Happy Birthday, Audrey Hepburn!

Audrey Hepburn was born on this day 79 years ago in Belgium. Throughout her life, she graced the silver screen with substantial elegance and charm. Although I really do think Hepburn was a fine actress, I have sort of a love-hate relationship with her movies. Funny Face is unacceptable, Sabrina is good, but leaning towards mediocrity, and Roman Holiday (which she won her first and only Oscar) is one of my favorite movies of all-time. But what I truly admire about Hepburn is her humanitarian work for UNICEF during the last few years of her life. Any celebrity who is willing to lend their fame for a greater good is worthy of the utmost respect.

Hepburn once said, "Remember, if you ever need a helping hand, it's at the end of your arm. As you get older, remember you have another hand: the first is to help yourself, the second is to help others."

I want to plug The Audrey Hepburn Library, which is a large Internet collection of old Hepburn magazine articles. The webmaster did an extraordinary job in compiling everything together and the site is continuously updated.

My Favorite Al Pacino Performance: Part II

This post will focus on the supporting roles of Al Pacino in DICK TRACY, DONNIE BRASCO, and THE INSIDER. WARNING: SPOILERS. Click here to read Part I.

After a series of dramatic roles in his career (with the exception of the lackluster Author! Author!), Pacino nailed his comedic supporting performance as the villainous crime boss, Big Boy Caprice, in Warren Beatty's comic strip-based detective adventure, Dick Tracy. Dick Tracy may not be a perfect comic book movie or even a great one, but it is undeniably entertaining and fun. Not only is the film supported by a grade-A cast, it also has a couple of wonderful Stephen Sondheim tunes to go with it. The look of the film is a delight; the art direction doesn't live in the realms of reality, but instead it rips out its ideas from a 1930s funny paper section. Although Pacino's version of Big Boy doesn't bear any resemblance to the original Big Boy in the comic strips, he wildly grabs the essence of what a goofy but threatening villain should be like.

As Big Boy, Pacino doesn't just chew up every scene--he swallows it whole. The character is more cartoon than human, but Pacino is so alive and energetic that Big Boy becomes more a true villainous being as the film progresses. Aside from the silly lines and mannerisms, Pacino is able to transform Big Boy into a dangerous threat to the film's detective hero. Big Boy is ruthless when it comes to getting what he wants and when he wants it. There are moments where the script creates some lighthearted lines for Big Boy to deliver and those scenes could have been done awfully wrong. Instead of making Big Boy into some clownish caricature (like just being the guy who gets to spank Madonna's Breathless), Pacino delivers his lines and showcases his movements with the right amount of aggressive prerogative and boiling viciousness so that the audience will still able to take this minor Hitler-lookalike seriously.

When Big Boy does something horrible, he just lets it slide off his shoulder. There is no dramatic fuss or guilt. This is what being a truly wicked villain is all about in a PG-rated affair. Pacino lets Big Boy to be likable, but only to an extent. Of course, we can still laugh at the jokes, but there is something inside the moviegoer that just wants the villain to be defeated and Pacino clearly understands that aspect of the audience, so he finds a balance between the funny, entertaining villain and the hideously emotionless murderer.

Ever since The Godfather, Pacino sky-rocketed into a legend in the cinematic crime business. It is a genre where veteran actors like Pacino can star with a polished persona; a persona that just seems so perfect for the general atmosphere of the film because it has already been perfected in other movies. Pacino carries a gun again in Donnie Brasco as Lefty Ruggiero, a small-time hitman who constantly feels disappointment in the state of his lifestyle. The film takes place in the seventies and a man like Lefty has lived the crime life for a while now. Lefty has killed many men, but life in the mafia seems gradually less worthwhile as time goes by. To compensate for his failures and regrets, he takes Donnie (who is actually Joseph Pistone, an undercover FBI agent) under his wing in hopes of seeing Donnie succeed in the mafia where he has not.

Pacino's performance in Donnie Brasco is similar to his performance in The Godfather: Part III, but unlike Andy Garcia, Johnny Depp dominates the screen as much as Pacino does. There is a convincing brightness about Depp's Donnie that Garcia failed to capture as Vincent Mancini. Pacino and Depp work as a duo in this film, rather than the film being entirely an one-man show. Director Mike Newell follows Depp's FBI agent with dedication and concern, but it never forgets to remind us that Lefty is an integral part to the hero's success. Nothing is ever black or white as we see Donnie gradually develop a deep sense of appreciation for his mentor.

