Yearly Archives: 2009

Movie Review: Bruno

Leave a reply

Is it an overstatement to say Sacha Baron Cohen is the bravest man in the world? I don’t think so, so I’ll say it now: Sacha Baron Cohen is the bravest man in the world. Think of the thing that would probably get you killed in the scariest of situations, and then watch Sacha Baron Cohen do it in “Bruno.”

Of the three characters from Baron Cohen’s “Da Ali G Show” (Ali G, Borat, Bruno) Bruno was the least intriguing and the last one you’d expect to headline a coherent and hilarious feature length film. Following 2006′s groundbreaking “Borat,” “Bruno” is another part of Baron Cohen’s revolution in line-crossing humor.
“Bruno” begins in Bruno’s homeland of Austria. Bruno is Austria’s most famous gay fashion reporter. Everything seems to be working out for him, he’s got his own TV show and the perfect boyfriend. But after a fashion show fiasco involving a velcro suit, Bruno finds his whole career going down hill. He loses his show, his boyfriend, and his good reputation. So like any foreigner searching for the fortune he’ll never find, he heads to the USA. His goal: to become “the most famous Austrian since Hitler.”
Bruno’s journey begins in Los Angeles, where he hopes to learn how to be famous from the famous themselves. He then travels the country doing anything possible to launch his way to stardom. Unlike “Borat,” Baron Cohen doesn’t stay in America. At one point, he heads to the Middle East where he manages to unite the Jews and the Muslims by making them all want to kill him.
“Bruno” got a lot of attention before its release, not just for Baron Cohen’s ridiculous hijinks, but also because of the questions it raises. Does putting a flamboyantly gay stereotype in the most homophobic parts of the country bring an end to a cultural war or just reignite it? In a way, it does both. As Bruno, Baron Cohen tests people’s tolerance levels, and the boundaries of their ignorance. His style is to make people feel as uncomfortable as possible, and once that level of awkwardness reaches a high, the people he interviews eventually show their true selves. And usually, their true personas are not pretty.
At times, Baron Cohen barely has to push people’s buttons. Sometimes, all he has to do is say one small statement, and the interviewee goes off on a tirade. For example, when interviewing a few priests who run clinics to convert gays to heterosexuality, all he has to do is say his disdain for women and suddenly they spurt out a string of unintentionally hilarious sexist statements. In this scene, could he even be questioning the sexuality of these homophobic men as well?
Most times though, he has to push hard to really anger people. A scene involving male nudity with a bunch of Alabama hunters ends up becoming somewhat scary in the end.
Still, even though he is trying to reveal homophobia through this stereotype rather than promote it, one could see why “Bruno” might unintentionally cause homophobia. For example, during his foray in the army, his in-your-face gay antics are probably meant to challenge the army’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy. In the end, while hilarious, he may just be furthering the myth of those negative gay stereotypes that caused the policy to be made in the first place.
The great thing about “Bruno” is that it’s not merely an assault on homophobia, but an assault on American culture as a whole. Baron Cohen’s main target is the view of fame in America. He goes through many humiliating trials just to become famous. Some of these include adopting an African baby he names O.J., and trying to find an important cause to support just to further his image. The best scene in the film comes as he goes to an agency to find a cause to support (some causes included global warming and Save Darfur), and finds that the people who support these causes know about as little about them as he does. It is this moment of satirical clarity where Baron Cohen’s point in making the film becomes truly known. This amount of satirical clarity isn’t reached at every point in the film, but when it does, we are exposed to nothing but pure and utter brilliance.
Of course, “Bruno” wouldn’t exist without the brilliant minds behind it. One of those is director Larry Charles. Charles started his career on shows like “Seinfeld” and “Curb your Enthusiasm.” He would later direct “Borat” and last year’s “Religulous.” In “Bruno,” he furthers his guerilla documentary filmmaking style where he is also able to connect all of the events and create a real story. What is most brilliant about his style is that the film really is a mockumentary with a real documentary.
But the true visionary behind the film is Sacha Baron Cohen. His Cambridge-trained acting skills have gotten him far, and he absolutely refuses to break character, even in the most dire of situations.  Yes, he did just walk naked into that redneck’s tent and yes, he did just walk through an anti-gay rally. But he’s doing it all in the name of art. Creating comedy out of real life situations is the new form of comedy, and he will always be the master of it. Perhaps this year the Academy will crown him this year with the acting nomination he never got for “Borat.” He could deserve it not just for staying straight faced the whole time, but also for challenging some real emotional depth at times.
I don’t think I could end this review without mentioning the true audacity that went into every frame of this movie. Some scenes are so shocking, you might wonder how they even made it into the theaters. A scene involving a failed TV pilot tests the squeamishness of both the focus group watching it, and the viewers viewing it in theaters. Some things Bruno does should never have landed in a movie, but then again the best films are made simply by pushing boundaries. A safe movie can be nice, but a daring one can be masterful.
No movie could ever live up to the hype as massive as that of “Bruno.” So unfortunately, it doesn’t quite live up to all the hype. However, “Bruno” is still a great movie that might not have disappointed so many people had it not had such high expectations to surpass. 
There are definitely a few essential flaws in the film. One being that many of the scenes felt blatantly staged. The staged scenes were hilarious, but the film truly reaches its culmination when its capturing reality. Also, Bruno just isn’t as funny a character as Borat is, although at times his behavior is just as shocking. Baron Cohen uses Bruno for the same reason he uses Borat: to reveal ignorance by using a character who is just as ignorant as the ignorant people he finds.
“Bruno”‘s themes can be both timely and timeless. The quest for fame in America is something that will never die. However, the discussion it opens about homophobia in America could not be more timely, as gay rights were recently gained in some areas (Iowa) and suddenly taken away in others (California). Through its findings, “Bruno” exposes the utter ridiculousness of homophobia and hate as a whole. And in this, Baron Cohen draws the line between uncomfortableness and pure hate. Rep. Ron Paul felt as weird as anyone would when a stranger tries to make a sex tape with you, but that still isn’t an excuse to run out and shout the word “queer” at the top of your lungs.
You really don’t have to enter this level of discussion after seeing “Bruno.” You can just see it as it truly is: a damn funny comedy that takes no shame in putting the joke on the audience and then getting a few giant gasps out of them as well. 

