The Killing (1956) Review

“You have not yet learned that in this life you have to be like everyone else - the perfect mediocrity; no better, no worse. Individuality's a monster and it must be strangled in its cradle to make our friends feel confident. You know, I've often thought that the gangster and the artist are the same in the eyes of the masses. They are admired and hero-worshipped, but there is always present underlying wish to see them destroyed at the peak of their glory.”
  The Killing is Stanley Kubrick’s third film and in a way it was his first serious film. Kubrick’s first two pictures were basically preparations to help him perfect his directing skills.  The Killing helped establish him as one of the best directors in Hollywood, which later helped pave the way for his future films like 2001. It’s sad because “The Killing” seems to be overlooked in Kubrick’s amazing filmography, but the film has influenced the film industry. This film gave Quentin Tarantino inspiration for his film Reservoir Dogs. 
   The film is essentially about a meticulously planned heist at the racetrack. Johnny thought of nothing else in prison, but conceiving this heist. The plan is flawless… if only he picked better people to help him with this heist. Soon things become getting chaotic, although not all at once but in small increments that add up dangerously. The little things range from miscommunications to miscalculations in the timing. It all leads to an outstanding climatic scene at an airport.  “The Killing” is much like a chess match with the characters as the pieces.  Some of them pawns that leave the game quickly while others last a while like the king and queen. 
    A lot of the noirs from the 50’s can be very slow at times, but “The Killing” is far from that. The acting was great, although I would have liked to see some of the characters have more screen time. I love how the film builds the anticipation to the heist. In a way it was like the anticipation I felt during the opening bank robbery scene in the Dark Knight. The directing was great naturally. 
  “The Killing” is another great film directed by Stanley Kubrick. I’ve never once been disappointed with his films. He is one of my favorite directors, probably right behind Hitchcock. 

4.8 out of 5

Spartacus (1960) Review

“And maybe there's no peace in this world, for us or for anyone else, I don't know. But I do know that, as long as we live, we must remain true to ourselves.”

    Spartacus is a story of a man who is simple yet proud. He’s a gladiator who desires to be free and will stand up for freedom. So a slave revolt happens and some political factions use this revolt to get what they want out of the Roman Empire. The cast of characters were great, but I just couldn’t find myself to like Kirk Douglas as Spartacus. Maybe it’s because I knew the backstory of how this film was made.  I did like the statement that screenwriter Dalton Trumbo was trying to portray. I also found it intriguing about the homoerotic nature of the Roman bath scene when Crassus and Antoninus discuss their mutual appetites for “snails and oysters”. At the time it was taken out and later put back in during the restoration.

    The initial director scheduled for Spartacus was Anthony Mann, but was fired by Kirk Douglas after shooting one scene. So then Stanley Kubrick was set to direct the film. He and Douglas worked together in the film Paths of Glory.  Kubrick had little artistic freedom with this film, which is sad because it makes one think how it could have turned out with him in full control. Every time he tried to direct the Kubrick way Douglas would fight with him.  Kirk Douglas wanted Spartacus to be all about Douglas, that’s why he was a producer. He needed it to be his Ben Hur.

    Spartacus is a Kubrick film and yet it is not a Kubrick film. If you ask a Kubrick fan if they like the film they’d usually say that they’re disappointed with it because it was too Hollywood for a Kubrick film compared to the rest of his filmography. Then ask someone who is not a fan of Kubrick, probably a Michael Bay fan, and they’d most likely say that they enjoyed it. So is it a bad film? I don’t consider it a bad film it’s still a better film than most of the junk Hollywood makes nowadays. It’s a respectable film. Fairly good, but it’s no masterpiece or a great film. Kubrick deserves a whole lot of credit for making this film work.

4.2 out of 5

The Thin Red Line (1998) Review

“I want to stay changeless for you. I want to come back to you the man I was before. How do we get to those other shores? To those blue hills? Love… where does it come from? Who lit this flame in us? No war can put it out conquer it. I was a prisoner. You set me free.”

 SPOILERS

   The Thin Red Line is probably the most spiritual poetic war film that has ever been made. Most people’s favorite war film is Saving Private Ryan and rightfully so. That film was made for the eyes while the Thin Red Line was made for the soul. Spielberg showed the carnage that takes place during war, which showed the viewer how war is hell visually. The Thin Red Line takes on a different approach of showing how war is hell through the reflections of soldiers who have to experience it. Terence Malick’s earlier films, also including Tree of Life, are so thoughtful and abstract.

