Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows : Part 2

 I must admit to being a Harry Potter fan. I love the novels and the movies have been alot of fun and generally of an equal quality. But for me the movies made a mistake with the cliff hanger ending of The Half blood Prince. I enjoyed the whole movie up to that point but that ending stuffed it all up as it made the whole thing feel like little more than a movie that joined its predecesor to The Deathly Hallows.

 If the Deathly Hallows was only one movie then that would have sat better with me but with it being split into two parts that cliff hanger end clanged badly. How can you have a cliff hanger with the very end two movies away?? Suffice to say I didn't feel the need to have two movies made from the one novel, and for me it was nothing more than a money grab. The Deathly Hallows Part 1 was the first movie of the franchise that I wasn't fussed on. I didn't really enjoy it and felt it was no more than another Harry Potter movie. The franchise had gained a creakiness which I think Part 2 confirmed.

 Firstly I can't really say I enjoyed Part 2. Unfortunately with the bombardment of CGI movies we have been subjected to lately this Harry Potter movie just got lost in the crowd, and to my jaded eyes it was nothing more than Transformers/ Green Lantern/ X-Men, all over again. Hollywood has got to wake up to the word 'VARIETY'. I would have viewed part 2 differently if I hadn't seen almost the same thing the week before. The plot and script are fine but visually the CGI to my eyes was just more of the same and to be honest I was BORED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..the first time in ANY of the franchise's movies.

 If you think I'm kidding then watch the scene where Professor McGonagall re-animates the stone knight statues. Watch how they land on the court yard and tell me that that very idea wasn't lifted from how each scene started in Sucker Punch! There were several other CGI moments that looked familiar, and again Hollywood has got to start interspersing CGI movies with live movies without CGI ( ie. with actors alone!! ), so as to avoid the jadedness that I think is kiling movies like this. They are all starting to look alike!!

 And this was the shame of it as I really wanted to enjoy it and see the franchise out in style. But all I got was more of the same, and I come back to the issue of splitting the movie into two parts. It was un-necessary and the two movies felt too stretched out for my liking. The problem too as was always going to happen was the three main protagonists looked too old for their parts. I had real trouble buying into the boy wizard as he isn't a boy anymore! The character of Neville Longbottom was a joke as he has put in a real growth spurt since the last movie as to be utterly unconvincing. This was always going to happen and again two parts were a mistake because of this.

 So I suppose it is fortunate this is the last of the franchise because the actors are passed their credible ages for their roles. For me it wasn't the right way to see the franchise out by splitting the last movie, and the two parts of The Deathly Hallows have left me feeling unsatisfied both times. It is a pity as the money grab took precedent over making one last great movie. Instead it has been stretched out and with it I think some of the charm and pleasure that the preceeding movies all had is missing.

Unsatisfying, with the odour of lucre I'm afraid. The Deathly Hallows should never have been split into two parts as neither part is particularly good and a let down for the preceeding movies. For this fan it was a disappointing end to a wonderful franchise, and with it a decade long phenomenom.

Click here for a synopsis and more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1201607/

Orson Welles - John Russell Taylor

 I recently watched Orson Welles' masterpiece Citizen Kane, ( of which I hope to review some time this century! ) and realised I knew literally nothing about him. How could this be so considering he created what is considered the greatest film ever made? I knew he created a stir with his War of the Worlds radio presentation in the 1930's but still that isn't much is it? So I though I'd put things to right and read up on the man.

 I'm not having a good year reading non-fiction, and have in fact read more fiction so far in 2011 than I have in the last five years combined. Suffice to say I didn't want to bog myself down in anything too detailed as I just spent a whole month plowing my way through a very meticulous, detailed 850 page of Alfred Hitchcock. So this book was just the ticket as it is only 128 pages long and can be read by an accomplished reader in less than three hours.

 So straight off if you are after a definitive work on Orson Welles then this is not it. It is what I would call an introduction. Books like this are a very good place to start if you want inital background information, or a light framework to build on, and upwards to more detailed works. I don't envisage myself ever reading another Welles biography and this one just scratched the quiet itch I had after Citizen Kane.