Movie Review: Public Enemies

2 Replies

John Dillinger was an interesting character. Among names like Al Capone and Bonnie and Clyde, Dillinger was one of the great criminals and anti-heroes of the Great Depression. He robbed banks with style. Too bad this personality is lost in the new film about his robbing days, “Public Enemies.”

At a young age, Dillinger (Johnny Depp) is sent off to prison for a petty crime. In 1933, four years into the Great Depression, he successfully escapes in the first of many daring escapes throughout his life. Once escaping prison, he goes on a bank robbing spree throughout the Midwest. During this time, he becomes public enemy #1 to the FBI. Dillinger’s biggest enemy? FBI agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale). Unfortunately for Purvis, Dillinger is not so easy to find.
With the right direction, with the right script, “Public Enemies” could have been “Bonnie and Clyde” for the 2000s. But the film is misguided. Maybe it’s because the director is Michael Mann. Mann is also known for directing “Collateral.” While “Collateral” was entertaining at times, it lacked depth or any real purpose. “Public Enemies” suffers from this same problem.
However, Mann does have some talents. He knows style. But he doesn’t know substance. The sets and costumes echo the era perfectly. But all of that seems to be viewed from a distance. There’s not much exploring the sets and seeing how they effect the people’s lives. That’s why, for example, “Mad Men” works so well and why “Public Enemies” doesn’t.
Where the film is strong in sets and costumes, it lacks in cinematography and score. The film often looks like it could have been shot on a shoestring budget, and the camera is too often right in the characters’ faces. This usually becomes distracting and often makes the film hard to watch. Meanwhile, the score does not properly reflect the culture of the era and could have better used music directly from the 1930s. The film tries to use a few modern songs, but they eventually clash with the scenes they are put into.
Now, “Public Enemies” does have a few strong points. Mann is not bad at shooting action sequences, and the shootout in the woods is something of a stunning sequence. Also, Dillinger’s death at the film’s end (not a spoiler: this is a true story) borders on something of a tragedy, despite Dillinger being a major criminal. 
The audience may feel a bit saddened by Dillinger’s death because of Depp’s ability to capture the character so well.  Even with a weak script, he does his best to bring out all the quirks of the character. His most interesting trait: fearlessness. In one scene, he walks directly into a police department and doesn’t seem afraid at all. It’s a scene that has a very droll sense of humor. After viewing that scene, you may wonder why the rest of the movie couldn’t have been done in the same way.
Bale, another fine young actor, could have given a much better performance had he been given something better to act upon. Same goes for Depp. Although his performance was good, it had potential to be one of his best had the script been better. 
Perhaps “Public Enemies” could have been a masterpiece if it had a different director. My top choice would’ve been Martin Scorsese. He emphasized the era in “Goodfellas” but didn’t lose track of his gangster characters. He knows how to show consequence to crime, while Mann just consistently glorified Dillinger’s crime spree without really showing much of it. Another good choice might have been Ridley Scott, whose “American Gangster” was one of the best films the genre has produced in years.
The biggest problem with “Public Enemies,” despite its 143 minute running time, is that everything happens too quickly. Mann is so used to making fast-paced films that he barely stops to take a breath and admire the scenery. He seems to want to rush to the finale so quickly that he forgets that any good finale must have sufficient development before it can occur. He takes us to Chicago, Wisconsin, Florida, and Arizona without pausing to explain why we are going to these places, and maybe introduce us to the rest of Dillinger’s crew. Perhaps a voiceover from Depp might have worked well here. Depp knows how to give a good narration (see: “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”).
The era that “Public Enemies” takes place in is one that somewhat echos what we are going through now: a time of economic hardship, desperation, and confusion. The great “Bonnie and Clyde” connects the couple’s escape from home and eventual crime spree to the rebellious feelings of the late 1960s. Couldn’t Mann have gone deeper and connected the Depression to our own lives?
The substance of “Public Enemies” does not lie in the style; the film is all style and no substance. Its few redeeming qualities can’t help make it a better movie. 
While I am happy to see that Hollywood is trying to make more adult cinema and I hope they continue to do so, I just hope that next time they do it right.