Near the end of the film, there is a scene where Lefty is basically walking toward a death trap. Although the film isn't clear about the fate of Lefty, we know that Lefty is leaving himself for the sharks. (In real life, Lefty was locked up in prison and later released when he was dying from cancer.) But the audience saw it coming all along, ever since the moment he formed a friendship with a FBI agent who was seemingly disguised as a young, ambitious wiseguy. But in that particular scene where Lefty is leaving everything behind sums up why an actor like Pacino can continuously play the role of the guy with the gun: He knows how it's properly done. There are moments in many of his films where Pacino escapes the authoritative persona and finally let the human qualities sink in.

The Insider has all the winning qualities of an investigative drama: It is honest, fearless, and inspiring. In the spirit of movies like All the President's Men and JFK, director Michael Mann's film is sleek and professional and should have easily won the Best Picture Oscar over the blatantly shallow American Beauty (and any of the other films nominated in the category that year). Of course, it would be a lie for me to say that Russell Crowe's Jeffrey Wingand isn't the basis of the film, but Pacino's Lowell Bergman is the guy who grabs hold of every single detail and never lets go. This time around, Pacino plays the good guy and all he wants is the right to expose the truth.

Like Roger Ebert said, Pacino's Bergman is "Woodward and Bernstein rolled into one." Bergman has a hot story with a solid interview to go along with it, but CBS network refuses to run it on television's "60 Minutes." It is too controversial, too risky. What is contained in the interview are secrets of the tobacco industry, secrets the top tobacco execs want to leave in the dark. Because of his time at the lab, Wingand poses as a threat to Big Tobacco because he knows that the tobacco industry is making cigarettes more addictive, despite the well-known health hazards. If CBS decide to run it, they face a multi-million dollar lawsuit that might cripple the network.

As Wingand's disintegrating marriage and lifestyle is played out on-screen, Bergman works at the sidelines to reveal the truth, however threatening or dangerous. Bergman is the kind of man you respect, mainly because he has a steady job and family, but also because he can never keep his nose out of his work. Works is life and life is work for people like Bergman. There is a desperation about Pacino's Bergman--a kind of harrowing, unbelievable workaholic quality. Bergman is mainly the behind-the-scenes hero, exactly the kind of television producer to prompt an average guy like Wingand to the levels of reverence and prominence.

8 Things I Loved About Spider-Man 3

I'm not a comic book fan. I've never read a single comic book in my life. But I have successfully enjoyed many movies based on comic books. I guess that's why I don't care if the filmmakers behind the comic book movie decide to take their own liberties and do whatever they want for their adaptation. Of course, what makes many adaptations so great is that the filmmakers take liberties in what they choose to put on film when they adapt a comic book or novel. The filmmakers are able to develop their own perspectives on the original product and it makes the adaptations interesting to watch. As long as the final product is well-made and brilliantly watchable, I'm content. This goes to all the things I am a semi-fan of, like Harry Potter.

So, I finally got around seeing Spider-Man 3 (dir. Sam Raimi | rel. 2007). And I loved it.

What a surprise, too. I enjoyed the first two immensely, but they were not enough to make me a fanatic of the series. I was really expecting to hate the third movie because of all the negative criticisms I've heard regarding the film. But I ended up loving it, for all the right and wrong reasons. Right now, the movie is bouncing between the lines of epic greatness and guilty pleasure. In defense of the truly nasty things that have been said about the film, I present you with the list of 8 Things I Loved About Spider-Man 3 in defense to all the criticism. (WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD.)

1. It focuses more on Peter Parker than Spider-Man.
This was a complaint many people had about this film. It was like the camera had some love affair with Tobey Maguire's face. But I personally didn't think it detracted my enjoyment of this film whatsoever. In fact, I think it accentuated my enjoyment. Sure, in reality, everyone in New York City would know that Peter is Spider-Man (Maguire) with the time he has with the mask off and his suit on, hey, small goofs in film land are usually easily forgiven by me unless the movie is just down-right terrible. In that case, nothing about the film's existence will ever be forgiven.