  Much like Malick’s Badlands and Days of Heaven it starts off in a sort of Garden of Eden for Private Witt and his friend who are staying with natives in a small village. They are most happy there because they are far away from the death and destruction that is caused by war. Their paradise is soon taken away suddenly when their fellow American soldiers find them and sent straight to battle. Just like Private Witt, many of the soldiers have been taken away from their Edens and in search for the answers to why they are at war amid all the chaos.

   The soldiers aren’t portrayed like how most of Hollywood portrays them in many films. Most of them are not courageous, patriotic, or selflessly brave who are willing to risk their life for their country. It’s actually quite the opposite.  They are almost all terrified and some even incapable to fight in battle. The soldiers want to be able to live through battle so that they could eventually grow old and tell war stories to their grandchildren. In the film’s tag it says, “Every man fights his own war” it’s quite appropriate because each of the soldiers who have screen time act like the protagonist.

   There is Lieutenant Colonel Tall who is stubborn due to his shortage of sense. First he decides to bomb a random space in hopes that it will make the soldiers excited to go to battle, but it only terrifies them even more. Second he acts like he has good news and it only confuses the soldiers. Third to get his point across to the captain he asks how many men have to be killed in order to succeed their mission. Captain Staros is the opposite he wants as few casualties to his men as possible. He’s not concerned with appearances like Tall is.

   Out of all the characters Private Witt is my favorite. He’s almost Christ-like in a way. There are two things that Witt truly wants. The first thing is to return to that place where everything is once again okay. He still believes that he can go back there if he endures the war, which is possibly poisoning his inner being. Second is to the find that calm his mother had as she was dying. He is discovering this calm every time he confronts death. He discovers the key to the calm in his own death. He is the only character to sacrifice his own life in order to save the men. Before his death he hears the sound of water and it reminds him of the time he spent in the village. So in the end he is fulfilled because he essentially gets the two things that he wants.

   Nature is a key character in a way. These soldiers are essentially dying over nothing when they could have approached the Japanese differently. They are just like the useless bombs that Tall ordered. Didn’t strike much of an impact on the enemy only shook leaves off the trees. There’s a scene during the charge up hill of a baby bird wounded horribly by the shots being fired. It’s crawling and trying to flap its wings in a pointless attempt to escape the destruction that’s happening. Showing the innocence of nature that is ultimately destroyed by man. Yet as we witness many of the men on both sides losing their lives we slowly realize that the vines and the trees will outlive these characters. While every character is facing their internal war, nature will still live on without them.

    The music composed by Hans Zimmer is really one his best scores. The music enriches the characters and their narratives very successfully.

   This is Terrence Malick’s masterpiece. It’s the most stunningly shot war film. It explores the human condition and provides the many differences every soldier faces during war. Sadly people say it’s too “intellectual” for a war film and I have to disagree.

5 out of 5

Interview with Dawn Shamp

I had the pleasure to meet the wonderful Dawn Shamp purely by accident. She is the most cheerful and nicest person I have ever met. I asked if I may interview her and she agreed instantly.