Judging the Trailer: Jennifer’s Body

Leave a reply

Normally, I wouldn’t be too interested in a movie like “Jennifer’s Body.” Frankly, “Twilight” has made me sick of all things that have to do with teen horror films. But “Jennifer’s Body” has one thing that sets it apart from your average teen flick: Diablo Cody.

Yes, that Diablo Cody; the one who was once a stripper and is now an Oscar-winning screenwriter (for “Juno”). To this day, “Juno” splits many people apart. To this day, I still need to take time to convince my friends that it’s a classic. Maybe what they don’t like is the blatant way-too-hip dialogue. If that’s true, then they certainly won’t like “Jennifer’s Body.”
“Jennifer’s Body” is far from a heart warming “Juno”esque comedy. Based on the trailer, it’s a horror film with a dark comic twist. 
So, who has the honor of playing the title role of Jennifer? It’s none other than Megan Fox. She’s a cheerleader who becomes possessed and goes off on a man killing spree. 
Unfortunately, the movie does not reunite Cody with “Juno” director Jason Reitman. Fortunately, Reitman remains a part of the production, but this time in the producer rather than the director chair. But at least Reitman had the good sense of putting J.K. Simmons in this movie (he was in Reitman’s “Thank you for Smoking” and “Juno”).
Besides Fox and Simmons, the cast also boasts Amanda Seyfried, Adam Brody, and “Strangers with Candy” comedian Amy Sedaris.
Despite looking like a gory horror film, “Jennifer’s Body” also seems something like a high school satire, especially when you hear the line “No I mean, she’s actually evil. Not high school evil.” Hilarious.
With an Oscar- screenwriter behind it, “Jennifer’s Body” looks like (and hopefully will be) a sophisticated horror film (like “Silence of the Lambs” or “Rosemary’s Baby”) rather than a piece of horror porn (like “Hostel”). My one question: can Megan Fox pull off a convincing high schooler? And can someone from “The O.C.” (Brody) actually act?
Here’s the trailer*:
*Note: The trailer requires you to enter your age to watch. You must be over 18. It comes with a simple (and probably intended) loophole: just enter any age you want. Man, I love the internet.

Movie Review: Wall Street

1 Reply

“Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.”

