State of Play: I really, really liked this movie. Yes it has the typical plot of the "gigantic secret ex military company" that has (direct quote from the film) "wrath of God money." It has the typical twist's that you may or may not have seen coming, but it is very well acted. Russell Crowe plays a seasoned reporter who is investigating the entire story. Right down to this guys walk Crowe creates a marvelous character who is a pleasure to watch, and very believable as a journalist. He seems like a guy who would know everyone and have tons of leads and sources. Ben Affleck is a congressman, not a real stretch of a role for him but he does it well. EXCELLENT cameo's from Bill Pullman and Jason Bateman, Bateman's in particular was hilarious. The film is set in Washington so you have the Political shots but the movie mostly takes place in The Paper itself. I would say it's pretty accurate, they constantly mention the financial problems as well as taking stabs at bloggers and online news sources, but I don't know crap about that so let's just say it's easy to swallow. It's suspenseful and has a gripping story, Rachel McAdams and Robin Wright Penn are both very good in it and add the eye candy every guy enjoys. The line from the film I will be stealing is a good one, Crowe gives Penn a glass of Jameson's and says "Here Irish Wine." Awesome. 7.875/10-
The Hunted Haven't watched it in years and found it on AMC last night. Pretty solid movie that moves relatively quick with good action scenes. Tommy Lee Jones does a good job as the tough retired Spec Ops trainer, and Benicio acts a lot like Rambo, kicking ass pretty much wherever he goes. Overall, for what it is, it's a good movie if you like a lot of fights and stabby knife action, Tommy Lee Jones with tons of old man strength, and not a lot of fluff to get in the way of any of that. 6.5-7/10
Twitch of the Death Nerve (1973) a.k.a Bay of Blood a.k.a Carnage You probably haven't heard of this film, but this is it. The film that literally started it off, the film inferior movies like Friday the 13th, The Burning, Sleepaway Camp and even classics like Halloween ripped off. This is the first and best slasher film of all, directed by the Italian master Mario Bava (Shock, Danger: Diabolik, Black Sabbath, Black Sunday). Essentially, Bava is the pinnacle master of cinematic tecnique, and it's displayed vividly in this film. It's the ultimate litmus test for style over substance: the plot? Someone wants a valuable property on a lakeside residence and so goes the set pieces for a dozen ghastly murders, and a shocking and bizarre conclusion that I just ate up. You'll note after seeing this how many murders were stolen and used in later slasher films, but nothing tops this one. It's Bava's best film (that IS saying something) and an absolute must for any horror collection. This is a true classic piece of cinema, but sqeamish people will be turned off by it. 9/10
SHUTTER ISLAND: This film really, really wants you to like it. It has a great creepy score throughout that adds a great mood. It had fantastic actors both main and supporting. However: Spoiler since the movie "the sixth sense" all of us are looking for an unforeseen twist. Many of us are smart, we also watch allot of movies so it's not easy to slip one past us anymore. You will figure out the twist in this film pretty early, when you do the movie becomes incredibly long because you are waiting for a climax that you already know is going to happen. Again the acting is fantastic so it's easy to accept the story, you will find yourself glancing at your watch and hoping it will be over soon. There is a such thing as too much suspense, I would not pay any money for this movie. If your a big fan of Leo watch it on a Sunday or if you happen to be home sick from work. It is nothing like a typical MS film so don't expect that. It's erie and creepy but it's not any good. 3.5/10
I just hope you're conscious of the millions of people in direct opposition to what you've said here. It's one thing to disagree with subjective topics like art and movies, but when decade after decade passes by, and thousands if not millions of people agree that it's one of the greatest, if not the greatest movie ever made, that it's not a landmark in cinema or movie making but in human achievement, you might want ammo a little heavier than "it was just too cliche." I'm gonna try not to over-react here, because it is one of my favorite movies and I can't really remain unbiased, but you're like Peter from Family Guy when he's ready to drown with his family and goes, "I've got a secret I need to tell you. I didn't like the Godfather. Just didn't care for it, didn't work for me," and I'm like the rest of his family who flip out and demand to know why, knowing they won't get a satisfactory answer. Aside from the innumerable layers to each line of dialogue delivered, aside from the multitude of sub-plots and complexities teeming beneath its beautifully simple story, aside from the tangled web of desires and wants carefully holding every character together as the story builds towards its inevitable climax, I can only offer one piece of rebuttal to what you said when you state that "it was just too cliche in this day of age to truly enjoy it" - it may even hold up now better than when it was first made. In a generation like ours, as image-conscious and narcissistic as it is, I truly believe Casablanca's final scene reminds us what we've lost sight of. That above all else, love isn't about emotions or happiness or finding your soul-mate or any of that ridiculous pablum so espoused in Hollywood and our culture, that love, if anything, is selfless. Forget that one person, that one job, that one big break that will fix all your problems, think instead what drove Rick to make that split-second decision to put Ilsa on that plane with Laslo despite his every desire pointing the other way. It's a virtue the most hardened, jaded motherfuckers have to submit to to gain anything of substance in this world, that Casablanca capitalizes on so poignantly. Dude, it really is one of the greatest movies ever made.