 Well in brevity I got what I expected from this book and learnt a few things along the way. Most notably that Welles, before he made Citizen Kane, wanted to turn Joseph Conrad's novel Heart of Darkness into a film. Like so many ideas and projects of his it never got of the ground but was later immortalised by Francis Ford Coppola as Apocalypse Now. Funnily enough though is that he had actually adapted the novel to radio. It is one theme that seemed to have run through Welles whole life was the amount of projects he started but never completed. He generally seemed to blame everyone else but himself for these failures but the fault I think generally lay within him.

 He certainly started out his career in a hurry and was looked on as a boy genius. After a somewhat up and down stage director/actor career he was invited to Hollywood to make films. He saw the possibilities film would give him and took the plunge. But amazingly after Citizen Kane he never scaled the heights again. One of the things that is often forgotten with Citizen Kane though is that it wasn't an instant success and only gathered its fame many years after its release. He reached this height at the young age of 25 and in a 1973 interview succinctly summed up his following career thus, ' I began at the top and have been making my way down ever since'.

 Orson Welles was an active man and was always busy but he has an uncanny knack of alienating those he needed. Taylor says he had a self destruct gene! Charlton Heston, an admirer of Welles as an actor stated, ' There's a kind of maverick streak in Orson....he just wants to work, but at the same time, there's something in him that drives him to alienate the people with the money'. This sums Welles up perfectly. He constantly had projects on the go but no funding so he had to find acting jobs in an effort to raise cash. It is interesting because even though no-one wanted him as a film maker he was always in demand as an actor! This even though he was notoriously difficult to direct as he tried to be the director as well!

 Welles is also famous for his radio programmes. He had a voice that could hold an audience enthralled and he continuously turned back to radio as a form of income. In later years he made most of his money making successful radio commercials, a somewhat sad, but somehow appropriate, acknowledgement of where he stood in the scheme of things. I dont' think Orson Welles was a bad guy or even overly egotistical. His problem was he tried to do too much at one time and hence did nothing. He did take too much credit for Citizen Kane, ignoring the input of Herman  J. Mankiewicz, but he isn't the only person to ever do that type of thing is he?! 

 The only other thing that leaped out at me was I ever realised he and Rita Haworth were married for a time, and that he was married four times. He certainly strayed, which didn't help his marriages, but again he wasn't alone in doing that. I think in such a short book one thing marks Orson Welles for me. That was that his heavy work load, and somewhat difficult persona, meant he never attained and prevailed to the heights his talents said he should have acquired. He had some successes, which were huge, but overall his was a career that I would sum up as unfulfilled.

 This is certainly not a definitive biography, but if you wish to read an introductory book on Orson Welles then this is a good place to start. A short and effective summary, no more.

Amazon has this with 4 1/2 stars from 5. And even though very short this type of brevity can be quite a demanding write, and I think John Russell Taylor has produced a good example of this type of concise biography.

The Guns Of Navarone

 My god it would have to be at least thirty years since I last saw this classic! I can unequivocally say it is one of the films that as a boy inspired my life long interest in military history. Ah the memories because I remember all too well reading the 1957 Alastair MacLean novel it is based on as well as his other war novels, Force 10 From Navarone, Where Eagles Dare, and HMS Ulysses. Where would I have been without such novels, movies and a very heavy dose of Commando comics??!

 Alastair MacLean was still alive and writing when I was a boy in the early 1980's. He is probably less known to a younger generation but in his time he was probably the best thriller writer of his generation. Whilst his novels may now be dated somewhat his legacy to his chosen genres cannot be disputed. Unfortunately I knew I wouldn't be able to find the time to read the first Navarone novel before watching the DVD as I would have preferred to do. It too must be thirty years as well since I last read it so I borrowed a copy from my library of which I shall start on soon.

 Well after thirty years there was so much I had forgotten about this film. I always remember the model guns sitting in the cliffs though!! They are the whole point of the movie so that isn't surprising is it?! But everything else was all new me again which added to my nostalgia. The cast I knew and could name, and I had an added interest to re-visit this as I watched Gregory Peck with Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday last week. Certainly a fine performance and even though The Guns of Navarone has some serious flaws the acting is not one of them.

 The cast is superb and a good example of the  great names from the  1950's and early 60's. Peck, Quinn, Niven. Hawkins, and then heart throb James Darren ( to bring in the younger audience ), give this film a real edge. I found it hard to pick out an actor who stood out as they all had scenes that were their own. The one I liked the most was after the girl traitor is shot and Peck and Niven are left alone. In the space of a minute or so these two great actors both show why they are such legends.