Here it is, one of the most famous quotes a movie has ever produced. It’s not famous for what it says, but rather for what it doesn’t say, and what it really represents. This quote is not all you think it is, and neither is “Wall Street.”
Before explaining the plot of “Wall Street,” it is important to give a little history lesson. The film was released in December 1987, just three months after the “Black Monday” stock market crash. The film however, takes place in 1985. During this time, under then-president Ronald Reagan, there was massive economic de-regulation. This lead to more power to Wall Street, and some very shady business, which would ultimately lead way to disaster. Wait is this 1985, or 2008?
“Wall Street” begins with various shots of the beginning of a work day in New York City. There are shots of various New York landmarks shrouded in sunrise, until we zoom in closer to Wall Street, and then even closer to human life. And not just human life, but human life bustling in crowded elevators and subways. This is the rat race.
Going further, we meet the young, ambitious stockbroker Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen). Bud is an NYU business school graduate from a middle-class family headed by an honest union man (Martin Sheen, Charlie Sheen’s real life father). Bud wants more success, and quick. He turns to the advice of Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), a greedy millionaire who is a slightly less lethal version of Patrick Bateman.
While most investors were making hundreds of thousands, Gekko was making hundreds of millions. He did not amass this great fortune honestly however; it was amassed through an immense amount of insider trading. 
Though Bud wants to make a fortune, he’d rather make it honestly. However, he is quickly seduced by the power of money and becomes embroiled in Gekko’s insider trading. Soon enough, Bud has transformed into a clone of Gordon Gekko.
“Wall Street,” although highly praised at the time of its release, could not have been as appreciated as it is now, a time when fiction became reality and life imitated art. Why did life imitate art? It all stems from the legendary line Gekko utters at the stockholders meeting: “greed…is good.” The irony of this quote was lost, and only its surface meaning was seen and an excuse for greed was found. This misinterpretation proves that maybe irony really is dead. Another example of this is Peter Finch’s “I’m mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore!” mantra from “Network.” Was this showing that the best form of journalism was entertainment with a mixture of pushing forward one’s own agenda, or was it pure satire? Obviously, the satire was lost on most journalists (mainly, Glenn Beck).
“Wall Street” just might be Oliver Stone’s best film. It shows that the man can truly direct when he is more down to earth and not chaotically switching between color and time like he did in “JFK” and “Natural Born Killers.” It is in films like “Wall Street,” “Platoon,” and “W.” where he finds a way to portray chaos through less chaotic means that his best work is born.
“Wall Street” contains a fine ensemble that consists of future stars (“Scrubs” star John C. McGinley) and old pros (Hal Holbrook). But every actor in the cast pales in comparison to Douglas in his superb performance as Gordon Gekko. Not only is Gekko one of the most interesting characters ever created, but he is also one of film’s greatest villians; no doubt in the ranks of Norman Bates, Hannibal Lecter, Harry Powell, and Daniel Plainview. However, he does not become villainous by murdering women, eating people, and bludgeoning false prophets with bowling pins. No, he is the new type of villain: the white collar criminal. He is so evil in his capacity to commit so much lying, stealing, and fraud for the sake of his own self-interests. He represents all that can be wrong with capitalism and the “reach for the sky” mentality.
“Wall Street” is extremely relevant today. Could Gordon Gekko have been a prediction of the future crimes of Bernie Madoff?
No matter how relevant the film is today, it won’t stop being relevant once this recession ends. The film is not just a reflection on this day and age, but rather a reflection on American culture as a whole. It defines the American Dream as the need to be the wealthiest, and the most successful as humanly possible. Therefore, the film spits in the face of the American Dream and sees it as something attainable only through greed. Sometimes, in our race to success, we lose sight of the human heart.
I know by this point the quote “greed is good” has been analyzed past any point of analysis. But since irony is dead, I will now explain the quote in the bluntest way possible: greed, for lack of a better word, is bad. 
But then again, I guess greed can be good. That is, until the SEC (and reality), catch up with you.

Remembering Karl Malden

Leave a reply

Off the heals of the deaths of Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, Michael Jackson, and Billy Mays, Hollywood lost another one of its finest. Karl Malden, an Oscar and Emmy winning actor died today of natural causes. He was 97.

