# 188 The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)

The Best Years of Our Lives is a post-war film about three servicemen who come home from the World War II and try to re-adjust to the society they used to be part of. All three of them come from different social classes: a banker, a soda jerk, and a football player, and they all find it hard to get on with their lives after the war.

I was about to exclaim, "Not another old movie!" when I saw what was next on the list, but as the movie progressed, I realized how interesting and warm-hearted it actually was. It's nothing overdramatic like Born on the Fourth of July or The Deer Hunter. I mean, those films have a point too, they show us, the people who have never been to war, what it was really like, and how much it messed up people's minds. But to those, who went through all of it themselves, I think The Best Years of Our Lives is the best film to watch because it shows how important it is to stay optimistic in any situation. It's so full of hope and encouragement, that I couldn't help enjoying it.

It's not all joyful though, it protrays many hardships demobilized soldiers go through, but in the end, there is a happy resolution for all problems. Not very realistic, some might say, and it may be true, but I think that's exactly what people needed right after the war, considering that the film came out in 1946, when almost every family could relate to it.

I felt like the ending was a little rushed. I'm talking about the wedding scene, where Fred and Peggy make up all of a sudden, and start discussing spending the rest of their lives together. To me the scene seemed really out of place, but I guess the screenwriter wanted to remove the uncertainty from their relationship. Anyway, this is the only flaw that I found, which makes The Best Years of Our Lives one of my favorite post-war movies.

Interesting fact: For his performance as Homer Parrish, Harold Russell became the only actor to win two Academy Awards for the same role.

Favorite quote: "I know what it is. How did I get these hooks and how do they work? That's what everybody says when they start off, "Do you mind if I ask you a personal question?" Well, I'll tell ya. I got sick and tired of that old pair of hands I had. You know, an awful lot of trouble washing them and manicuring my nails. So I traded them in for a pair of these latest models. They work by radar. Look".

# 187 Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans is a movie about a "city woman" who tempts a married farmer and convinces him to murder his wife, sell the farm and move to the city with her. The man invites his wife to go on a boat trip, and, as he is about to throw her overboard and make it look like an accident, the wife starts to understand what's going on, and the farmer realizes that he can't do it.

The movie didn't impress me that much. Actually, the only thing I found impressing was the score. The plot was banal, I can't see any of this happening in real life. I think much of it derived from Theodore Dreiser's American Tragedy, but the idea behind the movie is very shallow. I can understand how many couples go through problems, even infidelity, but still end up growing old happily together. But no woman in her right mind would ever make up with a husband who had plotted to murder her.

I believe that, if asked, a lot of people would say they love the movie for being technically perfect, and may be it is so, it's really hard for me to judge. I did, however, notice the heavy use of special effects, a good example of which you can see on the image I've chosen for this post. Without giving too much away, I'll say that the ending was a case of "be careful what you wish for". If you like classic silent films with fable morality, you might as well like this one, but to me it seemed too artificial, and lacked the complexity of real-life situations.

PS: May my followers forgive me for not posting as often as I used to. We're in the process of moving to a new place, so I don't have much free time. This is also the reason why I don't reply to some of the comments or read other people's blogs. I promise to catch up once everything is over though!

Interesting fact: F.W. Murnau hated using title cards in his films. Thus, in Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927), the title cards become more and more infrequent as the film progresses and virtually non-existent by the end.

# 186 The Exorcist (1973)

The Exorcist tells a story of an actress, Chris, who starts to notice changes in the behavior of her daughter Regan. While the doctors try to find a medical explanation, it becomes clear that all of the occurrences, including levitation and a shaking bed, are of a paranormal nature. Chris finds a priest who also happens to be a psychiatrist, and, as the situation keeps getting worse, they decide to conduct exorcism.

Prior to seeing this movie, I'd heard at least two people say that The Exorcist is the scariest movie they've seen in their lives. Now I can't say the same thing about myself, but I can understand where they are coming from, especially since they got a chance to see it when it first came out. I saw a lot of 2000's movies that followed the same formula, so I had a pretty good idea of what might happen, and for this reason it didn't scare me too much (well may be just a little).

A little girl, with a screwed up face and abnormal strength, talking dirty and vomiting, what else is needed to scare the crap out of you? Unfortunately, this classic formula has been used so many times since then, that it became less frightening. Which, of course, doesn't make the original film bad, but in a way it distorted my perception of it. The flashes of the demon's face throughout the whole movie were great. I also like the idea that even the priests refuse to acknowledge that the girl is possessed. This is scary because they're supposed to know all about it, and if they're not sure, then there's probably nobody else who can help Regan?

I didn't understand what was going on in the subplot, the whole story about the archeologists finding a stone in Iraq and what it has to do with the main story. It felt like the two plots were supposed to be connected, but part of the movie got cut out, if I'm wrong or didn't understand something, let me know. Despite all the things I've mentioned here, that may make it seem like I didn't enjoy the film as much as I actually did, I think this movie really deserves it high rating because it defined the whole genre of "demonic child" movies.

Interesting fact: At one point the search for a young actress capable of playing Regan was so trying that William Friedkin claims he even considered auditioning adult dwarf actors.

Favorite quote: "If certain British doctors never asked "What is this fungus?" we wouldn't today have penicillin, correct?"

# 185 In Bruges (2008)

In Bruges is a dark comedy about two hitmen who have to lay low in the city of Bruges, Belgium, after one of them accidentally kills a young boy. Whereas Ken is enjoying the beautiful sights of a medieval city, Ray is devastated and haunted by guilt. Then he starts a romantic relationship with a local girl, and from then on things go as though the creators of the film drew their inspiration from a popular teen comedy EuroTrip.

Alright, maybe they didn't, but still I think the movie is absurd. First of all, since when romanticizing hitmen, and showing how vulnerable they can be is considered funny? The movie is trying to show us that they can be really nice people, with their own feelings, that they can be very sensitive, and as for their job, it's not even a flaw, it's just something they have to do for a living. And of course, when they kill people who didn't really "deserve it", they feel awful. May be I'm taking it too seriously, but as someone who studied criminology and criminal behavior, I can reassure you that professional killers never act the way it was portrayed in the movie. So what part of it was supposed to be funny?

Secondly, Collin Farrell's acting was also pretty annoying. I think that the role of a melancholic guy with this naive look and updrawn eyebrows doesn't fit him at all. And the ending was disastrous. What happened there reminded me of the Wayan's brothers' film Little Man where nobody was able to distinguish between a midget and a child (that movie's rating is 3.6).

As for the good side, Ralph Fiennes acting was alright, and some of his lines were indeed really funny. The film is pretty slow, and that helps create the atmosphere of living in a small town. Finally, the views of Bruges are very pretty. But other than that, I felt like In Bruges wasn't worth the time I wasted on it. But even if you don't agree with me, feel free to express your feelings in the comment form below.

Interesting fact: The film has a total of 4 actors who also appeared together in the Harry Potter series: Ralph Fiennes (Harry), who plays Lord Voldemort; Brendan Gleeson (Ken), who plays Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody; Clémence Poésy (Chloe), who plays Fleur Delacour; Ciarán Hinds (The Priest), who plays Aberforth Dumbledore.

Favorite quote: "An Uzi? I'm not from South Central Los Angeles. I didn't come here to shoot twenty black ten year olds in a drive-by. I want a normal gun for a normal person".