 The film was a box office success and was nominated for six Oscars so it was seen as a film with quality. The acting is now its strength because visually it has dated. In 1961 this was a big budget blockbuster and a lot of money was spent on the special effects. Many of the scenes would be considered dangerous so mock ups were made in studios to replicate cliffs etc. They now look dated ( as one reviewer has said 'cring worthy' ), but it must be looked at through the eyes of the times. I think any film aficionado will appreciate the dated effects and view them as a piece of cinematic history.

 Instead of CGI in 1961 models were used. They are glaringly obvious but must have been fantastic in their day. The Star Wars film used models as well and the genesis of the method can be seen in Navarone. If you look carefully at the fortified town the guns are above the fore runner of CGI can be seen. It is animated and actually still effective as I have seen recent movies with CGI that was of the same quality. Also the party are attacked by a pair of Stukas. They are animated but surprisingly have dated well and looked really good, ( very reminiscent of the Stukas in Enemy at the Gates ). This must have been an incredibly expensive film to make in its day when you look at the amount of model work, animation, and hand built props that were created.

 The whole premise of the film is cobblers though! MacLean at the start of his novel says he likes writing war novels because they give the fictional writer great scope of story telling. But he stresses he hates war as he served in WW2 and believes it OK to write fictional war stories if they avoid glorifying it. Navarone is a fictional island as are the men trapped on Kheros. There was an Aegean Campaign and commando raids etc from the SBS ( Special Boat Service ). But in all reality the area was of secondary interest to the Germans who generally left it to the Italians to administer.

 

  Like many of the war films of the era the German equipment is actually American. The Greek Army was used for the Germans and hence their equipment too. I laughed at one stage as a bunch of Jerries jump into a truck with the name 'Dodge' on the tail board!! The tanks are American, and in fact for anyone with any military knowledge the whole film is military nonsense! I won't go into details but the film is 'high adventure' and reality is secondary to entertainment.

 All said and done though this is a good example of an early 1960's adventure movie. It has dated visually but for me I like that as it is a 'classic' and the quality of the cast compensates for the datedness. Militarily it is pure bollocks but still a great plot and story. Of course it is based on the novel by Alastair MacLean and his novels were the height of 'high adventure' for many decades. The film adaptation follows the novel fairly well with the only appreciable changes being in the characters. Added was a romantic sub-plot, and the identity of the traitor was changed. The two women were also not in the novel. The nationalities of some the men were also changed, ( for instance Peck's Mallory doesn't have his nationality mentioned, but in the novel he is a New Zealander ), but overall the book and movie are very similar.

 Still an influential film as it started the 'actioner' genre even within a war film. The cast is superb and has meant that this film hasn't slipped away into oblivion, because what made it an exciting film in its day now is severely dated. A younger generation may scoff at it but any serious cinema lover will appreciate it because of its enduring legacy to the genre and for the superb cast. After watching this I was reminded by the proverb,  'they don't make them like this anymore', and it is true because modern so called 'blockbusters' just cannot begin to replicate what a film like this represented sixty years ago. I really enjoyed my re-visit to this film, and oh the nostalgia! I think even for its obvious datedness you will enjoy it more if you have read Alastair MacLean's fine novel.

 Visually dated, but still a great example of a genuine 'blockbuster', and a piece of cinematic special effects history. ( MacLean wrote a sequel, the only one he did, titled Force 10 From Navarone. The film adaptation did not star the original cast and was a flop. Author Sam Llewellyn has also written several Navarone novels, so it is clear the impact the novel and film has had on popular culture).

Click here for a synopsis and more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054953/

And click here for my review of the novel:

http://intellectualmediocrity.blogspot.com/2011/07/guns-of-navarone-alastair-maclean.html

 ( We are fortunate this film was ever released because David Niven fell seriously ill during filming. He became ill from filming the scene where he is wiring the lift with explosives and is standing in water up to his waist. He nearly died and the whole project was in jeopardy. The producers came close to shutting it down and claiming the insurance, but fortunately Niven recovered and was able to finish filming ).

