1967 Movie Review: YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, 1967

YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE,  MOVIE POSTERYOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, 1967
Movie Reviews

Directed by Lewis Gilbert
Starring Sean Connery, Akiko Wakabayashi, Mie Hama, Tetsuro Tanba, Donald Pleasence and Bernard Lee.
Review by Jesse Ryder Hughes

SYNOPSIS:

In the midst of the cold war still going on, someone is stealing Russian and American spaceships right out of space. Bond fakes his death to go undercover in Japan, to find a chemical company supplying and hiding illegal rocket fuel. A mysterious island catches Bond’s eye after a young girl is found dead. On the island Bond searches a volcano that is not what it seems. Can Bond stop world War 3 and stop whoever is stealing the spaceships? I have a feeling a good predictable ending ensues.

REVIEW:

Roald Dahl wrote the imaginative script for You Only Live Twice and it is the most imaginative script so far of the series. Abandoning Fleming’s novel almost completely Dahl and the film makers make an epic Bond film dealing with the space race and the cold war. Someone is stealing ships right out of space using their own spaceship. Russia is blaming the U.S. and vice versa. Bond under the foes impression that he is now dead travels to Japan and finds that the Osato corporation is behind the crime. The themes in You Only Live Twice are great, especially for the time, before the first man hit the moon the Russians and Americans were fighting for the glory, so why not excite audiences who were all excited about the prospects of space at the time. Also this is the first film that deals with a corrupt corporation funding the money for big crime.

The first hour, You Only Live Twice is exciting and well told with great mystery woven around Japanese customs. Supposedly at the time men were put first in Japan before the women. They even say it in the movie with Bond saying I have to retire here, which doesn’t help the controversy of Bond being the worlds biggest womanizer, but he is. Bond slowly figures things out and it leads him to a volcano which is in fact a secret launching pad and station for none other than SPECTRE head No.1, Ernst Stavro Blofeld petting his white cat ready to kill anyone who fails ONCE. He is ready to start World War 3 for some money.

 This is the film that is truly spoofed by the Austin Powers films. Blofeld’s volcano station is just crazy. Bond films were never the same grounded films after You Only Live Twice, with the exception of a couple. It pushes Bond in a direction completely away from Fleming’s novels into what the studios wanted. More action, more stunts, more gadgets overriding the stories being told. And I’m not saying I don’t like it. I still do, because it’s fun, emotionally it becomes lost, but this is the direction the franchise takes.

There is a certain amount of convenience in most Bond films. You just have to accept as an audience member and suspend disbelief. The Americans and Russians almost seem to jump to conclusions about each other too soon for the convenience of the film. Bond gets the chance to use each one of his gadgets at a perfect time in the movie. That is the fun of these movies though. As I am watching the film I can’t wait for Bond to get a chance to use a cigarette that is actually a gun.

As haywire as You only Live Twice is and fans of the novels may be disappointed. It still has its great moments, locales, action, girls and mystery to keep audiences excited. It feels like all the previous Bond films rolled into one, trying to revolutionize the genre into what it did become when Roger Moore took over.

CLICK and WATCH MOVIES ONLINE!

 

YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE

Advertisements

1967 Movie Review: WHO’S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR, 1967

WHOS THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR MOVIEWHO’S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR, 1967
Movie Reviews

Directed by Martin Scorsese

Cast: Harvey Keitel, Zina Bethune, Anne Collette, Harry Northup, Lennard Kuras, Michael Scala, Robert Uricola
Review by Vinny Borocci

SYNOPSIS:

Three young men living on the New York City streets engage in trivial violence and unproductive activities. They enjoy hanging out at bars, watching movies, having parties, etc. Suddenly, one of the men, J.R., meets a girl and begins to have a relationship with her. The other men are skeptical not only because of J.R.’s unusual changes in his behavior, but the amount of time spent with her as opposed to hanging out with them. J.R. feels the pressure from both his friends and the girl. In the process, the strains become too much for J.R. to handle, where hostility and a sense of aggression result, along with making some very poor judgments. As a raised devout catholic, J.R. feels the only one to turn to is God.

CLICK HERE and watch TV SHOWS FOR FREE!

Take a look at what’s new today!

