Reds

The amount of information, facts and tidbits I don't know about Russian history could full volumes. I love history -- ALL of it -- but something about the immensity of Russia and its history has proved rather intimidating to me. Where to even start? Well, movies seem to agree with me. I liked but didn't love 1965's Doctor Zhivago, but there's another Russian epic that's long been recommend to me. Let's get going with 1981's Reds.

Living in Portland, Oregon in 1915, Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton) has a relatively safe if dull life. She's married, does art and is a hopeful writer. Then, she meets John Reed (Warren Beatty), a highly respected if somewhat controversial writer with an impressive following. She is immediately drawn to him and ends up following him to New York City to be with him while also hopefully pursuing a career as a writer and a journalist. There's a relative catch though. John is a staunch supporter of the socialist movement, a movement that threatens to tear World War I apart as workers around the world, especially in Russia, begin to push for more rights, more privileges. In the midst of World War I (and with the Russian Revolution looming), Louise has entered into one of history's most tumultuous times. She loves John and he loves her, but the world seems on the brink of blowing itself up. What will happen next?

For years, my Mom has recommended this movie to me. It's one of her all-time favorites, and she knows far more about the time and backstory than I do. For some background reading, read about the Russian Revolution HERE at Wikipedia. It's not even fair to say this is a Russian Revolution movie. This is a story about two people's lives amidst that turbulent time in world history with a heavy socialist focus. For more reading, read about John Reed and Louise Bryant, two incredibly interesting individuals. It is a big, epic movie, clocking in at equally intimidating 194 minutes, and took Beatty (who starred, directed, produced and wrote) and his cast and crew a full year to film. That's before you consider a lengthy editing process. Beatty is no dummy, taking on films that mean something to him, and this is the definition of that. This is a message movie, an intellectual, thought-out, impressive film. Is it good though?

I will say it is more interesting than it is good, if that makes sense. 'Reds' picked up 12 Oscar nominations, ultimately winning three, including Beatty as Best Director. For a movie that clocks in at almost three and a half hours, it did well at the box office and resonated with critics and has developed quite a following among fans. It was filmed in New York City, Finland, England, Sweden and Spain. So....yeah, what else? 'Reds' is an epic. The scale and immensity is impressive. This is an epic about an idea though, the idea of socialism. This is 194 minutes of almost entirely talking. This is talking about a principle, about government, about corruption, about history, about the system. 'Reds' isn't Lawrence of Arabia or The Godfather or Gone With the Wind. It is its own epic, and with Beatty backing it all the way, it is quite okay with being its own film. I struggled at times because it is such a smart, well-written movie. Is that enough to hamstring a film? I don't know, but definitely know what you're getting into here.

Picking up two of the film's four Oscar acting nominations, Beatty and Keaton carry the film. Either one or the other is in almost every scene, and apparently the filming was so strenuous on their off-screen relationship they ultimately broke up. I didn't necessarily buy their doomed love, their unexplained chemistry. What did I buy? Their performances themselves are excellent. These are two extremely intelligent individuals, drawn to each other but who's personalities butt heads because they're both so strong-willed. Based on historical figures, both characters are 3-D, blood and guts people, not cardboard cutouts. Kudos to both actors who again make their characters interesting/fascinating if not necessarily likable.

Up until 2012's Silver Linings Playbook, 'Reds' was the last film to receive Oscar nominations for all four acting categories. The culprits? Jack Nicholson as playwright/writer Eugene O'Neill and Maureen Stapleton as famed anarchist Emma Goldman. These aren't huge supporting parts, but what's there is choice, two actors making the most of their relatively small screentime. Also look for Edward Herrmann, Jerzy Kosinski, M. Emmet Walsh, Paul Sorvino, William Daniels, Gene Hackman, and R.G. Armstrong in supporting parts. Some of them are pretty quick, none of them truly developed, and a couple are nothing more than a single scene. Of the smaller parts, Kosinski is memorable as a socialist leader working with Reed and Hackman as a booze-loving, honest newspaper editor.

One of the best choices Beatty makes as a director was a wise style choice. Along with the actual story, interviews with those who knew Reed and Bryant during the 1910s and 1920s are interspersed throughout the movie. These people -- now in their 70s and 80s -- reminiscing about John and Louise, about the times, about how things have changed, these are the moments that proved most memorable for me. Check out the list of witnesses HERE. So as I mentioned before, this is an excellent movie. One you appreciate and admire and respect. I felt like I learned some things as the story develops, but did I love the movie like I hoped I would? Nope. Still very much worth checking out, but not quite the movie I was expecting.

Reds (1981): ** 1/2 /****

The Godfather

Some movies are just better than others, plain and simple. They're the ones that even the most casual movie fans among us are aware of, films like Gone With the Wind, Casablanca, Lawrence of Arabia, and one of my favorite movies, and maybe the greatest movie ever made, 1972's The Godfather.