1) Who was your favorite childhood author? 
A. A. Milne. I still have my collection of books my mother bought for me when I was a little girl, and my stuffed Winnie-the-Pooh — although he’s minus ears thanks to the family dog.
2) What genre of books do you like to read? Do you limit yourself to only the genre that you write yourself?
I don’t discriminate. I like variety in both fiction and nonfiction, so no, I don’t limit myself to only historical fiction. What I don’t read enough of these days, sadly, is poetry.
3) How long have you been writing?
About 15 years.
4) What made you fall in love with writing?
The freedom of it. That I can play around with language and break rules that I couldn’t get away with in high school English.
5) Were you always good at writing?
I don’t think I’ve ever thought ‘hey, I’m really good at this,’ only that, for the most part, I get pleasure from the process and am constantly working at making my writing better. In spite of having a novel published, I still have to convince myself that what I have to say is worthy.
6) What’s your inspiration or who is?
That’s a list that continues to grow. The writers I feel most drawn to include Steinbeck, Hemingway, Erich Maria Remarque, and Herman Wouk. Of course, I don’t write like any of them, but sure wish I did.
7) Did you ever think you’d become an author?
No way, no how. I thought to be an author you had to have a large vocabulary and a lot of initials after your name.
8) What is your favorite theme or element in writing? 
Dialogue is probably the element that comes most naturally for me.  Usually a phrase or a word will pop into my head, and that’s what tends to help get me into a scene.
9) What do you think makes good writing? 
Clarity.
10) What do you think people search for in a book? 
Well, it depends on the individual and the book. In general, I’d say readers are looking to make sense of the world around them, to better understand the human condition, or something that may give them a wholly different outlook on a situation they’re dealing with. For me, I’m often looking for some sort of hopefulness. I like to come away from a story that, even if it ends tragically, contains a hint or question of a promise. But, I guess that’s me wearing rose-colored glasses.
11) What advice would you give people who “run out of creativity” when writing?
I don’t believe creativity ever really “runs out.” I know a lot of writers go through bouts of being excruciatingly unsure of what they’re doing or trying to say, myself included. Those are the times we should allow ourselves to just sit and look and listen and take notes. Even engage in another form of creativity, like gourmet cooking, taking an art class, studying music, going to a museum—or any type of activity you wouldn’t normally do. I can’t tell you the number of times that I thought I’d never write another word except for making up a grocery list. And I don’t understand how the creative process works, but when I’ve felt the most desperate to return to a project, something eventually “shakes loose” and I start to feel that fire in my fingers again. As wrenching as a dry spell can be, I’m learning to appreciate that aspect of creating. I’m especially grateful to the makers of Sculpey clay.
12) What’s your favorite character archetype of literature?
Ah, my heart belongs to The Fool! Any time I get invited to look at my own silliness is a reward.
13) What is your favorite novel?
Unequivocally, The Caine Mutiny by Herman Wouk. I have multiple copies. I even married my own Willie Keith.
14) Any recent works you admire?
I’ve been focusing mostly on research for a new book and haven’t read much contemporary work lately. There’s one novel, though, that has stayed with me for a long time that I highly recommend — Jose Saramago’s Baltasar & Blimunda. It’s exquisite.

ABOUT HER NOVEL  'On Account of Conspicuous Women'

1) How long did it take to write? 
Around 7 years.
2) Who are your target readers? 
Me. Early on, I didn’t have any type of reader in mind at all. It really was a story I was writing for myself, kind of an exercise, partly to see if I could even accomplish. I wanted to write the type of literature that I was hungry to read. And I’d never had a book published before, so the idea of ever being published was, well, let’s just say I was pessimistic that anybody else but me would want to read it.
3) How did you conceive your plot ideas?
I’m flattered if you think there’s a plot. That’s something I’m still trying to master. I tend to be drawn to stories that are more character-driven, so as a writer I struggle a great deal with plot. I did have certain plans for the characters in the beginning — what their destination might likely be— but as the story evolved some of those ideas that I had started with, or had imagined would happen, changed.
4) Where did you get most of your ideas?
Hmm, that’s a hard thing to pinpoint. Partly I’ve been influenced by old family photographs and stories I’ve heard over the years, and a desire to make up my own version. I’m a huge fan of old movies, so I spent a lot of time studying silent films to try to get a feel for the era. But I also relied on old newspapers and periodicals. I just wanted to bring 1920s Roxboro to life.
5) Do you use your own experiences?
Sometimes, but usually by the time it makes it onto paper, the experience has taken on a whole other light and doesn’t resemble the original.
6) How did you decide on the names for your characters?
Most of the family names, like Clayton, are common to that area of Person County, and I wanted the story to be as authentic as possible. As for the nicknames, just about everyone I know who grew up in Roxboro has one that will follow them to the grave. I have a cousin named Cottoneye and if you asked me his birth name it would take me a minute.
7) Who are your favorite characters?
I’m rather smitten with Colon, if you must know.
8) Any characters you would just hate if you met them in real life?
I would likely cross to the other side of the street if I encountered Brud Daye.
9) How did you come up with your characters Doodle, Colon, Bertie, and Miss McGhee (who is a very minor character but amusing none the less)?
Bertie, the suffragette, is loosely based on my paternal grandmother who died when I was a baby. My father used to tell wonderful stories about her spiritedness when I was growing up. Others who knew her reinforced and added more. The other characters are purely made up, although some of my kinfolk might tell you otherwise.
10) Any scene in your novel that has made you chuckle the most?
The scene with Colon and Doodle after they leave Guerine’s Halloween party. He’s driving the motorcycle and Doodle is in the sidecar. They can’t talk because the wind is rushing past, so there’s no dialogue. But what tickles me most is how they keep looking over at one another and nodding, as if they each understand what the other is thinking.
11) Were there moments when you thought you’d never finish your novel?
Good grief yes. Too many times it felt like more than I was capable of. I’m just glad I stuck with it.
12) Are you planning on writing a sequel?
No. I like thinking about the characters, though, and imagining what they might’ve gone on to do.
13) How did you develop the story? How did you get inspired for it?
The inspiration for the novel is an old photograph of my paternal grandmother with three of her female friends, circa 1920. Since I never had the pleasure of getting to know my grandmother, that photo has fascinated me since I was little. I wanted to know who those women were and to learn more about the 1920s. Eventually, it’s what prompted me to explore a story told from multiple points of view in sort of day-in-the-life vignettes.
14) How long did it take you to publish your first novel, after you started trying? 
It actually happened pretty fast. I’m very fortunate to have writer friends who recommended the book to their agents. I got a few rejections for various reasons—they didn’t think they could sell it or it didn’t fit in with the type of literature they represent—but it finally landed with an agent and an editor who loved historical fiction.


