On the Waterfront

Another classic Marlon Brando performance propping up what would have otherwise been a somewhat less compelling movie. On the Waterfront ended up having a more interesting story than I expected based on my limited knowledge of it, but it still didn't wow me that much. Brando is very good in a role that won him the Oscar, and the rest of the cast is solid as well. I liked Eva Marie Saint more in North by Northwest, but she also won an Oscar here in a supporting role, and a whopping three other actors also got nominated for support roles, including Lee J. Cobb, who keeps showing up in these movies with his distinct untrustworthy look and fully living up to it. But as a movie that strives mostly on the strength of its acting, it doesn't quite hold up as well as films that focus on other things, because acting styles tend to change a lot and a lot of it isn't as natural-seeming today. It's still plainly a well acted movie, but that doesn't take it as far as it probably used to.

On the Waterfront is about the mob in New Jersey having complete control over the unions that work the docks, manipulating commerce for their own profit and killing anyone who thinks about testifying against their seedy practices. Brando plays a washed up former boxer who works as sort of a low level enforcer for the mob, but he doesn't realize the extent of his involvement at first. After his actions lead to a witness getting killed, he starts regretting ever getting involved, and regrets it further when he starts to fall in love with the witness' sister. It's kind of an obvious story way to get him to really start fighting back against the mob institution, but it still turned out to be a pretty interesting and effectively melancholic underdog story. Nice inspirational couple final scenes as well. Great cast, good movie.

The Exorcist

It seems like scary movies don't hold up that well. Psycho is one of Alfred Hitchock's most famous and popular movies, but it didn't do that much for me. The Night of the Living Dead and its sequels are staples of the zombie genre, but I enjoyed them less than more recent work. And The Exorcist received a ton of award attention and was considered one of the scariest movies ever - and it's really not a very scary film. It hardly even tries to be. As a film, it's a good one - well shot by William Friedkin and his crew, and well acted by the whole cast. The story is pretty intriguing, as a woman's life is turned upside down when her daughter seemingly becomes possessed after a priest apparently unearths some ancient evil, and he must cast it out along with another who is troubled by the death of his mother. It has some truly iconic imagery, and it's a pretty enjoyable movie.

But it's just not scary. It thankfully avoids cheap jump scares for the most part, relying on the simple horror of its story's events. But while those scenes are well put together, there's little about them that I found effectively horrifying or even that creepy. I wasn't filled with a sense of dread or worried about what would happen next. Almost all of the horror attempts to be derived from simple shock value, a shock that has essentially disappeared in the nearly forty years since the film was released. I mean yes, it's unusual to watch a young girl mutilating and defiling herself while swearing and blaspheming in a man's voice. But it's not really frightening. In the culture that existed when the movie was released, I'm sure it was surprising and controversial stuff. But it just doesn't work anymore. And there's some grotesqueness to the girl's appearance over time, sure, but it's not enough to turn the stomach today either. The Exorcist is lucky that it's actually a pretty good movie, because otherwise there wouldn't be much to say about it.

12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men is the best movie I've seen since I've started this "best movies I haven't seen yet" thing, and one of the best ever. It's exciting and dramatic and mysterious and powerful, and it's all of these things within the confines of a single room, excepting a brief scene at the beginning, end, and in the middle. You'd think such a limited space would work against a movie, but it's actually one of the film's greatest strengths. By limiting the action to a single set, it requires it to be carried well by the director and cast, led by Henry Fonda. Well Sidney Lumet is one of the great living directors, and pretty much every actor does a great job with what they're given.

Obviously it's a remnant from the original play script by whoever wrote it, but it's just amazing to me how well defined the characters are. They don't have names, and only most of them are even identified by occupation. They have a number, and a seat around the table. But they're all memorable. Their personalities aren't defined by them talking about themselves, or being seen doing anything in particular - it's just the way they go about arguing their side of the case that gives you everything you need to know. There is literally only one character in the room that I didn't think was drawn as well as the others. They're all distinct, have beliefs and convictions, and play against each other like real people. Just a triumph of writing and acting.

And Sidney Lumet's filming of it all really draws you in. The thing about the movie originally being a play is that it doesn't feel like it, even though it's in one room. I can't imagine it being as interesting just watching twelve guys sitting around a table up on a stage. The camera starts up high as you get a feel for the situation, and as tensions rise and squabbles emerge, it draws in closer and closer, making you feel trapped in the room like they are bringing the suspense to near-unbearable levels. And there's just so many moments in this thing, of genius twists and reveals that make the deliberations of a jury many times more fascinating than you'd ever think they would be. I don't want to go on about it too much, but it's a brilliant movie, probably one of the last great ones in black and white, and should be seen by anyone.