I haven't watched "Casablanca", but Chater brought up a lot of problems that I've had in watching other, supposedly classic old films, and which are perfectly legitimate complaints. (I only disagree with him about acting; I think it was way better then than it is now) It would be strange if 26 years after the modern movie was invented, and a mere 11 years after they began to have sound, a film was NOT inferior to those of modern times in some ways. I absolutely hate this type of argument. Who gives a fuck what other people think? Does the opinion of a bunch of people make something good all by itself? That's ludicrous. If we extend that argument further, "millions of people loved Twilight/Transformers", so does that make them great films, too? If Chater has good reasons for why he feels Casablanca is played out and overrated, they're legitimate, and shouldn't be dismissed. If you want to disagree by discussing the specifics of the film, that's great. But using critics/other viewers as a crutch is nothing more than a tired fallacy. The rest of your post was quite interesting to read, since you mentioned what you loved about the movie, and did so well. Anyways.... Focus- Singin' in the Rain (1952) What a boring and painfully overrated piece of fluff. How people enjoy it nowadays is a total mystery, and I was interested enough to check it out. Basically, it's a collection of various Broadway song and dance numbers. Problem is, they're boring and schmaltzy as paste. The singing kind of sucks. The dancing also sucks. (Keep in mind, this was done by actors, not professional dancers) How anyone can even sit through the movie in one sitting, let alone really enjoy it, remains an open question. Maybe this was great some 60 years ago, when my grandparents were the same age I am now, but not anymore. 34/100, of which 20 points are respect for the venerable years of an old-timer.
Bad analogy. Transformers and Twilight have been around for one or two years, Casablanca has withstood the test of time since 1942. That is much, MUCH different than two recent movies that happened to rake in millions of dollars through the current Hollywood landscape. And it's not that you can't oppose movies with a vast plurality of people behind it; for instance, you could say Citizen Kane - arguably the greatest movie ever made - is a bloated exercise in in razzle-dazzle spectacle, populated by stereotypical characters, twisted with manipulative storytelling, stuffed full of self-contradictory Freudian and Pirandellian cliches, made by a heavy-handed showoff to impress the world***, and you might have a legit argument. I wouldn't agree with you, but at least it doesn't ignore the vast number of movie-watchers across the years who have hailed it as the finest movie in American cinema, as Chater subtly did in his review of Casablanca. Dude, I hate it when idiots cite arbitrary numbers like fan count to win subjective arguments just as much as you do. This is different. This, to put it plainly, is Casablanca. Sixty years of agreement is a pretty powerful thing, and can't be ignored. ***Taken shamelessly, word-for-word, from Robert McKee's "Story."
That's like comparing Pogs or Pokemon to a classic board game. Yeah, a lot of people went apeshit over them in the 90's and they were everywhere but they aren't better games than Monopoly, which has been consistently popular since the 30's. I don't think you can rationally compare Casablanca to a flash in the pan like Twilight. Popular conceptions of good do mean something when decades go by and the art doesn't lose its popularity. I can't think of very many films that were made 30 or more years ago that people still watch and are moved by that aren't also good films. Even films that might be overrated are still good, not just mediocre or fluffy popcorn bullshit. If Transformers is on TCM 50 years from now I'll eat my fucking hat. Anyways, it's hard to judge movies from that long ago because it was a completely different era. I'd say 99% of the films we all watch were made after Casablanca came out. Have you ever considered that it seems cliche because we grew up watching movies that had echoes of those classic scenes? It could hardly be considered cliche when it came out and there wasn't 70 years of pop culture ( millions of films) piling on top of it. You really have to watch old films with a sense of historical setting. Film, unlike literature, is inherently limited by technology. Even more so it is limited by the zeitgeist. 40's cinema is cheesy to modern viewers because its so staged. It still had roots in theater and they were made for an audience that was far less educated and far less distracted by the rapid fire ads, music videos, and film editing that we have today. The people who made those old classics were doing the best they could given their circumstances and limitations. The fact that they created these films using technology that today would be considered absolutely obsolete and nearly unusable, and they STILL manage to captivate people in 2010...what does that tell you about the quality of the filmmaking?