REVIEW:

During the 1960’s, Americans spent much time engaging in street protests, focusing on topics such as feminism and gay rights, events such as various political assassinations and anti-war messages, along with numerous public outbursts against racial and sexual intolerance. In other words, the Vietnam War came knocking on everyone’s doorstep. Fittingly, during this time, director Martin Scorsese provided the audience with his first feature film, Who’s That Knocking at My Door, which remarkably took almost 6 years to complete. During this public outcry and chaos, we see in this film Scorsese provide many delicate and subtle references which not only reveal his own views on the war, but specifically reflects the attitudes of the “student movement” taking place.

Even though the film has a look of a student film – the opening sequence is of a simple match-action sequence of a mother baking bread for children – we can clearly see his first utilizations with the camera to capture various shots in a very original and unique method. We can see his influence from the French New Wave as he includes various jump-cut shots and freeze frames, while also displaying his childhood love for Italian Neorealism films through the morality of his images, capturing closeup shots of assorted Christ-like images and statues, emphasizing the blood, scrapes, and cuts on the figures to reinforce the violence and suffering of the human condition. Despite his “European” visual style, Scorsese incorporates American rock music throughout the film, serving as a function to link the youth movement of the 1960’s.

‘Who’s That Knocking’ follows a trio of young men: J.R., Joey, and Sally “Ga-Ga.” The three spend time hanging out on the rugged streets of New York, getting into fights, lounging in bars, picking up girls, fooling around at each other’s apartments. While we see these men engage in their everyday pleasures, we also see J.R. begin to have a relationship with a woman. Scorsese was not shy about exposing his own unique direction and style, moving away from the traditional Hollywood Studio system. For instance, in the beginning of the film, we see J.R. hanging out at a bar with the other men juxtaposed with his first encounter with the woman. This contrast in scenes, showing men sitting around doing nothing productive, with images of beautiful women can serve as a representation of the attitude of young men who were on the verge of leaving for Vietnam.

As we see J.R. slip into deep thought, we see Scorsese blend a parallel of scenes involving the interactions between J.R. and the girl and J.R. sitting at a bar with his friends, cleverly suggesting that while J.R. is hanging out with his friends, he still cannot get this woman out of his mind. When Joey tries to get J.R.’s attention, we see a point of view shot from J.R. looking not at Joey’s face, but of his lower body, indicating that J.R. still has something else on his mind. Continuing his European style, Scorsese utilizes a similar element of the French New Wave as he expresses his youthful love for Hollywood, making specific references and even including images (through freeze frames and snap shots) of John Wayne films.

Clearly, these three men do not have jobs, and have no intentions in pursuing anything work-related. We see J.R. get upset with the woman when she continues to ask what he does. After he replies, “I’m in between jobs right now,” she does not seem to get the message and obliviously continues to ask, “Well, what do you do now?” Scorsese presents these men as highly uneducated with a lack of understanding for human and personal relationships and interactions. As J.R. and the woman continue to see each other, the only conversations taking place is about John Wayne movies (or actually going to see a John Wayne movie). Additionally, we can see J.R. and the woman hold different religious values. In the scene at the apartment of J.R.’s mother, as we see closeup images of the Catholic images of Christ and Holy Candles spread out on dressers, the two lie in bed making love. While the woman, who does not appear to hold any religious concerns, wanting to go further, does not understand when J.R. suddenly stops. Asking, “What’s wrong?” the woman thinks there is something wrong in how J.R. thinks of her, instead of understanding how J.R. was raised as a devout Catholic.

WHO'S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR.jpg

1967 Movie Review: WAIT UNTIL DARK, 1967

WAIT UNTIL DARK,  MOVIE POSTERWAIT UNTIL DARK, 1967
Movie Reviews

Directed by: Terence Young
Cast: Audrey Hepburn, Alan Arkin, Richard Crenna, Julia Herrod, Efrem Zimbalist Jr.
Review by Jarred Thomas

SYNOPSIS:

A recently blinded woman is terrorized by a trio of thugs while they search for a heroin stuffed doll they believe is in her apartment.

 

REVIEW:

A highly entertaining and suspenseful thriller that follows a tormented blind woman terrorized by three men, with one being considered by many critics as one of the scariest villains of all time played to perfection by Alan Arkin. Susy (Hepburn) suffered a terrible accident recently has been left blind. Her only aid comes from an unreliable younger neighbor, Gloria (Herrod), in which the two have a mother daughter relationship. Susy’s disability has been challenging, however, her greatest challenge comes in the form of three criminals.