Here are the websites to purchase her beautifully written novel:
http://www.amazon.com/Account-Conspicuous-Women-Dawn-Shamp-ebook/dp/B006LPQQII/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1458675546&sr=8-1&keywords=Dawn+Shamp

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/on-account-of-conspicuous-women-dawn-shamp/1012288784

Somewhere in Time (1980) Review

“Please, don't leave. You have no idea how far I've come to be with you.” 

     People ask me what my most watched film is, well it will have to be Somewhere in Time. From my childhood into adulthood, I watched it almost every day, so naturally I had to replace my VHS and dvd copies quite a few times.  There are only some films that have a certain artistic excellence that it makes you amazed how they could ever capture it on film. Casablanca, Citizen Cane, Ben Hur, The Godfather, 2001 Space Odyssey, Doctor Zhivago, and Amadeus. Somewhere in Time is not a box-office blockbuster, but it is the finest romance film to ever be made. I have never seen a film so passionately and yet so innocently depict the power of absolute, all-encompassing, unconditional love like this film has shown.  Somewhere in Time mainly focuses primarily on love unlike most romantic films.
     The story is so simple, yet therein sets the beauty. An example being Titanic, there’s a good love story there, but focusing mainly on the anticipation of the ship sinking steals the show. Another reason that helps make this film very romantic is its innocence. Nothing major in the background going on like a war or sinking ship, just a man loving a woman.  It’s the kind of love that awakens the soul and makes one reach for more that creates a fire within our hearts and brings us to peace.  The film starts off with a young playwright by the name of Richard Collier being approached by an elderly woman. She places an antique pocket watch in his hand and pleads him to “come back” to her. 8 years later he goes to the grand hotel to clear his mind of all writer’s block. He discovers a portrait of a beautiful young woman and he is simply transfixed by her. He finds out that the portrait is of Elise McKenna, the same woman who gave him the pocket watch who afterwards died that very evening. He then travels back in time to the year 1912 using self-hypnosis. He finds her and thus begins the romance.
   Christopher Reeve does a spectacular portrayal of Richard. His acting is phenomenal in this film; he acts with such passion and with great earnestness. People only remember Reeve as superman and nothing more, but he was so much more than just superman. He could play anything. This film is the proof that. He could play a leading man, a supporting character, an aviator, a journalist, a priest, or a hopeless romantic. His acting is breathtaking and his chemistry with the beautiful Jane Seymour is amazing.
    John Barry's score is the most captivating ever in movie history. I have never heard a score that so astonishingly summoned up feelings of everlasting love. The music can even be called another character in the film; it’s almost crucial to the story. Although director Jeannot Szwarc may not be a well known or an otherwise accomplished director he does succeed in evoking a romantic and dreamlike atmosphere. Everyone must see this film at least twice in his or her life.