When I watch superhero movies, I've always been more interested with the guy behind the mask. I don't care about balance at all, although Batman Begins did a fine job with the concept of equilibrium in a superhero movie. I'm glad to see more Peter and less Spider-Man. I understand that isn't exactly the case with those who grew up with the comic books and idolized Spider-Man. In a way, I'm totally undermining the purpose of a superhero movie but...I'm just completely fascinated with the life of a superhero without the mask and I'm ecstatic that Spider-Man 2 and 3 explored that--and 3 does it with some great length. With the time Peter spends with his mask off, his character develops. Because of the character development, there is more of a complex foundation beneath the surface of the Spidey suit.

While watching Peter's daily life outside his Spider-Man activities, you realize that he's just the average guy that is far from an image of a city's savior. He has some very personal problems to deal with: his best friend hates him, his relationship with his girlfriend is uncertain, he has to seek revenge for the man who killed his uncle, etc. The writers understood those were important aspects of Peter's life and how those aspects dictate his direction as a superhero.

I don't think anyone will ever forget Emo Peter, but hey, it works for me. It is silly, but it makes sense how Peter reacted to symbiote because of how well the movie developed his character.

2. It is a film about forgiveness and redemption.
There are dozens of corny elements to 3 that I occasionally winced at, but they played out nicely anyway. The film never tries to go over-the-top with any of its preachy themes, but it shows it like it is. The good intentions and the sentimental heart beating at the center of 3 is incredibly, surprisingly touching. I never mind a little sentimentality, especially when it is done with profoundness and believability.

One of the many plot lines in 3 was the relationship between Peter and his best friend, Harry Osbourne (James Franco). Early in the film, tensions are high between the two because Harry believes that Peter, as Spider-Man, killed his father in the first movie. When Harry rises as the New Goblin to seek his revenge against Peter, he experiences a terrible fall and gets amnesia as a result. Peter and Harry are buddies for a while because Harry can't remember that he was seeking revenge. But when he does, he hates Peter again. Harry then creates a strain in the relationship between Peter and Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) because he is still deeply in love with Mary Jane. Emo Peter and Harry battle it out and the fight results in the scarring of a side of Harry's face.

Yes, what a soap opera! (Another thing I love about this movie. Take a look at #3.)

I know this is another reason people hate the film, but...I didn't really mind the butler who tells Harry about how his father truly died. I mean, I didn't think it was a big deal. Sure, the butler could have told Harry much earlier (uh, like some time by the end of the first movie?), but at least he told him in the nick of time. The big fight scene in the end with Spider-Man and the Goblin as a team is totally awesome. Harry's death scene is a very pivotal, touching moment in the series. I've never believed in Peter, Harry, and Mary Jane as BFFs, but in this film, I did. They cared plenty about each other, and I cared for them too. I just loved the way Harry redeemed himself because it compensated for his annoying presence in the first two films.

Even though Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) is the main villain of the movie, I didn't care a whole lot for him. Okay, I guess I did to some extent. I sympathized with the guy. I'm a sucker for sympathetic villains, like Darth Vader. Unlike Darth Vader, Sandman won't be going down in history as one of cinema's greatest villains, but he had a nice thread of a storyline. Apparently, he, Flint Marko, became "bad" because he wanted to get money to help his sick daughter and that is pretty much what motivates him to be a thief. He is an escaped convict, so his wife doesn't want anything to do with him anymore. So in a chase with the cops, he enters this fenced area where scientists are doing experiments and BAM--he accidentally becomes Sandman! In the midst of all the action, Peter and Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) finds out from the police that it was this Marko guy who killed Uncle Ben in the first movie. With much vengeance, Peter, as Spider-Man, aims to seek an end to Marko's life.

After an extravagant fight scene between Spider-Man, New Goblin, Sandman, and Venom, there is a brief confrontation between Peter and Marko. What makes this confrontation worthwhile is that Peter forgives Marko, which I was (again) very touched by. When Peter forgives Marko, it is a powerful sign of Peter's maturity and shows the kind of integrity Peter possessed. The moment gives Spider-Man a new dimensions and that dimension comes from the depths of his alter-ego, Peter Parker.