Kungfu Panda 2

 Finally, finally, finally Kungfu Panda 2 has hit our shores! So it was with pleasure and anticipation that my hot little feet whipped me off to my local theatre! I have been looking forward to this since it was announced a sequel was in the offering as I just loved the first feature. Believe it or not opening night was only yesterday and yet I was alone in the theatre with only one other person!! I couldn't believe it as it was really eerie as my laughter bounced off of the walls.

 I may have been looking forward to this sequel but I was also worried somewhat. I really wondered how the first movie could be topped or if this second outing would even come close to the first quality wise. Well first off it in no way topped the first....not even close as it just didn't capture the the one thing the first had in abundance.........charm. The charm was missing and what I got was a rushed action heavy animated blitzkrieg instead. Sure it is a Kungfu movie but to me at times it looked no more than an animated version of last weeks Transformers movie...destruction and mayhem at the expense of the characters themselves. The building collapse of Transformers 3 is all but replicated here as well!

 The plot was fine but the script rushed head long into the fray which saw the moral inherent to all animated features become lost in the mayhem that followed. It was all rush rush rush and what was so wonderful about the first movie was sadly missing. I thought it might have been over familiarity with the characters, but I don't think so because whilst there is a story of self discovery for Po, the movie really is just an actioner with plenty of fights and explosions.

 But it isn't without its place because it still retained plenty of humour and I laughed out loud from start to finish! The animation was spot on and visually satisfying with plenty of sight gags to keep all happy. Problem is the one I keep coming back too..it was too rushed and it felt as if the producers were trying to fit just far to much into its running time. It just left out too much of what made the first such a success and is little more than a wreck 'em, bash 'em, blow 'em up, slug fest. Bangs for bucks entertainment yes but at too much expense of what Kungfu Panda should be about. ( I was surprised that Del Toro was executive producer for this as I had heard nothing about his involvement and I didn't see his influence ).

 Overall I felt almost let down by this sequel. Sure it had plenty of laughs and was visually appealing but it gave up the wonderful feel of the first movie in becoming an animated action movie. The charm of the first was severely lacking and for me this is the key element of Kungfu Panda and its success.  A lot of fun yes, full of humour yes, full of plenty of great animated fights yes.....but missing that 'certain' spark of the first.  I enjoyed it and had a great time....but I didn't love it and believe me I LOVED the first one big time!

  Still worth seeing as you will get your moneys worth. But if like me you want to re-capture the charm and wonderful vibe of the first I think you will be very disappointed. If I had to give it a grade I would go 7/10, whereas the first was an unequivocal 10/10 for me. Unfortunately the producers have fallen into the trap of making a big loud movie that misses the 'awesomeness' of the first.

 Click on the month of February if you wish to read my review on the first Kungfu Panda as a comparison.

Click here for a synopsis and more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kungfu_Panda_2

Here for more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302011/

And here for the official site:

http://www.kungfupanda.com/

The Graduate

'Elaine!'

'Ben!'

'Elaine!'

'Ben!'

Ben to Elaine!!

'It's too late.'

'Not for me it isn't!'

Elaine to her mother, Mrs. Robinson.

You know the scene!!!!!!!

 ' And here's to you Mrs. Robinson....', how on earth can you go wrong with a film that starts with that song??! I have never been interested in watching The Graduate because I was never overly fussed on Dustin Hoffman. But after some recent films of his  I took the opportunity of renting this DVD from my local library and watching it last night.

 The AFI has the graduate at number 7 on its greatest films list. Straight away I will say that is far too high for it. When a true masterpiece such as Dr. Strangelove is down in the 20's, ( and for me the far superior film ) , it shows the flaws in the AFI's rankings. The Graduate is certainly a great film but I don't think it can rank as near one of the greatest ever made. In saying that I do still think it is top 100 material but more down between 50-100 ranking.

 The first thing that hit me about The Graduate is how it didn't feel or look like a 1967 film. The French Connection looked like an early 1970's film where as The Graduate, being three year older, looks far newer. I honestly thought it was a late 1970's film as it has dated extremely well compared to many other late 1960's films. Secondly it is a comedy drama and here it has dated as the laughs are there but haven't the impact in our modern world as they did 44 years ago. I still had a few chuckles but the riot it was in 1967 is no more.