The ruthless gang in led by the psychotic Roat (Arkin) who believes that Susy’s husband, Sam, has a doll with heroin inside after it was given to him on a plane by a woman trying to hide the doll from custom officials. Unknowingly, Sam brought the doll to the couple’s apartment and unfortunately Roat is determined to gain the doll despite Susy’s innocence.

The tension builds as Roat tries to manipulate the situation through cunning plans including pretending to be a police officer and using Sam’s friends to gain the trust of Susy, gaining access to the apartment. Roat is a freat villain. There are layers to the characters that unfold over the course of the film. He appears calm, collected and calculated. But as his desperation and Susy’s resistance continues, his raw emotions get the better of him and he begins to unravel.

The suspense is captivating, particularly during the final confrontation between Audrey and Alan. The cinematography is helps to create a dark and haunting atmosphere that heightens the tension and suspense. Susy realizes that the men want access to her apartment, so, knowing the place better than they do, she darkens the room by taking out the lights, leaving the men blind.

The confrontation in the kitchen is the most memorable scene in the film and help to start a trend in which the villain, thought dead, turns out to be alive and appears out of nowhere for one last kill. Other films, most notably Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street uses this trend in every one of their films. Unfortunately, those moments pale in comparison to how it was effectively done in Terence Young’s film.

Audrey was nominated for her fifth and last Oscar for her excellent performance as the vulnerable blind woman with enough resourcefulness to outsmart her pursuers. Alan created a monster that was listed in Bravo Channel’s 100 Scariest Movie of All Time coming in at number 10. Along with their great performances, Young succeeds in providing thrills and scares with the building tension and effectively taking a rather simple premise and turning it into a unique and compelling thriller.

Wait Until Dark is a remarkable and superb film that keeps you captivated throughout and never lets up. The strong performances and excellent directing with great editing provide for some entertaining and engaging moments, as well as a sterling story. If you’re a fan of Audrey Hepburn, or great thrillers, Wait Until Dark is certainly worth your time. Enjoy.

Audrey Hepburn, Wait until dark (1967) starring Alan Arkin and Richard Crenna
Audrey Hepburn, Wait until dark (1967) starring Alan Arkin and Richard Crenna

1967 Movie Review: THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE, 1967

THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE, MOVIE POSTERTHOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE, 1967
Movie Reviews

Directed by George Roy Hill
Starring: Julie Andrews, James Fox, Mary Tyler Moore, Carol Channing, John Gavin, Jack Soo, Pat Morita
Review by Jayvibha Vaidya

SYNOPSIS:

Small-town girl Millie Dillmount arrives in New York City intent on finding a husband. But first she must become a modern city girl, befriend naïve Miss Dorothy, seduce her boss, stop a white slavery ring and decide between love and money when she meets smitten paper-clip salesman, Jimmy Smith.

WON an OSCAR – Best Music – Original Score.

 

REVIEW:

“I’m a modern!”

Opening with a suspenseful kidnapping which cuts to the wide-eyed Millie arriving in the big city, Thoroughly Modern Millie weaves together an evil plot to exploit young women with an amusing tale of a woman’s search for love and friendship. Spoofing the Roaring Twenties, Millie (Julie Andrews) transforms into a flapper or ‘modern’ in order to blend in and find herself a suitable husband. At the women’s hotel where she stays, Millie befriends Miss Dorothy (Mary Tyler Moore) as owner Mrs. Meers (Beatrice Lillie) sets her eye on Miss Dorothy for her next kidnapping victim.

See, Mrs. Meers is making some extra cash by selling young women with no family ties to the underground Chinese slavery business. In dark shadows lurk her two ‘oriental’ henchmen with their laundry basket of drugged bodies to smuggle into their lair. It’s a silly plot which turns Mrs. Meers into a caricature villainess, complete with poisonous apple and tranquilizer darts. But this plot is played for comedy and is thankfully balanced out with young Millie’s search for the perfect husband.

At a dance Millie meets Jimmy Smith (James Fox), a paper-clip salesman. After an energetic and well choreographed dance, she informs him that her intention is to find a handsome, single boss and become his stenographer. And eventually, his wife. Even after Jimmy proclaims his affections for her, she turns him down, intent on marrying her boss Mr. Graydon (John Gavin) who has no romantic feelings for her at all. Graydon only has eyes for Miss Dorothy who returns his affections but gets kidnapped before they can even have a first date. And to complicate it further, Millie sees Miss Dorothy running into Jimmy’s bedroom, causing her to believe they are having a torrid affair. Millie’s complications are eased when she meets eccentric Muzzy Van Hossmere (Carol Channing) who advises Millie to “Follow your heart, no raspberries!”