5 out of 5

Paris, Texas (1984) review

“He was surprised at himself because he didn't feel anything anymore. All he wanted to do was sleep. And for the first time, he wished he were far away. Lost in a deep, vast country where nobody knew him. Somewhere without language, or streets. He dreamed about this place without knowing its name. And when he woke up, he was on fire. There were blue flames burning the sheets of his bed. He ran through the flames toward the only two people he loved, but they were gone. His arms were burning, and he threw himself outside and rolled on the wet ground. Then he ran. He never looked back at the fire. He just ran. He ran until the sun came up and he couldn't run any further. And when the sun went down, he ran again. For five days he ran like this until every sign of man had disappeared.”
    Every time I watch this film a part of my soul dies. This film shows realistically pain and loss. It’s essentially a film about a man who is realizing that he needs forgive himself by ultimately facing the people who he once turned his back on. The scene when Travis (Stanton) and his ex-wife (Kinski) are having a conversation is one of the most touching yet heart-wrenching scenes I have ever seen in any film. I will never forget that scene because it’s so powerful. And in the end Travis is like John Wayne in “The Searchers” when he realizes what he must do.
      Harry Dean Stanton gives a superb performance playing Travis who is an aging man that is wrinkled up from life’s many blows. Yet he is a kindhearted and calm man regardless of his many inner demons. ‘Paris, Texas’ is just way too beautiful for words; it’s like a transcendent poem of loss, love, seclusion, and redemption. I highly recommend viewing this film.

5 out of 5

Amadeus (1984) Review

“All I wanted was to sing to God. He gave me that longing... and then made me mute. Why? Tell me that. If He didn't want me to praise him with music, why implant the desire? Like a lust in my body! And then deny me the talent?”
    In 1984, Milos Forman brought a true masterpiece to the cinema. A truly remarkable film filled with great acting, beautiful costumes, the atmosphere, choreography, directing, and each scene is like art. Amadeus is an exceptionally deep thought provoking film. I can’t praise this film enough. Amadeus tells the story of the first rock star through the eyes of his enemy, Antonio Salieri, who becomes mad with obsession for Amadeus Mozart. The film starts out with an old Salieri trying to commit suicide, but ultimately fails and is taken to the mental hospital. The priest visits him and so Salieri tells him the story of his jealousy and hatred for Mozart. Salieri wished to be famous since he was a young child and he worked hard to become the court composer of the Emperor of Austria. He craves and desires appreciation and fame as a composer until one day Mozart enters into his life. At first Salieri is overjoyed to finally meet Mozart until he meets him. He views Mozart as stupid, ignorant, crude, vulgar, and a undefined young man. Thus, starts his jealousy. He becomes insanely jealous of how beautiful his music is and how such an oblivious young man could write it such flawlessness. Salieri’s jealousness soon turns to hate and he sets out to destroy Mozart, but it becomes difficult to describe Salieri as a villain. He becomes so much more and at times we surprisingly do feel sorry for him. Even at his darkest moments the viewer can sympathize with him.
    People always ask why the film is titled Amadeus since the film essentially is about Salieri or even name it at the very least “Mozart” or “Wolfgang”, instead of Mozart’s middle name. Amadeus in Latin means “Love of God” so simply put the object of God’s adoration.  So the title fits in so perfectly.  Salieri doesn’t just show dislike towards Mozart, but at God also: “Oh what sublimity, what depth, what passion in the music! Salieri has been touched by God at last. And God is forced to listen! Powerless, powerless to stop it!” So Amadeus doesn’t really stand for Mozart, but the recurring theme constantly shown throughout the film.
    Tom Hulce’s performance as Mozart is simply unforgettable and his laugh is the funniest thing I have ever seen on film. His feminine laugh always happens at the most inappropriate times, which makes it even funnier. That laugh of Mozart’s makes me laugh so hard that my ribs hurt. F. Murray Abraham is perfect for the role of Salieri, the way he holds back his hatred when he’s around Mozart in public is simply perfect. From his facial expressions to his many emotions, one wouldn’t even think this is acting. The viewer can get lost in these scenes thinking that they are truly happening right now in the moment. The film has drama, comedy, suspense, music, rivalry, and murder! This film is pure perfection. When those credits begin to roll the viewer will realize they have watched a true masterpiece and you don’t want to leave till the tranquil music finally ends. Once in a while there’s a rare film that blows you away. This is that film.

5 out of 5