3. It is an amazingly grand soap opera, with enough drama to fuel the entire film.
Peter and Mary Jane are happy together. Harry is jealous of the relationship, plus, he hates Peter because he thinks Peter killed his father. Harry, as New Goblin, gets amnesia because he fell down during a battle with Peter. Mary Jane gets mad because her acting career isn't working well and Peter is getting too much attention as Spider-Man. Peter has sort of a crush on Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), a cute girl in his science class. But Peter's photography rival, Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), has a crush on Gwen too. Harry regains his memory, realizes he is in love with Mary Jane, and gets Mary Jane to break up with Peter. Emo Peter asks Gwen out on a date and Eddie sees them together and becomes jealous. Emo Peter does some dance with Gwen at the place Mary Jane works as a waitress just to make Mary Jane jealous...and so on.

And...I WAS ENTERTAINED. I guess it's because I like melodramatic stuff like that. I can really care less if Spider-Man 3 resembles "The O.C."

4. The 3-4 villains are handled appropriately.
It works. Again, I've never read any of the comic books, so how am I supposed to have any expectations on how the villains should be portrayed in the movie? Exactly. I have not the slightest clue.

Sandman is obviously used as the main villain of the movie. Although he is far from the perfect villain and pales in comparison with Alfred Molina's Doc Ock from the second movie, he is a worthy antagonist. The whole redemption/forgiveness dynamic between Peter and Marko is fantastically executed. Marko being the murderer of Uncle Ben ties in quite well to Spider-Man/Peter's relentless detestation towards Sandman. The situation becomes very personal.

Harry/Goblin is an aggressive force in this film. The relationship between Peter and Harry seems more developed, more realized in this installment. There are moments in the film that you see the two characters bond, especially when Harry gets amnesia. The Goblin's villainous quality is never without his angry vengeance towards Peter. The want for personal justice is what makes the Goblin click throughout the film.

The symbiote is a tool of character development. It is Peter/Spider-Man fighting between the good and evil within himself. When Peter gets rid of the symbiote, it is an interesting turn to have the symbiote fall onto no other than Eddie Brock. How is Venom sudden? I think Eddie Brock's rivalry with Peter Parker has been leading up to something self-destructive and horrible, and for Eddie to transform into Venom and attempt to kill Peter makes a lot of sense to me. Sure, Venom only dominates the last few minutes of the film, but that has been the purpose of Eddie Brock's character all along. Fans talk about how the film doesn't do Venom justice, but for a comic book outsider like myself, Venom makes a point about the kind of person Eddie Brock is. Even when Eddie Brock walks right into his own death, Spider-Man still wants to save him. When Eddie Brock becomes Venom, it beautifully contrasts the characteristics between he and Peter. He serves as a foil to Peter Parker, plain and simple.

The villain-hero relationship in this movie are all very personal. What drives them and motivates them are not only for the sake of being villainous or heroic, but it is what lies in the heart of their alter ego, their true self.

5. It is a very funny movie...both intentionally and unintentionally.
- Oh, the waterworks! Am I the only one who thinks Tobey Maguire is a very bad crier? Whenever he cries, it's so...awkward. And funny.
- Emo Peter. Funniest thing ever. I mean, the bangs, the eyeliner, the goofy dancing--how...original.
- Topher Grace as Eddie Brock: Very Eric Forman-esque, but it adds some flair to Eddie. He is a bit of a smart-ass suck-up and is sort of a rivalof Peter's. We're not supposed to like him very much and the dry, cynical sarcasm makes Eddie both charming and fatal.
- J.K. Simmons just nourishes every second he has on-screen as the newspaper editor Peter and Eddie works for. The sense of urgency in every word he utters makes the lines much more crisp and funny.

6. The visual effects are AWESOME.
This movie looks amazing. Alright, I'll admit, the part where Spider-Man is saving Gwen Stacy looks sort of like a typical video game, but the rest looks wonderful. It never occurred to me on how CGI has developed over the years in movies until I watched this. Spider-Man 3 just takes advantage of CGI to the fullest and produce visually extravagant results.