As all the players gather to save Miss Dorothy, a chase through Chinatown ends in an acrobatic showdown. The bad guys are defeated and Mrs. Meers sits drenched in a pool, her evil plan completely foiled. A twist at the end of the film reveal the secret identities of Millie’s friends as Muzzy clears away all confusion leaving two happy couples at the end of the film. Millie, despite becoming a modern finally finds love, exclaiming, “I don’t want to be your equal any more – I want to be a woman!” Well then! It appears that thoroughly modern Millie isn’t so modern after all.

Hilariously cutting to ‘20s-style title cards to represent Millie’s reactions to the city and people, the film contains many moments of humour expertly executed by Julie Andrews. Her looks at the camera display perfect comedic timing and a natural sweetness in her performance. She’s utterly adorable and her voice is exquisite, especially in “Trinkt le Chaim,” the Jewish wedding song. Mary Tyler Moore is sweet and naïve; especially charming in the scene when she calls snobby socialite Judith Tremaine a “bitch!” Andrews and Moore’s sensational tap number in a moving elevator is a real highlight, showcasing their chemistry and dancing skills.

The choreography and dance numbers are thoroughly entertaining, from the Tapioca Dance to the Jewish wedding. Carol Channing is wonderful in a bizarre and exhilarating acrobatic number. She’s fearless and steals scenes with her humour and personality. John Gavin as Mr. Graydon is in on the joke playing part playboy, part airhead, hilariously checking out of scenes due to a tranquilizer dart.

Winning an Oscar for original score, the film successfully maintains its comedic energy because of the music that runs through each of the scenes. The jaunty ‘Thoroughly Modern Millie’ tune plays repeatedly during the film, reminding Millie and the audience of her goals in the big city.

Although the last half of the film becomes cheesy and wraps up in a most bizarre fashion, Thoroughly Modern Millie is laugh-out-loud funny and entirely entertaining. The cast is delightful and the songs are fun, raised to a higher level by the talent of Julie Andrews. Finding love and friendship in New York City isn’t easy, but Millie gets a taste for what life is like for the ‘modern’ girl, taking the audience along on an exciting adventure.

THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE

1967 Movie Review: QUATERMASS AND THE PIT, 1967


QUATERMASS AND THE PIT, 1967
Movie Reviews

Directed by Roy Ward Baker
Starring: James Donald, Andrew Keir
Review by Ace Masters 

SYNOPSIS:

While digging a new subway line in London, a construction crew discovers first: a skeleton, then what they think is an old World War II German missle. Upon closer examination the “missle” appears to be not of this earth! This movie examines the age old question of how we came to be on this planet.

CLICK HERE and watch 2009 MOVIES FOR FREE!

REVIEW:

Hammer Films made great movies. They didn’t rely on special effects, blood and gore, but on mood, setting, acting and writing. After all they were a British film company and for all their accolades British film and TV have never been know for special effects – until recently.

And, when watching it, keep in mind this is a British film, it will make it easier to swallow the plot of Martians actually being giant, intelligent Locust.

Five Million Years to Earth is the American release name (and the more original, eye-catching name of the two) of the Hammer film Quatermass and the Pit, starring Andrew Keir as Professor Bernard Quatermass. Itself a film adaption of the original 1950’s BBC television serial Quatermass and the Pit.

When skeletal remains of potential human ancestors are found during a re-development dig at Hobb’s Lane, London the re-development is postponed for an archeological dig. Professor Quatermass and military weapons expert Colonel Breen become involved when a large object is found that is initially believed to be an unexploded Nazi bomb from World War II.

Quatermass soon discovers the truth. The object is not a bomb, but a Martian spaceship. Five Million Years ago Mars was dying; its population – a race of advanced, intelligent Locust – was in the midst of extinction. They turned to Earth for their salvation.

With the object disturbed and the military and government refusing to believe Quatermass, the human race is put into jeopardy, as the plans the Locusts had for colonizing Earth than, threaten us now.

Andrew Keir plays Quatermass perfectly with the right amount of intelligence, awe and anti-authority. He is at once part of the government buts disdain the government as well. He is a brilliant man in his field and in general, but doesn’t know everything and doesn’t act like he does. Like any good scientist, he researches, theorizes and wants to learn the truth, even if the truth may destroy him.