The morality is also out of date as far as sex and marriage goes. Notice the scene where Hoffman, as Benjamin Braddock, is buying the wedding ring. As he is inside a young couple walk out of the store with a very young baby in the father's arms. The message is loud and clear and yet it has dated as I seriously doubt the younger generation of today would see the symbolism and message in it. It shows how much attitudes to sex, love, and marriage have changed.

 In its day the scenes where Mrs. Robinson has first undressed herself in front of Hoffman were explicit with the very blink your eyes and miss it flashes of her breasts. Today we get to see it all and that scene has an almost quaintness about it to our jaded eyes. It is amazing though when you watch the likes of this and then The French Connection which was made in 1971, because in The French Connection we see a very clear shot of a woman's bum, which shows how far along in the space of four years the level of acceptable nudity had traveled. Think also that Dirty Harry came out several months after The French Connection and had a very clear shot of a woman's breasts. So even within the space of a few years after its release The Graduate was somewhat dated.

 As a film The Graduate is possibly the one that really brought to the fore young sexual angst in a more realistic and probable way. Of course with loosening morality restrictions for film it was able to do so. But what is truly funny about The Graduate is the ages of the actors/actresses compared against the ages of their respective characters! For instance Hoffman was 30 and yet plays a 21 year old!! I actually thought he was in his early twenties as he doesn't look any where near thirty!!  Ann Bancroft as Mrs. Robinson is supposed to be 42 and is actually only 35, and yet looks far older than Hoffman. Fortunately the youthfulness of Hoffman's appearance works because if he didn't look 21 then the film wouldn't have worked. Also the very attractive Katherine Ross was actually 27 playing 19!

 All three of these actors were nominated for Oscars for their performances. The film was also nominated for four other Oscars with Mike Nichols winning Best Director. Like all films it is always interesting to look at who was initially wanted for the cast. Doris Day, Ava Gardner, Joan Crawford, and Patricia Neal all wanted, or were considered for the role of Mrs. Robinson. Robert Redford was wanted for Benjamin Bradford, and Gene Hackman for Mr. Robinson. Even without these names it still is a fine film though!

 Obviously Dustin Hoffman as Benjamin Braddock is the main protagonist and I must say a few words about him. His is a stellar performance and even though I had heard good things about it I was sceptical as I started watching last night. I'm now convinced!! Benjamin is a painful geek who I constantly felt like grabbing by the scruff of the neck and administering a good hard kick in the pants!! His initially reticence is painful and Hoffman plays it well. Kudos where deserved Dustin, because even at 30 you played a very convincing shy, sexually naive 21 year old!!

 One last thing and that must be about the church scene! It is certainly an iconic scene if not one of the MOST iconic ever filmed. I think it ranks up there with the cliff jump in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and Reagan's head turning 360 in The Exorcist as one of the best and most recognisable scenes ever. It was of course famously parodied in Wayne's World which shows the impact it has had on the world of cinema.

 The Graduate is I believe a truly great film, but not top ten material. When you look at the films it is ranked with I'm afraid it isn't in quite that league. But it has its place as it is a piece of cinematic history for its quite explicit message for the times. The script is first class and the acting faultless, especially that of Hoffman as the shy reserved Benjamin Braddock. The score is fantastic and Simon and Garfield's song Mrs. Robinson must rank as one of the best ever put to a film. Dated yes, very much so, not visually as it has stood the test of time well, but in its treatment of our attitudes towards sex. This is where its historical value comes to the fore as it is a valuable look back at the changing attitudes towards sex, not only on the big screen, but in the world at large.

 Certainly recommended, and still a great film even with its dated sexual quaintness! I thoroughly enjoyed it and the church scene is a definite must see for any film aficionado.

Click here for a synopsis and more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Graduate

And here for more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061722/

And it even has an official website!

http://www.mgm.com/view/movie/772/The-Graduate/

Death Of A Salesman

The DVD cover.

 This version is not the 1951 film adaptation of Arthur Miller's play but a 1966 made for television film. I watched it last night and it was one of the most intense and satisfying watches I have had in quite some time. It is considered the greatest American play of the 20th Century and it won a Pulitzer in 1949 the year of its publication. It was staged that year with both John Lee Cobb and Mildred Dunnard and had a run of 742 performances.