7. Danny Elfman's score is more effective than ever.
Danny Elfman is almost as good as John Williams now. His score really adds suspense to the film, much more than any of the previous films. Tim Burton really overplayed the Elfman score in Batman, but director Sam Raimi finds all the right places to use the score to add an one-two punch to this epically satisfying blockbuster.

8. The ending.
The ending is well...stunning. I've already discussed many of the things that happens in the end in #2, but that shot of Harry's death and Peter and Mary Jane beside him is simply beautiful. The very end where Mary Jane is singing, "I'm Through With Love" at the restaurant she works at as Peter enters and they silently reconcile is a sweet finale to Raimi's splendid opus.

As much as I loved Spider-Man 3, I can also understand why people hate it. It's not for everybody. The movie is a bit goofy and far-fetched. There are a couple of plot holes that some people just don't have the willingness to forgive them. I can also see how a fan who has grown up with the Spider-Man characters can have an entirely different perspective on the film's take. Some people hate this kind of soap operish drama, but I dig that kind of stuff. But I will never understand why people complain about the shot with Spider-Man in front of the American flag. That was like, three seconds.

I felt a rush of giddiness when I watched this movie. It has so much energy injected into every single scene. The cast does a fine and consistent job with their roles The movie has the gleeful wonder of what you expect a comic book movie should look and be like. Spider-Man 3 is pure fun, complete with smashing ambition, profoundness, and drama. Despite the flaws, I absolutely loved it.

Rating: 9/10

My Favorite Al Pacino Performances: Part I

In honor of Al Pacino's birthday (the living legend turned 68 today), I have written a rant about my two favorite Pacino characters: Michael Corleone from THE GODFATHER TRILOGY and Lt. Col. Frank Slade from SCENT OF A WOMAN. Conventional choices, I know, but I love these performances to pieces. I can literally go on forever regarding my undying love for Pacino's performances in these films. (WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD)

I was eleven-years-old. My favorite movie was Rain Man. Still, I had very little interest in old movies in general. I guess it was more of the fact that I was rarely exposed to old movies rather than my own reluctance to discover them. But The Godfather changed all that.

I didn't expect to like The Godfather at all. I didn't care for crime movies, old movies, or long movies. But I was bored and it was the only thing on TV. My idea of The Godfather for the longest time was that it was a movie about an old guy who ran some crime organization and kills bunch of people before the movie's end. But what kept me watching? Yep, you've guessed it: Al Pacino.

Michael Corleone probably has one of the best introductions in a film...ever? In the beginning, he is clearly shown as the typical outsider of his father's crime empire, being a decorated American soldier and all. But he's smart and knows what goes on in the mafia, which he wants no part in. The guy is so reluctant to obey the traditions of his Italian family that he even daringly brings along his WASP-y girlfriend, Kay Adams (I swear, it's so weird seeing Diane Keaton in that role), to his sister's wedding. He chillingly tells his naive girlfriend, "Luca Brasi held a gun to his head and my father assured him that either his brains, or his signature, would be on the contract. That's a true story. That's my family, Kay, it's not me." Despite Michael's enmity towards the crime world, he respects his father, the all-powerful don.

Everything changes when Michael's family descends into great danger because of a local New York mafia. Michael's transformation from the civilian to another mafia criminal is amazing to behold and again, it's all thanks to Pacino's stunning portrayal of the character.

Originally, the studios considered Dustin Hoffman, Robert Redford, or Jack Nicholson--all rising stars of the late sixties and early seventies at the time. Unlike director Francis Ford Coppola, the studios saw little talent in Pacino. There is one particular scene that convinced the studios that Pacino was the perfect choice for Michael Corleone. It is, of course, the mesmerizing, perfectly-directed restaurant scene. Pacino completely dominated that scene by saying little and acting more. As he obediently listens to the man he has agreed to kill, his eyes wander with great intensity. The tentative train noises in the background gradually increase the dramatic tensions in the scene. Suddenly, Michael excuses himself to the restroom to obtain the gun that had been hidden there earlier. He comes back abruptly and ruthlessly kills the man with a couple of gunshots. As he journeys toward the restaurant's exit, Michael knows he has officially sealed his fate. He just became a part of the family, and there was no turning back.