Obviously, I wasn't comparing Casablanca to Twilight/Transformers, but rather, taking a slightly more extreme form of LucasJackson's argument ("critical consensus/mass opinion means a film is good"), and showing how that reasoning leads to a conclusion ("Twilight/Transformers are great films") that most people here would strongly disagree with. I can also point out silent era films like "Battleship Potemkin", "Nosferatu", and others, which are considered "all-time, beloved classics" to this day, but which are so painfully boring and simplistic, that even my parents hated watching them in the late 60s as teenagers, let alone any young person today. Some old films are still awesome and withstand the test of time (LucasJackson's inspiration for his username, "Cool Hand Luke", is one of my 15-20 favorite movies ever), but many others do not. Believe me, I know this, and take into account when watching older films. Some movies from the 1930s are great today, (All Quiet on the Western Front, M, Alexander Nevsky, Gone with the Wind, etc.) but many others from earlier decades are lifeless and antiquated. It's the same thing as with books. One has to judge them on an individual basis by him or herself, not by what decades of mindless critics have written.
There's nothing wrong with disliking a classic film. I don't go apeshit over Taxi Driver, for instance. Yes, it's performed with gusto and has many powerful, endlessly quoted scenes. It's also needlessly gruesome (not that I'm in ANY way squeamish), utterly pointless and has a main character that's impossible to root for. In fact, there is NOBODY to root for in the movie. Marty is one of my favourite directors and his body of work is practically unmatched aside from Kirosawa, but I found this film turgid and in the end overrated.
Speaking of old stuff, I realize that despite watching a lot of movies, there are many "classics" I haven't seen. So I decided to watch Citizen Kane (1941) For those that don't know, it's a story about the rise and fall of newspaper magnate Charles Foster Kane, who starts off an ordinary child, is made a wealthy millionaire heir soon thereafter, and then becomes king of the newspaper world. I was deeply skeptical about this movie. Any film made 70 years ago that is so unanimously praised as the "greatest ever!!!" automatically sets off warning bells for me. I was ready to dislike it and then write about how foolish everyone is for buying into the hype. And yet, the film is genuinely fucking great. The pacing and editing is excellent, avoiding the dullness so typical of films made in the 40s. The direction is superb, as is the acting, featuring the kind of great, top-to-bottom ensemble performance one never sees nowadays. Most of all, I was really impressed with the dialogue. The characters talk fast, and they talk well. Their words never feel like hollow cliches or empty sound, but are articulate, funny, and frequently insightful. They make sense based on the person who utters them, and aren't just exposition, but integral to the story, plot, and characterization of Charles Foster Kane. Given the subject matter, the film was unexpectedly exciting and engaging for me. In fact, when it comes to conventional, biographical dramas, Citizen Kane (more serious) and Ed Wood (more comedic) pretty much push the genre to its absolute limits. Great film, possibly the best ever when it came out in 1941. Definitely worth seeing. 85/100
The credit goes out to Simapai for originally bringing this treasure to my attention, and now I must offically do this: The Room (2003) The Room is the worst drama ever made in the history of film. And for that, it may quite possibly be the funniest 100 minutes of your life. You may have seen clips on Youtube of scene after scene showing actors crashing in burning like you've never seen in your life. And here's my theory why: The film's incredibly creepy star/writer/director Tommy Wiseau is a foreigner. Whatever he is I have no fucking clue because I have never heard that accent before and I don't think anybody ever has. Here's a guy who has some money, a dream, and english as a second language. However, that didn't stop him from writing a Cleveland steamer script using the words that he knows in english and having people with American accents act out the lines. It all comes together like a Voltron of awesomeness. The homo-erotic football tackling in the park, for starters. Christ, the WAY they play football- lateralling it back and forth 10 feet from each other while cheering each other on- is one of the faggiest things in history. The "beautiful" girlfriend Johnny and Mark fight over is a gross sucked onion pig with about five pounds of cake-up make-up on her face. The dialogue sounds like a stage play from the grade two retard class, the music score would drive a Navy Seal into suicide, the creepy sex scenes even gave ME the Heebie-Jeebies, and the lighting gives all the warmth and glow of a porn shoot in a K-Mart. I think you can take it for what it is when a character eats a bullet from a .44 magnum and his buddy comes in saying "Wake up, buddy! Snap out of it!" I cannot give this film a rating. It is the most poorly written film to ever receive a release of any kind, but I urge you to see it because you'll piss your pants laughing non-stop. It's no wonder this film has reached such huge cult success as a Midnight Movie. It's the next Rocky Horror Picture Show, with audience members shouting horrible profanities, throwing footballs around, dressing like the main characters and tossing spoons at the screen. In closing, the film is just bad in every concievable way, and ties with Deadly Prey as the worst movie of all time (because they are different genres) this film never rises above itself for a second and when it does, here comes the tide. Let's enjoy a few more seconds of glory for the road..