It's just a few months since the end of WWII, and Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando), the head of the Corleone crime family in New York City and dubbed the Godfather, is at the height of his power. He has an epically successful business, running the unions and all the gambling in the city, and he's able to do it because he has countless politicians and judges in his back pocket. Things are changing though all around him, especially the underworld and the business he helped create.  Vito is approached about a deal he could bankroll, but it involves drugs, and he chooses to ignore it. The decision is one that drastically affects the family, one that will incorporate all his family members, especially fiery firstborn Santino (James Caan), adopted Irish son, Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall), and his youngest and smartest son, Michael (Al Pacino). What does the future hold? Who will rise up to help their father?

Based off a novel of the same name by author Mario Puzo, 'Godfather' is one of those rarest films; it's perfect. In that sense, director Francis Ford Coppola improves on Puzo's novel, the rare film that is better than its source novel. None of that is a dig at Puzo -- the novel is one of my favorites, a well-written gem -- but the film takes the idea, premise and characters and runs with it. Clocking in at 175 minutes, it never slows down, never feels dull. The dialogue and script provide countless engrossing talking scenes. The look of the movie with its authentic wardrobe, cars and sets is incredible, Coppola filming in an earthy fashion where things always look dark and burned-out to a point. Oh, and composer Nino Rota's score is halfway decent (that's sarcasm by the way), one of the great, classic scores in Hollywood history. You know it already, but listen to the theme HERE.  

What sets Coppola's film apart from countless other films about the Mafia, mobsters and organized crime is the impeccably written story. Puzo's novel introduces countless characters, relationships, history at the reader with all sorts of backstory, and the film assembles it into an expertly told, very coherent (sounds simple, but you'd be surprised) story that develops nicely. It covers over 10 years of time, but at no point does it feel even slightly rushed. Puzo's novel (he also worked with Coppola on the script) introduces characters and within minutes we feel like we've got a good idea of who they are as an individual. Imagine that with over 10 characters that get a fair share of screentime. There is a comfort level with the characters -- the good guys and the bad guys -- that makes the movie more enjoyable the second it begins. Does it all fall into place right away? No, it takes some time, but getting there is half the fun.

As far as true acting movies go, this 1972 classic is hard to beat. There isn't a performance that falls short or feels fake, but two rise above the rest; Brando as Vito Corleone and Pacino as his son, Michael. Playing one of the most iconic characters in film history, Brando's performance has opened the doors for all sorts of impressions, caricatures and stereotypes, but it is a career-best performance (and that's saying something considering Brando's career). It is a layered, nuanced performance, a man in the second half of his life who is highly intelligent, kind and ruthless at the same time, and a man who will stop at nothing to care for his family. Pacino's Michael goes through the film's biggest transition, a young man and WWII hero who wants nothing to do with his family's shady background but finds himself thrust into the family business when outside forces descend on the Corleones. Brando won an Oscar -- fully deserved -- and Pacino was nominated, but whatever the award nominations out there, it's two amazing performances.

Coppola's film earned plenty of acting nominations, three alone for Best Supporting Actor with Pacino, Duvall and Caan all earning a nod. The coolest part? All three deserved it for one reason or another. Caan and Duvall get less screentime, but they make the most of it. Caan is a scene-stealer as the fiery, hot-tempered Santino, known to friends and family as Sonny, the oldest Corleone son. The same for Duvall as Tom Hagen, but in a different way. Where Caan is more aggressive, Duvall underplays his part as Tom, the unofficial Irish Corleone brother, a childhood friend of Sonny's who Vito welcomed into the house. Other members of the Corleone family and operation? Richard Castellano and Abe Vigoda as Clemenza and Tessio, the Corleone caporegimes (think right-hand men, enforcers), John Cazale as Fredo, the Corleone brother and screw-up, Talia Shire as Connie, the lone Corleone sister and her similarly fiery husband, Carlo (Gianni Russo), and Diane Keaton as Kay, young Michael's love who must decide how much she's willing to put up with.

And then there's the opposition, the all-around nice individuals who are trying to take down the Corleones. For starters there's Richard Conte as Barzini, a head of another NYC crime family, Sterling Hayden as Capt. McCluskey, an NYC cop on a rival's payroll, John Marley as a film studio head who incurs the wrath of the Corleones, Al Lettieri as Sollozzo, a drug supplier looking for funding and backing, and Alex Rocco as a casino owner dealing with a buy-out of his casino.