I was completely surprised when Michael decided that he had to kill Sollozzo. It was obvious that his reverence for his father motivated him, but I was still in shock when he made his decision. But Pacino's performance made me believe that all of this was part of his destiny. This was important to him. Everything he denied so far in his life was what he was truly meant to be. Pacino's performance fulfilled every void that Mario Puzo's novel (that I later read) didn't bother to develop.

How Joel Grey won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar that year for Cabaret for a minor role, I will never know. But everyone knows that Pacino was definitely the more deserving of the bunch and it will be forever devastating to me that he lost to such an inferior performance.

In short, I became a total Godfather freak after my viewing of the first film.

I can't even start to describe my adoration for The Godfather: Part II. It was my favorite movie for the longest time. To me, it was cinematic perfection. I watched that 3hr+ movie five times in the same week. I thought it was that amazing. Why? Again, I couldn't keep my eyes off of Pacino's performance. As much as I loved him in the original Godfather film, there was something about the cold-hearted, emotionless young don that I found brilliantly heartbreaking. No other film at the time had made me feel that way.

There are so many scenes in The Godfather: Part II that I can name that could support the insane level of awesomeness in Pacino's performance, but I'll name one:

"There are many things my father taught me here in this room. He taught me: keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."

Yes, how corny. I chose a scene with a classic movie quote. But if you watched the scene, you would see that he scared the daylights out of Frank Pentangeli (Michael V. Gazzo) and would scare the crap out of you too. Pacino's Michael exhibits his frustrations with amazing reserve and coolness. What makes every moment of the performance worthwhile is that Pacino never bothers to add more clutter than necessary.

I guess he saved the clutter for later. Sixteen years later, actually, for The Godfather: Part III. And how appropriately so! Sure, I am saying this as a die-hard Godfather fan and ignoring the inconsistency in Michael's character in the third film, but it all works because of Pacino's spectacularly over-the-top performance. Oh, and did I mention I absolutely loved every minute of it?

Forget Sofia Coppola's laughable presence--Pacino makes up for all of the film's many faults. Don't get me wrong, though. I love The Godfather: Part III. Not only for Pacino's performance, but the whole damn thing. Yes, I love it, despite the fact that I acknowledge the movie's moderate financial success is the reason why Mr. Coppola now runs a winery and occasionally makes bad movies like Jack instead of living in shameful bankruptcy. But it seems that Pacino respects the character of Michael Corleone too much to treat the material as pure money-making fluff. So he makes the most of out of the script and the result is well, another great performance from Pacino!

Enough of my empty praise for Pacino in this unbalanced film...what material did the film offer Pacino? Diane Keaton. It's sort of weird to think that Annie Hall is a significant part of The Godfather Trilogy but she is, and she courageously involves herself in a series of wonderfully humorous battles of words with an aging mafia don who can't exactly bring himself to fight back against his ex-wife's honest words. Keaton is remarkable in her own right, which enables her to be on the same page with Pacino, acting-wise. I would love to see them in a film together again, but that seems unlikely. But here, Pacino and Keaton certainly waltz around the script's soap operish elements and they continuously masquerade with grace and conviction.

...and I just adore the hospital scene where they are interacting:

Michael: I feel I'm getting wiser now.
Kay: The sicker you get, the wiser you get, huh?
Michael: When I'm dead, I'm gonna be really smart.

I must admit, there is something really wrong with the movie being intentionally funny...

Don't mistake the third film of the trilogy as some sort of epic romance between two estranged lovers. It is as much a crime movie as the previous two, with the addition of a young man who is eager to join in on all the mafia action (played by Andy Garcia). The film also emphasizes the importance of family, a recurring film in the previous films as well, but this time with a gentler tone. But most of all, The Godfather: Part III is about Michael Corleone's redemption. He despises what his life has become. He wants to come clean, but his soul will not and cannot. The man is a classic example of a tragic figure. Michael's corruption and guilt is where Pacino ultimately finds strength in the midst of chaos. It is also what makes the film itself entirely worthwhile.

It is beyond me why Pacino never received any recognition from the Academy for his work in any of the Godfather films. He was undeniably excellent in each and every one of them and how the Academy failed to see that, I have no idea. But they finally recognized him for his funny and sensationally inspiring performance in Scent of a Woman. In the film, Pacino plays Lt. Col. Frank Slade, a depressed blind man who has lost his sight, but not his demanding personality. For Thanksgiving weekend, he invites Charlie Simms, his prep school babysitter (Chris O'Donnell) to a lavish trip to New York--only to surprise the teenager with a plot to kill himself.