The point isn't that you have to enjoy classic movies just because they've been hailed as classic by generations of viewers. The point is that movies are usually classic for a reason (I'm with you on Taxi Driver, fyi). Go ahead and disagree, but be mindful of the fact that they've held up over years and years, and are still as powerful as ever. Why do you think that is? Luck? People are stupid? People are stupid because Meet the Spartans made $74 million dollars, not because Casablanca is considered one of the best movies ever made. There is a difference. I just watched The Bicycle Theif, a 1947 Italian film about a working man, struggling through poverty, with a wife, a young son and a baby, who needs his bicycle in order to work. His first day on the job, it's stolen. The film unravels from there as he scours all of Rome trying to find it, reflecting his desperation as a man constantly marred by bad luck and misfortune, undermined by the injustice so routinely and inherently present in society. No one helps him. The people who try and help him have hardly anything to offer. All he has his himself, his son and companion, and his own dignity... which hangs on by the most tenuous of threads. It's old, not to mention Italian and so Italianly dramatic ("I don't get nothing never!"), but a poetic, beautifully simple story that is told so vividly and honestly it is difficult to avert your eyes. The ending will have you in tears. Worth watching for anyone who has faced the inequities and injustices of civilization that are merely a figment of life.
Now you're completely changing your original argument. No one ever said Casablanca attained popularity for no reason. Rather, what Chater was saying is that it is outdated, and while great for its time, has lost much of its effect today. This happens to a lot of once-great books, music, and other movies/art. It's also an opinion about "Casablanca" I've heard multiple times in real life, from friends and even family. So being curious about who was actually correct, I decided to go ahead and watch Casablanca (1942) The first fifteen minutes are entertaining and set up well, introducing the viewer to the city of Casablanca, a dangerous city where numerous refugees from Europe attempt to flee to Lisbon, and then the US during World War 2. However, there is a large plot hole early on, which is hard to ignore, Spoiler namely that Rick accepts the high-level exit visas from the "travel agent", despite his knowledge that they come from the dead German couriers and would put him in extreme danger if found in his possession. There is no point in Rick doing this except to drive the plot forward. I hate this; rather than letting the story expand in an organic manner, individuals perform actions that are out of character, just so the plot has a place to go next. Nevertheless, Rick is an excellent character, and played very well by Humphrey Bogart. He is a jaded, calm, methodical professional with a pessimistic sense of humor. He has gone through a lot in life, rarely gets worked up over anything, and always has a witty response ready. That is, until we get to the romantic subplot later... In the next fifteen minutes, we encounter yet ANOTHER gaping plot hole, this one even harder to ignore. Spoiler Moments after the Casablanca police ruthlessly hunt down the visa agent, they are exceedingly polite to Victor Lazlo, a major enemy of the Third Reich. They don't execute him, or even take Lazlo into custody; they just let him be, even giving him a warning of their intentions. How wonderfully kind of them! Worse yet, they don't even get a man to track Lazlo, which would have revealed to them the conversation with Berger! And unfortunately, the film starts going downhill from this point; the pace slows down considerably, and too much time is spent on pointless reminiscing. Not that there's anything wrong with nostalgia, especially in a state of war, but it's taken too far and beaten to a pulp, to the point of becoming trite and boring. It turns into a stereotypical Hollywood romantic picture, with some dreadful, eye-rolling cliches. ("was that cannon fire? Or is it my heart pounding?") Things get even worse later, with the reveal of Lazlo's incredibly important knowledge (why oh why don't the Nazis get it from him by any means possible?!), and Isla being a bitch to Rick for no reason upon their initial reunion, given the circumstances of their departure in Paris. Really, that last point should be enough to submarine Casablanca's status all by itself; it just makes the character of Isla inconsistent, insensitive, a little stupid, and incredibly cruel. There is a lot to like in the picture, like the premise, exotic setting, characters, and acting. However, at its core, we have a simple, slightly above-average Hollywood romance contrived from its convenient, absurd plot holes. In conclusion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with calling Casablanca "overrated". Because that's precisely what it is. 63/100
Well, that will fucking teach me. I wrote that review with 10 minutes of "Casablanca" left. I knew the majority of the ending through popular culture, and figured my view about the movie wouldn't change. Well, it did. It's one of the most garbage conclusions to a supposedly good (let alone great) film I have ever seen. I'll even ignore Rick's sudden and drastic change in character. However, you mean to tell me no one, Spoiler not even the driver, witnessed the German major's death? Moreover, none of the Nazis that arrive later to find two men alone around a dead body ask any questions? Or get suspicious about which one of them did it? What. The. Fuck?! And what about Louis, the French chief of police? He changes his entire personality on a dime the same way Rick did? What a bunch of convenient baloney! Worst of all, Spoiler it's a cliche happy ending, which makes no sense under the circumstances, the nature of the story, or what occurred. 50/100 And that's being goddamn generous.
