell certain that the real Mozart and Saleri never even met.

And that's my review for Amadeus. It was possibly too long, had a main character whose laugh was probably a little too annoying, and people might dislike how its historically inaccurate even though it's not suppose to be, but it otherwise is a film that had a good story, great acting, excellent music and sets, and while may be a bit creepy for me, is otherwise a very well done and enjoyable film.

Man of Steel (2013)

Rating: 65%
Well we've been waiting a long time for it, and I"ve been going through the other 5 films to tell you what I thought about them, it's time for my 475th review: Man of Steel!

Plot: Shortly before Krypton is destroyed, General Zod threatens the council to his rule only to be eventually captured and taken to the Phantom Zone. But during this, Jor-El takes his infant son Kal-El on a ship to Earth so he can survive. Once on earth, Kal-El is found and adopted by Johnathan and Martha Kent naming him Clark who over the years struggles with his super powers. Eventually, he finds an old Kryptonian ship where he finds out who he really is and what he's suppose to. But as this happens, General Zod comes to Earth free from the Phantom Zone and is looking for Kal-El.

Now the way people have started to view this movie has become divided. Critics especially are torn between liking or disliking it to the point where Rotten Tomatoes has given it a 57%, while the general audience seems to have come to more or less love it. For the most part, I side with the general audience to the point where while it's hardly great, I consider this the best Superman film for me personally. However while I won't call it bad per say, the critics do make some very good reasons as to why this movie is considered bad for a lot of people. But let's talk about what's good about it first. First off, the design is great. Krypton was not a small crystal planet (yeah I know everyone says ice but it's obviously crystal to me), it was a completely different planet with it's own technology, culture and so on. I've heard one argument that it's a bad thing what they did comparing to the comics, but since I'm not as devoted to them, I'll stick with what I liked. But the bigger and more obvious example with the design in this film is how they upgraded Superman's costume. I've said this many times before and I'll say it again: that needed to happen. Because while I understand how much the original costumed worked for so long with the belt and underwear thing balancing out the colors and things like that, it needed the change. I mean if Iron Man and Superman ever met, Iron Man would just look at him and go "Does your mother know that you're in your pajamas, wearing her drapes, your sisters' boots and your gay dad's underwear inside out?" And now we have gotten rid of the belt and underwear and have made the colors darker, it helps us take Superman a little more seriously. Secondly, the development in the story, and ...some aspects of the characters and the all around world was Superman was done well. Roughly similar to what Nolan did in the Dark Knight trilogy, Snyder kind of went a little deeper into the story and how the world of Superman works and gave us some different takes on the characters. The first 15-20 minutes and some other various parts of the film especially gave us so much more about what Krypton is and what the Kryptonians more or less do as a species. It may not be how it's suppose to be, but I found myself really enjoying Krypton as a culture. We also go a little more into what Clark and his parents have really gone through with his powers and what they are meant for. Granted, a lot of it is easily found to be rushed - especially watching the movie a second time, but they still showed more of Clark and his parents trying to hide his power when he was growing up.  Even General Zod while probably could've been well played by anybody was given more of a background as to why he is the way he is instead of just being evil like he was in the first two Superman movies. The third thing that's good about it...albeit not entirely, is the characters themselves. Along with what I already said about Zod, Henry Cavill was not a bad Superman. Even if he didn't have the charm that makes Christopher Reeve's Superman so loveable or always knew how to use his powers, his performance held out well enough convincing us the he is Superman. Amy Adams as Lois Lane I was skeptical at first- particularly that she's red hair and not black like Lois is suppose to be, but she turned out to be a great version of Lois. Granted, I can agree that she was sort of bland, but I felt that she was still smart and willing to hold her own to the best of her ability despite needing to be rescued quite a few times, and of coarse always wanting to give out a story the people should know. Heck, we see her fight Kryptonians halfway through the movie, how often do you see Lois Lane do that? And the relationship between her and Superman - while I can't say played out in a lot of detail about the chemistry between them -  is very unique from other adaptions of the couple that left me very interested to know how it will carry on in the sequel. Okay so what big things about the film that other people not like about it, and what do I disagree or admit about? Well for one thing, the action was considered to be overdone - some have even gone so far as saying that there was more action then anything else in particular in this movie. Now on a whole I really enjoyed the action. The fact that it had some certain aspects such as the destruction of buildings while superman fights some super strong villain(s), helped make Superman appear how he normally is today in either the tv shows or in the comics in my point of view. But even if I wouldn't go so far as saying that there was action more then anything else, they did tend to make some action scenes go too long to the point where after a while we seem to get a little too much of the general idea of what is happening. Finally, there's people who consider Man of Steel to not really be a Superman movie at all: that it really is just some sci-fi movie or that it's too dark and tense and we don't have a shred of joy or humor. And for the most part they're right. Man of Steel had more futuristic or advanced technology and all that stuff thanks to how much we see of Krypton and General Zod and his followers. And there wasn't a lot of other things Superman normally does like fight crime, or even be called Superman to begin with. Now I won't pretend that I read a lot of the Superman comics or that he's even one of my all time favorite superheroes. But I know and respect the comics and the all around world of Superman enough to know that the fact is that Superman as a franchise is made to be very light and family friendly. There's even one or two big moments is the film that I personally found to be too intense and dark to really work in a Superman movie. But at the same time without getting into a really deep discussion about it, it works because Superman kind of needed to start acting more serious. When I say that, I especially refer to how I personally found some of the way the other Superman films to be a little too light or humorous in some area or another as I've discussed in my reviews for those films. They worked back then, but around this modern time it's a little better to make him more serious as we got much further in development of the characters and the story.