Pacino was given so many great lines to read in this movie and he delivers the words with a sharp, authoritative bang. Here are a few of my favorites:

Frank: Then, I'm going to lie down on my big beautiful bed, and blow my brains out.
Charlie: Did I hear you right, colonel? You said you're going to kill yourself?
Frank: No. I said I'm going to blow my brains out.

This line is delivered with such charm that you could never have guessed that there is a suicide plot going on if you didn't understand English.

"I'm in the dark, here!"

In a dramatic shout fest between Frank and Charlie, Charlie desperately struggles to stop Frank from killing himself. One of Pacino's finest scenes in the film.

"Hoo-ah!"

What a grand line. Pacino says it with spirit and certainty. Nobody could have delivered it better.

Martin Brest's film is both a traditional character study and a classic buddy film. The characters are polar opposites, but they bond under strained circumstances. The boy is having some trouble at his corrupted prep school, the older man is having a personal crisis that lies between life and death. Brest sews the episodic scenes in this film together but he wisely spotlights Pacino. But Pacino never exploits the spotlight, instead he shares it with O'Donnell. They are a good team, but it is Pacino who carries the film from beginning to end. That speech at the prep school near the end of the film is one of the greatest speeches made in film and not even the blatant sentimentality can detract from Pacino's virtuosity.

Part two will focus on my favorite supporting roles of Pacino's career.

"Non, je ne regrette rien"

La Vie En Rose | dir. Olivier Dahan | rel. 2007

Instead of conforming to the conventions of a traditional biopic, Olivier Dahan's La Vie En Rose chronicles the life story of Edith Piaf with a series of nonlinear episodes from the singer's life. The way the story is told gives Piaf's story both an intricate canvas and a disheveled awkwardness. One minute I would be fascinated by the life of this extraordinary but vulnerable woman and the next minute, I would be frustrated by the film's editing. A part of me likes the idea of the episodic scenes of Piaf's life but the other part of me feels like all that the fancy storytelling method is completely overcooked.

The film starts with a middle-aged Piaf but abruptly jump back a few decades to Piaf's childhood. These earlier scenes of childhood are a tad dull, as we see young Edith in the streets with her mother. After surviving horrible living conditions with her maternal grandmother, she is transported to live in her faternal grandmother's brothel and becomes blind because of keratitis, allegedly healed by St. Therese. When Edith's father returns from WWI, she travels with him and the circus. Nonetheless, there are still a handful of effectively touching moments from young Edith's childhood.

We don't really know in detail what happened during her teenage years (although a flashback revealed that she had a daughter), but at the age of twenty, she is discovered by an admirer on the street who gradually makes her a star. The young Edith is nicknamed "La Mome Piaf" (The Little Sparrow) and becomes a international superstar, enchanting the world with her passionate, dramatic singing voice. Soon, we see an ill Piaf becoming more and more dependent on drugs as she ages. A few more details of young Edith are told through various flashbacks, but none are as coherent and interesting as they should be. Those short flashback scenes detract the film's value because it does not maintain my interest but instead, keeps people like myself who are not familiar with the details of Piaf's life much in the dark.

What keeps the film from drowning in its own midst of cinematic creativity is Marion Cotillard's lovely performance as the legendary French singer. As Piaf, Cotillard captures the sensational humor, the tragic downfalls, the raging passions, the faithfulness, the bubbling talents, the extreme vulnerability, the artistic wonders, the agonies, and simply, the beating heart of Edith Piaf. Cotillard simply glides through the decades of Piaf's transformation (with the help of a terrific make-up team) with life and grandeur. A key scene where her acting talents are accentuated with such powerful force and maturity is when Piaf finds out about her lover's death. In that scene, there is no question that Cotillard had become Edith Piaf, not only in mannerisms but also in spirit. In the final scene, she proves that she is indeed a revelation and this is a performance to remember. It has been a long time since I have seen a performance of a famous person that does not seem like a mere imitation, and I sincerely applaud Cotillard for that.

Rating: 7/10