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot This movie was just on one of the movie channels the other day, and I haven’t seen it since I was a kid. Its old (1974) but it is awesome, with Clint Eastwood and Jeff Bridges. It is about a drifter who hooks up with an ex-con turned priest, and they get out of town when Clint's old posse is hunting him down. Great flick if you like older movies, not to mention some bad ass cars.
The Book Of Eli: This movie just hit on-demand so it is still relatively new. It is very well acted, you can't go wrong with Denzel and Gary Oldman. You also have Mila Kuhnis who is quite forgetable, but a nice supporting role from the actor who played Titus Pullo in HBO's Rome. The story is one the those post apocalyptic tales that leave the world as a barren wasteland. They never go into much depth as to how it happened or why, they just keep mentioning the "War." Washington is determined to bring a book to the West, Oldman has been scouring the wasteland looking for the specific "book" Denzel has, doesn't take long to figure out the conflict in the film. Spoiler The movie is sadly predictable. I still do not know if Denzel is supposed to be blind, but you figure out well before the finale that he has the book memorized. They only harp on the fact that he "read from it every day" like five times. I also get annoyed whenever one man shoots fifteen guys while they are shooting at him, maybe he had "divine protection" but it bothers me. I don't mind one guy killing ten guys with a sword though, that I still enjoy regardless of how much of a stretch it is. Seeing Milah at the end taking the place of "The Walker" rates a ten out of ten in cheesy. I always enjoy plot lines like this, and the two actors do a good job of carrying the film, but I wouldn't waste any money on it. Wait for it to come to cable, it's Sunday afternoon if nothing better is on type of movie. 5.5/10
Verizon, in their finite generosity, is giving us 3 months of free HBO and Cinemax. Combining this with the fact that it's summer and there's more crap on TV than usual (and by crap, I mean reruns of crap--thank God for USA Network on Thursday nights), I came across Dreamcatchers, 2003 while scrolling through the programming guide. Morgan Freeman, Jason Lee, Timothy Olyphant, Tom Sizemore--okay, pretty decent cast. Mistake. Four guys who are friends since childhood are given some telepathic powers when they save a mentally challenged kid from a group of bullies. Eventually, these powers are to be used to combat an amoral military officer (Freeman) charged with the duty of stopping an alien invasion. At times, I honestly wasn't sure if this was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek comedy/horror, but I hung in there for the whole 2+ hours...so you don't have to.