 In this made for television film both Cobb and Dunnard reprise their stage roles as Willy and Linda Lohman. It is unique and interestingly made because it is filmed as if the viewer is watching a play and not a film. The sets are very much play sets and yet it is filmed in a classic film manner which uses all the usual camera angles etc. I remember this type play cum film from the late 1970's early 80's as my old man use to watch them on a Friday night. I was always enrapt by the play sets even though I couldn't understand the narratives! They always appeared boring and I used to run when a Shakespeare play turned up! ( I remember Laurence Olivier very well! ). I wish I had access to them all now as they have left an indelible mark in my mind.

 But times have changed as I really like this type of play/film, and I still have an affinity with the sets. Unfortunately this type of thing has died out and they are very hard to find so it was with relish that I watched this. I'm not sure of the plays original length but this has been abridged from its television length. At 99 minutes it is like a full length film and I would liked to have seen it in its entirety even though what I saw was outstanding.

 If you have never seen this type of film/play then what you get is a set like you would see on a stage and the actors act it out like a play whilst being filmed. Stage acting is a totally different skill to camera acting and the skill level on display here is phenomenal. John lee Cobb is sublime as Willy Loman, a man who is enduring a breakdown and has attempted several suicide attempts. For me he is the highlight and a good example of stage acting. His voice projection is wonderful and I loved how the sets are laid out for filming purposes so that the actors can move to each one seamlessly without a cut in the film.

 There are cuts in the film as some sets are not central to the story and happen outside of the Loman house. You get the idea when you see an actor move from one narrative to another as they move past prop walls and windows that have another set in shadows behind them. I loved it visually and it brought back the wonder I had at this type of production as a boy. A good example is in one scene Willy goes into a bathroom and the viewer sees the back of the washbasin as if looking into the room instead of a conventional film where you are in there with him. It is wonderful stuff and the production value is extremely high which saw it win a very well deserved Emmy.

 The cast is just superb and I was very, very surprised when a very young Gene Wilder walked on!! I couldn't believe my eyes! He doesn't have a big part but he was an actor I never took to and I was startled by how accomplished he was as a stage actor where he, like so many others, started his career. John Lee Cobb cannot be praised enough as Willy Lohman. He is a stage actor of real note and this is his role absolutely. Mildred Dunnard is superb to as Linda Lohman. She is a mousy woman who has suffered her husbands decline into depression for a long time and yet won't turn her back on him. The two sons are well played as well and I couldn't fault the cast at all.

 It is an emotionally shattering play and the actors really engage the viewer and make them feel the pain of the story. I felt my self squirm at times as things got to close and real for comfort, but this is its strength as it is something that we can can all recognise. The film/play adaptation works well because Lohman talks to himself non stop and with television techniques the viewer gets to see through walls as his family listen to him. This same technique is used well to as Lohman looks back on his life through a series of flashbacks.  Certain camera angles are used so as not to interrupt the actors movements and the skill of it all is just beyond mention. What television has done is give a continuity that the play couldn't as the curtain would have to closed so sets and clothes could be changed.

Cover of the play's first edition.

 If you are a film aficionado then this is compulsory viewing. It is a type of film making that has now gone and it is a real shame because there is an incredible amount of skill involved in producing film/plays for the screen. I like them very much and wish I could get my hands on more of them. The difference between stage and screen acting is huge and this is a good example and well worth watching to see why.

 Well worth your time as Death of a Salesman is a truly great play that will shatter your emotions. This made for television film/play, if you can find a copy, is a more than satisfying watch. I'm sure anyone with any modicum of intelligence will be in awe of the high production values and the performances, especially that of John Lee Cobb who is just on another level!

Highly, highly recommended.

Click here for a synopsis and more on this very famous American play:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_Salesman

And here for a look at the DVD version of this fine television production:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0187806/

The French Connection

Doyle is bad news - but he is a good cop. 

 The French Connection and its its sequel used to be standard fare on NZ television in the early 1980's . I can remember my old man watching them but I found them boring and they went over my head. Thirty years later I couldn't even conjure a vague image of either film so I was really looking forward to watching this last night because in all essence it was a new film to me.

