goddangwatir

American History X, directed by Tony Kaye, is the story of an American Neo-Nazi (Edward Norton) who decides to abandon his cause, and now has to stop his younger brother (Edward Furlong) from going down the same path as he did.

As one might have guessed, it is quite a heavy film, and light-hearted movie goers may want to take caution. It is however a movie that everyone should see at least some time in their life, as it teaches a very important message; violence is not the way.

The main highlight of the film is Norton's performance. He is simply excellent as Derek Vinyard, and after seeing him as the compassionate big brother in one scene, and as a totally unhinged and chilling psycho in the next (flashbacks), you really understand what range he has got. His Academy Award nomination was well deserved. Edward Furlong plays Danny Vinyard, the younger brother. Although I have never been quite a fan of his voice, I suppose that is just a nit-pick, and he still delivers a fine performance. I also enjoyed Fairuza Balk as Derek's downright creepy girlfriend Stacey.

I must also praise the cinematography, especially for the flash-back scenes with the use of black and white. It adds a certain atmosphere to them, which intensify the emotional weight of the entire movie. The editing could be criticized, since the slow motion sequences are perhaps a bit too common, but all in all, it is only a minor flaw. The score, composed by Anne Dudley, is excellent and some moments are simply breathtaking (such as the choir parts from the piece 'American History X'). It too plays a great part in delivering the great emotion the film has.

To summarize; American History X is a very powerful film, which definitely left me quite shocked. It features spiffing acting, great visuals and a good soundtrack, but it unfortunately suffers from minor flaws. In my opinion, these flaws can be quite easily glossed over however.

80/100

On my recent rewatch of From Russia with Love, I simply couldn't help but think to myself; "this is actually isn't that good". I mean, it is decent, don't get me wrong but I believe that people are overrating it quite extremely. Is it really as good as other contemporary works such as The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, Once Upon a Time in the West or even Lawrence of Arabia ? Definitely not.

What must be praised is the acting. After Dr. No, Sean Connery has gotten more comfortable with the role of James Bond, and delivers a fine performance. Lotte Lenya is perfect as the psychotic ex-KGB officer Rosa Klebb, and it is always a joy to see Robert Shaw (here as the SPECTRE henchman Donald Grant). Daniela Bianchi mostly serves as eye candy though, and therefore she unfortunately does not get many great opportunities to shine. Pedro Amendáriz is the highlight of this film though. His portrayal of the Turkish family- and businessman Ali Kerim Bey is simply so great, and it is a joy to watch the bond (no pun intended) between him and 007 grow.

The major problem with From Russia with Love, like many other of the older Bond entries, is that it feels old. It feels dated. In my opinion, it simply doesn't hold up against newer action-thrillers (in terms of delivering thrills, that is). I understand how one back in the day could have thought of this as the most nerve-racking film ever produced, but today, it simply isn't.

To summarize; From Russia with Love, together with most older Bond flicks, are classics. They are, in all honesty, nothing too special, but they have achieved a certain "mytological status", if you will, over the years. Thus, they have become beloved and consequently overrated by the fans. For me, that just doesn't work. They do feature fine acting, and the James Bond soundtracks always a plus.

60/100

I am usually not such a big fan of Coen movies, but I did enjoy The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. It is not a masterpiece, but it is a fine movie and quite unique as well. It follows six different non-related stories from the Wild West, all with their own interesting characters and atmospheres. Perhaps that is why I found it as enjoyable as I did, due to the screenplay ? Anyhow ...

The acting is very good, and the notable standouts are Tim Blake Nelson, Liam Neeson and my personal favorite performance from this movie; Tom Waits. You simply cannot help but laugh watching Nelson perform his absurd antics. Neeson plays is a man which you shouldn't feel compassion for, but do. It is hard to explain here, one must watch the movie to understand what I am talking about. Tom Waits is simply a pleasure to see out in the wild hunting gold, mumbling and talking to himself (or "Mr. Pocket", to quote him), running into all kinds of different problems.

It has got fantastic camera work and set design, featuring many beautiful expansive shots of the American Frontier, tight crammed horse wagons and rusty old saloons. These contribute to an very interesting atmosphere. To explain further; The Ballad of Buster Scruggs may at first glance seem like a light-hearted comedy, but it is in fact surprisingly dark (and by this I do not mean 'dark humor' as some would believe, I mean that it is actually dark) and even moving, watching each of the characters go through the struggles of the Old West. This I believe is especially true for the chapters 'Meal Ticket' and 'The Girl Who Got Rattled'.

To conclude; The Ballad of Buster Scruggs is no masterpiece, but it is quite well-made and highly enjoyable. It features great acting and is very visually pleasing, and it has a rather different atmosphere compared to many other movies which I have seen, and said atmosphere could only be described as a comedy disguised as a rather dark and moving tale.

70/100