Like almost all Hammer films this one is beautifully filmed, with excellent settings and a mood that fits perfectly into its sci-fi story. The only thing that lacks is the physical remains of the locusts, which are obviously fake – but done as well as they could with their budget and the limitations of the day.Beyond Andrew Keir’s performance and the look of the film, the writing is the shinning gem. Characters are handled deftly and for the most part are three-dimensional. Even Colonel Breene shows a multitude of dimensions until he becomes convinced he is right and Quatermass is wrong, then he becomes one-dimensional and single minded.

The plot is not original – Aliens wanting to take over the Earth – but the twist is. The takeover, or “colonization,” was attempted Five Million Years ago and the left over artifact is threatening us now.

The best part of the film is the act of discovery. The film never reveals too much information to the viewer, nor does it talk down to them. We discover things and learn what is going on as the characters do. This sense of discovery integrates us more into the story, unlike films where we know what is going on and are waiting for the characters to play catch-up.

If you like Hammer Films or old sci-fi films in general, than Five Million Years to Earth (aka Quatermass and the Pit) should be right up your alley. It is the second of three Quatermass films from Hammer Films, all three adaptations of early BBC serials. After viewing this one, you’ll surely want to see the others.It is a shame that a full fledge revival of Quatermass has never truly taken place.

QUATERMASS AND THE PIT.jpg

1967 Movie Review: POINT BLANK, 1967


POINT BLANK, 1967
Movie Reviews

Directed by John Boorman
Starring: Lee Marvin, Angie Dickinson, Keenan Wynn, Carroll O’Connor
Review by John Corcoran 

SYNOPSIS:

Later remade as PAYBACK, POINT BLANK follows an angry Lee Marvin through Angie Dickinson and most of California to get to John Vernon, who is defenestrated nude. The ostensible plot is the old saw of betrayal and vengeance, given life here by new-wave editing and pretty good acting.

 

REVIEW:

Lee Marvin was one of the premier Hollywood “tough guys” of the Sixties and Seventies. As the studio system faded into memory and the American popular consciousness became more jaded at large. He embodied the perfect transition from the John Wayne archetype of masculine power to the more conflicted figures on the screen today. Unfortunately, as time has passed, Marvin is increasingly remembered only as an outdated “action star.” This is a disservice to an actor who could provide remarkably layered performances, none more so than in Point Blank.

In Point Blank, Lee Marvin plays a thief known only as Walker (no indication is given whether that’s a first or last name). After hijacking a money shipment from a mysterious crime ring called The Organization at Alcatraz, Walker is betrayed by his partner Reese (a loathsome John Vernon) and his wife Lynne (Sharon Acker). A man convinces Walker to get his share of the heist and avenge his betrayal by Reese who now works for The Organization. Along the way Walker has a romance with his wife’s sister (Angie Dickinson).

Director John Boorman provides more nuance than the usual crime movie trappings. The film begins with Walker’s lowest moment as he is left for dead in a cell at the abandoned Alcatraz prison, trying to piece together what has happened, an opening that has influenced countless revenge films. Boorman maintains the free movement between past and present throughout the film, providing both a glimpse into Walker’s motivations and an existentialist quality to his quest. Boorman also transitions sharply from calm to sudden moments of violence so that the action sequences do not become routine. In fact, the great achievement of Boorman’s direction is to use the action to inform our understanding of the characters rather than merely breaking from the plot for a “set piece.”

Boorman uses the natural light of Los Angeles with to accentuate the bleakness of the film. At first glance, so many scenes in the glaring sun seem out of place in a film noir, which, as its name implies, relies on darker setting. But Point Blank definitively signals that moral ambiguity is no longer limited to coming out at night. Just as the code that demanded that villains be punished in Hollywood movies died, now outfits like The Organization can hide in plain sight. In the world of Los Angeles, where everything seems so obvious but in reality is an illusion, the sunlight can be as mysterious as the cover of darkness.

Point Blank also draws a connection between The Organization and the modern corporation. In most films, heroes are thwarted in their goals by the maliciousness of the antagonist. While there is certainly some of that here, Walker is equally frustrated by sheer logistics. Indeed, some of The Organization leaders (including a scene-stealing supporting role by Carroll O’Connor) are more than willing to pay Walker his share of the heist but their hands are tied because they are too far removed from day to day operations. These scenes are darkly comic, and anyone who has had trouble getting a refund from a major corporation can sympathize with Walker’s plight.