Malden’s legacy reaches the movie screen, the TV screen, and the stage as well. He is perhaps best known for his performance as Lt. Mike Stone in the 70s TV series “The Streets of San Francisco.” From film, he is best known for his performance in the timeless 1954 classic, “On the Waterfront.” In that movie, he played Father Barry, one of the few decent men in a corrupt world, trying to bring a sense of morality to Marlon Brando’s Terry Malloy.
Malden also starred in classics such as “Baby Doll,” “How the West was Won,” and “Patton.” Even though Brando managed to steal the thunder from every other actor in “A Streetcar Named Desire,” you can’t forget that Malden won best supporting actor for his performance in the film. Once again, he gave a fantastic performance of a man trying to bring a little joy and goodness to a wretched life.
During a career that lasted for nearly 70 years, Malden proved himself a worthy addition to some of the greatest movies ever made.

Happy Canada Day

Leave a reply

Today, I give a shout out to all of my Canadian readers (no matter how few they are) on Canada Day. Why must I mention Canada Day and what does it have to do with entertainment? Quite simply, Canada has given the world some of our greatest actors, comedians, and performers. Want proof? Here’s some great people Canada has given us:

Dan Akroyd, Lorne Michaels, Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg, Michael Cera, Jay Baruchel, Neil Young, Scarlett Johansson, Mike Myers, Jim Carrey, Donald & Kiefer Sutherland, Terry Gilliam, Will Arnett, Tommy Chong, Michael J. Fox, Eugene Levy, Norm MacDonald, Leslie Nielsen, Ellen Page, Christopher Plummer, Martin Short, Terrance & Phillip, and the list goes on
Those Canadians are quite talented, eh? That’s what I’m talkin’ aboot.

Movie Review: Star Trek

2 Replies

In the year 2009, the Enterprise was reborn, with stunning special effects and a great story line. 2009 marks the triumphant return of “Star Trek.”

I’ve never been a fan of “Star Trek,” and know very little about the mythology behind the series. Luckily, the newest movie starts from the very beginning, from the exact moment of Kirk’s chaotic birth.
James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) was born out of tragedy, a sort of situation of life coming out of death. Years later, Kirk goes from space to Earth, carrying a rebel without a cause attitude to a small Iowa farming town in the distant future. After many years, young Kirk decides to make his father proud by joining the crew of the USS Enterprise.
“Star Trek” shows us the life of another young boy as well, one living on a distant planet. This boy is Spock (Zachary Quinto). Spock is a genius. He lives on the planet Vulcan. He never quite fits in well, as he is half Vulcan and half human. His genius leads him to become one of the constructors of the Enterprise.
Despite being a mixed breed, Spock remains a proud member of his troubled Klingon race. The race faces danger mostly from the evil Romulun Nero (Eric Bana), a man who wreaks destruction throughout the universe and threatens to destroy the Federation.
As mentioned earlier, “Star Trek” is not a sequel but a prequel. It’s not a remake, but rather a re-imagining. It brings a classic into terms with this generation, and does so quite successfully. It is yet another chapter in a series of re-imaginings made this decade, which has also included “Superman Returns,” “Batman Begins,” and “The Dark Knight.” Compared to these other films, “Star Trek” falls somewhere around the level of superiority of the under-appreciated “Superman Returns,” yet doesn’t quite reach the height of the newest Batman installments. Nevertheless, it’s probably the best blockbuster released so far this year.
What makes it the best blockbuster so far this year? The best explanation lies in its director, J.J. Abrams. This movie is the perfect match for Abrams, who has had a long and prolific career; perhaps he is best known for co-creating “Lost.” Abrams leaves his authentic auteur stamp on the film, as it often feels like an extended episode of “Lost.”
Like “Lost,” it is the backstory that truly makes the story possible. Abrams is a master of explaining current events, so a prequel is right up his alley. The film surprisingly tackles a number of issues dealing with fate, time travel, and the possibility of changing the past as well as the future. I won’t go too far into this subject for now, so as not to give away one of the film’s biggest surprises.
Despite the dark road of the battle of fate vs. freewill that the film goes down, “Star Trek” always remains what it’s meant to be: a dazzling, special effects laden blockbuster. And the effects are spectacular. The haunting image of the destruction of Vulcan and the first appearance of the Enterprise are images you won’t soon forget. The film is also accompanied by a fine musical score. At one moment, as Kirk and Sulu (John Cho) dive down to dying Vulcan, the music is cut and only the sound of heavy breathing is heard. The scene felt like a subtle homage to Darth Vader.
Unfortunately, “Star Trek” does have a few minor flaws. Though Pine gives a great performance as Kirk, filling him with a sense of humor as well as a rebellious attitude, Quinto does not seem like the best choice for Spock. He tries at times to give Spock a feeling of intelligence, but in the end it just turns into dullness. Little enthusiasm is shown in the way he speaks. But perhaps the problem lies more in the dialogue written for his character, which sounds more Shakespearean than modern day conversation.
No Abrams production is complete, of course, without a little allusion. In this case, the mythology of Star Wars seems to be rooted in Ancient Rome. The villain Nero is named after the Emperor Nero, who persecuted Christians and “fiddled while Rome burned.” Certainly, this is a character who takes satisfaction in the pain of others. Also, Nero comes from the planet Romulus, perhaps a reference to one of the mythological founders of Rome: Romulus.
Mainly, all the Rome references suggest a massive expanding empire unlike any the world has ever seen. That empire of course, crumbled. But here, we focus on the beginning of the empire–the rebirth of it, rather than the end. And that empire: “Star Trek.”