And that's my review for Man of Steel. It's not quite for everyone considering some of the action and how it differs from anything else Superman, and it could've had more work with things like the characters or how similar it is to the comics in some way or another.  But it's otherwise an enjoyable film that did have good action, design, okay character development for some of what it had, that altogether makes it my personal favorite of the Superman film. Is it a very strong start for DC and Warner Bros. when it comes to building up to a Justice League movie as a response to The Avengers? Not entirely. But I'm sure those who are loyal to the DC universe can hope that it can get better from here eventually.

Here's the video version of this review:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7wQRicsOgI

Superman Returns (2006)

Rating: 70%
Well tomorrow is the release of Man of Steel at long last, so with that said, let's finally get it out of the way with reviewing the up the last Superman movie; Superman Returns.

Plot: After 5 years of Superman mysteriously leaving Earth to explore the remains of Krypton, he returns to find out that things have changed. Lois Lane has a son named Jason whose father is supposedly Lois' fiancee, Richard. Lex Luthor is also free from prison due to Superman not appearing at his trial, and has also stolen the crystals from the Fortress of Solitude with a new plan that will kill countless people. So it's up to Superman to stop whatever Luthor's up to while going back to saving the world from catching a place to stopping a robbery. 

Well this may not be the first movie per say, but it does a good job at being a modernized version of the story. Because a fair portion of the film is Superman doing some of the same things as he's done in previous films only doing them in more visually remarkable ways. Most notably when a robber shoots him in the eye and we see the bullet hit his eye with no effect in slow motion. As for the actual story itself, it is a little confusing at times, especially with Jason concerning his personality and how he reacts to certain things on top of who his father really is and how it really is unknown to the characters for the longest time. But for the most part it was well told with more or less give us a rough similarity to the first movie only with a completely new evil plot from Luthor and the climax was not too shabby. There is also the plot hole that Martha Kent is shown to actually be alive in this film even though she was dead in the last two. Though to be fair, it's possible they wrote this film so that they and treat the last two movies like they never existed which if that's the case, I'm down with that. Then there's also the problem with Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth as Superman and Lois Lane. They weren't bad, but they were too young for their parts. In fact its quite a surprise to know that she was actually 22 when they shot the film. (I know right?) Finally there's Kevin Spacy taking Gene Hackman's place as Lex Luthor. He was still a little bit like a cartoon villain like Hackman's Luthor, but most of it was pretty minimal and in hindsight, he did act a little more like how I imagine Lex Luthor should act like.

And that's my review for Superman Returns. It has its issues with the plot and the characters, but is otherwise brings us a modernized version of the first film with a new evil plan from a Luthor who fits the part a little better then Hackman did that makes Superman Returns a nice film to see. Well that's all the Superman films to date, so in conclusion...they can be better. I mean the first one was a classic and the second was more or less as good, but I just would like them to expand more on the universe of Superman, and I dislike that the best they've done is just Lex Luthor and General Zod. And it can do with less ways of trying to be family funny then making Lex Luthor act like a complete cartoon villain and having a bunch of slapstick from the second and third movies. Now granted, I haven't seen the Richard Donner cut of the second movie, which is hear is awesome. But I do plan to see it really soon before seeing Man of Steel and I'll let you know what I thought of it at some point in my review for the new movie. Until then, I'm going to try to have my 475th review up and running at some point so I have that out of the way before seeing Man of Steel tomorrow. So hope to see you then if I don't give up and make Man of Steel my 475th review.