 I was really surprised to find that the AFI has this in its top 100 films of all time list. As with A Place in the Sun I'm not sure it warrants being there even though it is a fine film. It was released in 1971 and was nominated for eight Oscars, winning five, of which Gene Hackman won for Best Actor. I never knew he had actually won an Oscar before last night! It was with surprise also that I found out Roy Schneider was nominated for Best Actor in a Supporting Role.

 The film is a fictionalised adaptation of a non-fiction work. In the 1960's and the early 1970's most of the heroin coming into the Eastern Seaboard came from France, hence the title. The script itself was also nominated and won an Oscar, and when you watch Connection it is apparent that it is a fine film and the nominations well deserved. Interestingly it was also the first R-rated film in the States to win an Oscar for Best Picture after the introduction of the MPAA system. In its day it was certainly violent and graphic, but now the gunshot wounds do look dated. This is the era when Hollywood was able to leave behind the puritanical system in which it worked under and have swearing, graphic violence and nudity appear on screen. Connection has all three but by today's standards in relatively small doses which I liked because it didn't go over the top and kept an air of realism by not doing so.

 As a cop film The french Connection is regarded to have set the standard. Sure Dirty Harry came out a month later but Harry lacked the credibility 'Popeye' Doyle achieved. This saw the Harry series became more a source of anti-hero entertainment than a cop film per se. Connection was the first real attempt at showing the gritty, unpleasant side of police work, but all the while it provided plenty of thrills along the way. The car chase scene is regarded as one of the greatest ever filmed. Hackman actually did a lot of the driving himself and it still stands up well today.

 Gene Hackman as 'Popeye' Doyle is superb and it is hard to credit after such a performance he wasn't initially considered for the role. Paul Newman and Steve McQueen were wanted but well out of budget. Lee Marvin refused because he hated cops! Jackie Gleason was considered bad luck, and even Charles Bronson was considered before Hackman got the part. Doyle is in my opinion the best part Hackman played in the 1970's ( next to The Conversation ). He has the intensity and dis-regard for the rules needed for the role. He is ably supported by a very good Roy Schneider who after this never really scaled such acting heights again even after the his iconic role in Jaws.

 As a 1970's film this is an amazing watch and not only for the performances. Brooklyn as a city is an incredible backdrop and I couldn't get over the amount of rubbish in the streets! It was like a dump!! But it all adds to the certain timelessness that Connection has achieved as a film. It is a brilliant snapshot into 1970's Brooklyn and an inadvertent one. It is a film and meant for entertainment, yet in the process a period of a cities life has been preserved which I found fascinating. Any car buff out there to will enjoy the 70's buzz as the streets are chocked full of late 60's and early 70's cars and it was fun identifying them and seeing them as 'new' models!! As a film it is a piece of visual history on an era that is long gone. I suppose because of this, as well as the fact it is a fine film, it has been preserved in the U.S National Film Registry.

 I really enjoyed watching the French Connection. It is a very fine example of an early 1970's film. It has that 70's patina about it and Brooklyn is fascinating. I was enrapt with what was happening behind the action as much as by the film itself. It reminds me very much of Collateral with Tom Cruise where the lights of L.A are very much a character in themselves. The French Connection can I believe be accredited with starting the American cop movie/television series that took away the gloss and showed the gritty, boring, morale sapping, seedy side of police work. The sort of places they went into and the types of punks, crims, scum, they dealt with isn't pleasant at all, and yet all too real. Sure it has its dramatic moments but it is the 'air' and 'feel' of the film that is its key. As a cop movie The French Connection set a standard that has rarely been bettered.

 One other thing struck me as it added to the 'cop' feel, and that was the inadvertent humour. I found myself chuckling at certain parts, not because they were funny as such, but because they represented the frustrations of the job. Watch the subway scene and you'll know what I mean. It is black humour at its best! At times the situations almost became farce as three cops tried to follow three different suspects through the teeming streets. I really did feel for the cops as they lost them, and the swearing and cursing under the breath started. Not humour in the sense of the word but humour because it is so recognisable. It just adds that certain realism to the whole film.

 Highly recommended, both as a fine cop film, but as an inadvertant look back at the 1970's as most of the film is actually out on the streets of Brooklyn. A truly great piece of 1970's cinema. I'm just not sure it is top 100 material even though I do regard it as a fine film and a great cop/thriller in the process.

Click here for a synopsis and more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067116/