On repeated viewings, I've noticed different features about the film, different layers that can affect how I view it. The biggest is simple; family. Yes, it's a pretty hardcore, violent story about a crime family with its hand in illegal happenings, but it's still family. If you can look past that whole criminal aspect, the biggest focus is the family and the dynamics and relationships among family members. Through the rather vicious, violent ups and downs, love and hate, they're there for each other (for this movie at least). I love how Vito dotes on his kids and grandchildren but can balance that out with a brutal mindset -- it's business, not personal -- at the same time. The relationship between Vito and Michael is the most heartfelt, including one of my all-time favorite scenes as father and son discuss what could have been, maybe what should have been. A worrying Vito wanted more for his son, but a firmly entrenched Michael (very much looking out for the family) calmly states "We'll get there, Pop." It's an endearing, heartfelt moment, one of many.

There are far too many memorable, iconic, and all-time great scenes to discuss one by one.  Big picture, that's probably what viewers will remember the most on initial viewing. The infamous horse head scene, the introduction of Vito, his loyal enforcer, Luca Brasi (Lenny Montana), and his "offer he can't refuse," the perfect simplicity and natural quality of the opening wedding, a slight detour to Sicily and its beautiful hills, a meeting among Michael, Sollozzo, and McCluskey in a traditional Italian restaurant, and maybe the most memorable, the baptism scene, almost entirely silent other than Rota's score playing over the developing scenes. Each of the above scenes could be analyzed in a review unto itself, but this review is already getting long-winded. Long story short? It's maybe the greatest movie in Hollywood history without a flaw in sight. Shame on you if you haven't seen it by the way. What are you waiting for?

The Godfather (1972): ****/****

Harry and Walter Go to New York

Some films are doomed from the start. They just are. Production problems, casting decisions, pacing/tone issues, any and all can derail a movie. There's a whole wing of Hollywood movies that are known as Epic Failures. Some overcame it, others didn't. Massively over-budget, 1976's Harry and Walter Go To New York is one that didn't despite an impressive cast.

It's 1908 and a pair of vaudeville actors, Harry (James Caan) and Walter (Elliott Gould), are struggling to make any money at all at their shows, eventually resorting to pickpocketing where they are not surprisingly caught quickly. At the same time, infamous millionaire safecracker Adam Worth (Michael Caine) is caught during a robbery and sent to prison. Working as Worth's slave-servants, Harry and Walter manage to escape and with the blueprints for the infamous bank robber's next job. Unfortunately the well-to-do Worth isn't far behind, and now it's a race against the clock to see who can pull off the job first; the bumbling performers turned con men or the experienced, expert robber?

For whatever reason, this is a movie that received generally poor reviews. On the other hand, I liked it a lot. As Roger Ebert mentions in his review, 'Harry and Walter' is clearly made in the vein of The Sting. There isn't much ink about the movie or its troubled production, but I'm guessing the massive budget problems had to do with the lavish period sets and costumes. It's turn of the century Massachusetts and New York, and everything from the ultra-detailed sets to the immaculate time-appropriate suits to the light-hearted, goofy score from David Shire works well together, especially Laszlo Kovacs' Earth-toned, dulled down color cinematography. It is a period piece, and this 1976 flick gets the period details done the right way.

I'm thinking the biggest reason for the generally negative reviews is the type of humor. Where The Sting was well-written and funny in its ability to underplay the situation, 'Harry and Walter' is not so subtle. High comedy this is not, director Mark Rydell's period-heist movie relying far more on physical humor, and bumbling humor at that. I typically don't go for that type of humor, but it worked for me here. Much of that credit goes to Caan and Gould as the buddy relationship that produces much of the laughs. I've always been a Caan fan, but this is a showier part for him, not the usual tough guy role. Case in point: he sings and dances. Caan's Harry is the confident know-it-all, Gould's Walter the quiet, nervous knows it won't work partner. They play off each other effortlessly.

If James Caan and Elliott Gould weren't enough though (and shame on you if that's the case), the supporting cast shouldn't disappoint. How often do you see Michael Caine get third billing in a movie? His Adam Worth is a scene-stealer, not quite a villain but certainly approaching that territory. Diane Keaton plays Lissa Chestnut, a crusading newspaper woman who joins the bank robbing effort and has everyone fall for her. Charles Durning is the worried bank owner trying to save his $. Also look for Lesley Ann Warren, Michael Conrad, Burt Young, Val Avery, Carol Kane, Jack Gilford, Dennis Dugan and Ted Cassidy rounding out a very deep cast.

A period piece merged with a heist flick certainly had my curiosity on high alert. The actual heist isn't anything special as Harry and Walter's "expert team" attempt to get into Durning's perfect safe. In order to create a diversion, Harry and Walter end up hijacking a stage show with their own hijinx and shenanigans. The act finally wears thin a little, but it's not enough to detract from a movie I enjoyed a lot. The cast is too talented so even if you don't go along with the physical comedy/humor, you should still get some enjoyment out of it. If nothing else, look for the prison from The Shawshank Redemption as a familiar location. Well worth checking out.

Harry and Walter Go To New York <---trailer (1976): ***/****