Movie Review: The Night of the Hunter

Leave a reply

Of all the characters I’ve ever been acquainted with, perhaps the most odd, eccentric, and engrossing is Harry Powell (Robert Mitchum). This mystery of a man is the subject of Charles Laughton’s mesmerizing “The Night of the Hunter.”

Who exactly is Harry Powell? He is a self-proclaimed preacher and a religious fanatic. He recites Bible quotes while explaining the battle of love vs. hate using his tattooed hands (which has become one of those things that’s so famous yet few even know what it’s from). Despite his righteous message, Powell is not so righteous himself. Powell lands himself in jail and discovers Ben Harper (Peter Graves), a man on death row for murder and stealing $10,000.
Powell uses his seemingly moral goodness to con himself into marriage with Harper’s wife (Shelley Winters). Everyone is seduced by Powell, even Harper’s two children, whose disdain for Powell grows overtime.
The film soon unfolds into a psychological thriller, as Powell reveals he is not all that he seems, but rather a very dangerous man. Like something out of 1940s film noir, money becomes the thing that drives the characters and sends the two Harper children on a wild goose chase. But, as Powell keeps claiming, it’s all in the name of God.
“The Night of the Hunter” doesn’t have a real voiceover narration, but the character Rachel Cooper (Lillian Gish), who serves as a sort of on-screen narrator. She provides the true morality that Harry Powell lacks and fills the film with Biblical references. Most important to look out for is her reference to “the wolf in sheep’s skin.” I think you can guess who that’s about.
The film is guided by the powerhouse performance of Robert Mitchum. He controls Powell perfectly and makes him sane and insane at all the right moments, creating the false illusion of Powell as a righteous man. He has a warm singing voice that sounds something like Gene Kelly and a cold gaze that could kill a puppy. His explanation of the battle of love vs. hate is one that is worth multiple listens. Mitchum fits the character so well that I could never picture anyone else playing this role.
“The Night of the Hunter” came out in 1955. By this time, color was available to movies for 16 years. “The Night of the Hunter” could have been shot in color, but Laughton decided to stick to black and white. He did so with good reason. The black and white fits perfectly and cinematographer Stanley Cortez takes full advantage of it by creating immense, creeping shadows that add to the film’s suspense. Some of the film’s most beautiful shots are the outline of a person, shrouded in shadow, standing against an open doorway. There’s also a fine transition that literally goes between night and day, perhaps an allusion to God creating the Earth and the skies.
Obviously, the film carries a heavy religious message. At times, it can seem very anti-religious, portraying people of faith as false prophets praying off the gullible. At other times however, the film can also be very pro-religious, portraying religion as a source of morality and wisdom. However, that’s not up to “The Night of the Hunter” to decide, it’s up to the audience.
Upon its release, “The Night of the Hunter” was a failure both critically and commercially. It took years for the film to finally be appreciated as a masterpiece. Today, it has inspired filmmakers far and wide. Individual shots and snippets of dialogue from the film could be directly related to films by Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, The Coen Brothers, and Spike Lee (quite obviously in “Do the Right Thing”).
“The Night of the Hunter” is a little bit of Hitchockian suspense mixed with “The Maltese Falcon” and the Bible. It’s a film that was years ahead of its time and now it has finally gotten its due.
Recommended for Fans of: Psycho, No Country for Old Men, The Maltese Falcon, Do the Right Thing, Fargo, The Big Lebowski, Jackie Brown