The real gem though is Marvin’s performance. While all the requisite fight scenes are there (including one that will make any male in the audience wince), it is the moments of silence in which Marvin has the greatest impact. There is no joy in his quest for revenge. His isolation drives the film, and Marvin plays a weariness that permeates even the action sequences and the ambiguous relationship with his wife’s sister. Walker is a solitary man living under his own code, and he realizes that he is out of place in the world of The Organization, with its hierarchies and procedures. Ultimately, he can only exist in the shadows.

Hollywood, never able to leave a good thing alone, remade Point Blank as Payback, starring Mel Gibson in 1999. Of course, the melancholy and social criticism of the original was deemed too dark for audiences, and so it became a by the numbers action flick. But Point Blank still should be required viewing for aspiring action directors and actors. In every genre – perhaps even more so in those that are familiar – there is an opportunity to challenge the audience.

 

POINT BLANK

1967 Movie Review: LE SAMOURAI, 1967

LE SAMOURAI, 1967
Thriller Movie Review
Directed by Jean-Pierre Melville
Starring Alain Delon, Francois Perier, Cathy Rosier
Review by Alex Haight

Hitman Jef Costello is a perfectionist who always carefully plans his murders and who never gets caught. One night however, after killing a night-club owner, he’s seen by witnesses. His efforts to provide himself with an alibi fail and more and more he gets driven into a corner.SYNOPSIS:

REVIEW:

“There is not greater solitude than that of a Samourai, unless it’s that of a tiger in the jungle…perhaps.” -Bushido (Book of the Samourai)

Modeled on the notion that emotion shows weakness, Alain Delon’s eponymous role as a hired assassin plays as strong a performance than any other who have attempted to bring bravado and sleekness to the muscle persona.

Delon plays Jef Costello a minimalist, cold and precise gun for hire who’s on the run after botching his most recent job at a swanky French nightclub. While the subject doesn’t sound particularly striking, it plays out like an expansive avant-garde exercise in patience, technique and vulnerability.

Those who have seen the film , will know that the story is about process and a mans understanding of a solitary existence-that by choice we lead ourselves towards an inevitable end…what happens to us on our way there, cannot be stopped…but it can be persuaded.

This thinking bleeds out of Alain’ Jef. With a cold stare and equally frigid heart, Jef lives in a state of limbo throughout the picture. He is the human gray area. Not truly defined by earnest emotion, but rather a striking sense of arrogance and helplessness living between the role of citizen and killer. It’s when those characteristics meld that we see the efficient, and controlled mind of Le Samourai emerge.

“Never has a man put on a hat and coat so perfectly.”

Shot with immaculate precision by Henri Decae, the film truly defines the new wave/neo-noir style. Where once shadows existed to hide the brooding sinister beings looking to terrorize us, Melville strips away the dark and pushes them right in our face.The use of colour and tone really sets up the movie from the very first second. A two minute static shot of a lone gunman smoking inside his empty apartment while his pet bird chirps from inside his cage screams for the arthouse crowd. More importantly though rather than solely being eye candy this shot perhaps juxtaposes that inside Jef too is trapped and crying out? Perhaps this leads to his mis–calculation at the club?Maybe?

When one thinks of it, takes a pretty cold bast’d to be able to give you chills in broad daylight, and Melville understands this…making every shot, transition and cut logical and effective. The man is really painting here. Bold washed out stripes of fury and isolated blobs of colour- the summation of Le Samourai’ effectiveness as something much more than just 105 minutes of film. There is energy, and prowess, achieving something more than the traditional genre gazer would anticipate.

However, those expecting a taught, action based shoot ‘em up fraught with quips and womanizing- ala James Bond may be a little let down. Think of it as the art-house 007. A French Bourne, perhaps. Less hulk, more sulk.

Leading the way for such filmmakers as John Woo, Gus Van Zant, The Coen Brothers (view this, then screen the duo’s minimalist masterpiece NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN-eerie no?)…Melville fills the screen with many washed out, static shots, tracking the supposed arrogance of the title character, and the tumultuous existence he lives, displays and balances.

It is for all these reasons that I continue to re-watch this movie and turn people onto this otherwise unknown story, so that they too can experience one of the most calculated characters in modern cinema.3/5-AH

I also recommend these titles: Man Bites Dog, Un Flic, Les Diaboliques.

LE SAMOURAI