Even saying it's outdated or doesn't hold up as well will put you in the minority. Your friends and family might not agree, but how much have you really read about Casablanca and its place in history? Have you really given it a good examination of what makes it great? I'm not trying to sound pompous here - really, I'm not - but saying it's outdated or cliché is not necessarily heresy, you are just gravely outnumbered. I'm glad you watched the movie. It's too bad you didn't enjoy it, but you bring up a great point when it comes to not only this movie but stories in general - holes. And the fact that there's tons of them, even in a movie like Casablanca. You might have higher standards for movies than I do, but the truth of the matter is that like coincidence, holes are a part of life. Things often happen for reasons that cannot be explained. Rick accepting the letters of transit, like you said, is a hole - I thought this guy sticks his neck out for nobody? Ferrari showing impulsive generosity to Laslo and Ilsa when informing them that Rick most likely has the letters of transit is another hole, because Ferrari's character is so contingent upon corruption and personal profit, yet makes this out-of-character move merely to provide a plot device. They are holes, but this is art, and the fact is, art imitates life; sometimes things happen with no discernible reason. What good stories like Casablanca do, however, is not hide these holes or ignore them - they face them head on. For instance, you argue that Rick accepting letters of transit from Ugarte is wildly out of character and made no sense except to mindlessly move the plot forward. He has no reason to take them, especially considering the amount of danger it puts him in. OK, but doesn't he live in danger every day? And doesn't he only agree to accept them "for an hour or so"? And could the amount of profit he would rake in make that a potentially tempting offer? "You're right Ugarte, I am a little more impressed with you." Next, why doesn't the German police take Laslo into custody on any grounds necessary? You ruthlessly slaughter Ugarte, but Laslo, the underground resistance leader, gets a free pass? And no one's tracking him, even when he's making moves with Berger right under their noses? OK, that's sort of true, but what about the line by Laslo, "You won't dare interfere with me here. This is still unoccupied France. Any effect of neutrality would reflect poorly on Captain Renault." Or Strassur, "If you were to furnish me with their names [of the underground resistance leaders] and their exact whereabouts, you will have your visa in the morning." No one's tracking him? "Careful, you're being watched." "Don't worry, it becomes an instinct." So the Berger conversation flew under the radar. Alright, fine, on with the film. I’m not quite sure how you fault Isla for anything, much less her nature upon her and Rick’s reunion. You really believe she was as cruel as you say she is? I’m sure you’ve learned by now, love can be a cruel, cruel thing. In your most damning assessment, you claim the ending is “fucking garbage” with one seemingly easy-to-explain line of fault: Do the words, “Major Strasser is dead. Round up the usual suspects” mean anything to you? Should there have been an alternate ending in which a coup d'état arises within the ranks to avenge Major Strasser’s death, extending the film an extra three hours? The fact of the matter is, this is a movie, and this is a story being told. I’ve done my best to break it down for you, but you owe it to yourself, if you love movies, to really delve into what makes a great story well told. Even attempting to write a story and craft a narrative will really help you appreciate what the essence is behind this medium, and just how it correlates to the real life virtues and truisms we face every day in our real lives. But even more importantly, if you just didn’t like it, we’ll probably bicker forever.
We've already discussed this point. Lots of people saying something is "great" doesn't make it so, any more than it did in the story of The Emperor's New Clothes, or for films like Transformers and Twilight. I'm excited about discussing the nitty gritty of the film, though; It's more than just the type of hole that arises in "real life"; it's a damning, near impossible development without which there would be no movie at all. The whole premise for the next 90 minutes would be ruined unless Rick does something wildly out of character (and at the beginning), but convenient for the story. That's horrible writing and draws me completely out of the movie. However, I was willing to ignore this, and was still enjoying the film at that point. However, the problem with Casablanca is that it has DOZENS of these holes, which only grow more numerous and blatant as the film goes on, infesting every scene. One, two, or even half a dozen plot holes can be overlooked, but when it becomes constant, the movie is nothing more than contrived garbage. How so? To me, they ignored all these parts. In the bolded sentence lies the entire problem. The first 30 minutes of the film impress upon us the fact that Rick does not care about money. He picks up the tab for guests, refuses to accept the money of the French banker who wants to get inside a room, and even refuses Ali's offer to get rid of the dangerous exit letters and make a huge profit from their sale. This is a man who doesn't care about money; he is just biding his time, and doesn't want to be killed/imprisoned by the Nazis. That's it. So accepting those letters is pretty much the worst violation of his established character imaginable. For me, was one of the most unintentionally funny lines in the entire script. Who exactly would Major Strasser be afraid of scaring/offending? With his Nazi troops, he runs Casablanca, and Chief Ferrari is largely under his control. So who would reprise him for taking Laslo into custody? Why doesn't he just capture Laslo, torture him until he reveals the names of the underground resistance, and then get promoted by the Third Reich for the extraordinary services rendered? Hell, they aren't even consistent about this point, because later on, Strasser does try to capture Lazlo, although by then, it's too late. But at the very beginning, he is perfectly free! Why? Because otherwise, you would have no sappy romantic film. If she was the woman the movie portrayed her to be, Isla would want to puke her guts out after what she did to Rick. She would feel like the lowest scum, and accept anything that Rick called her. Instead, when he is SLIGHTLY bitter about her breaking his heart/betraying him, she replies with fury and anger, saying he "is not the Rick I knew in Paris!", and later, accuses him of being a coward. So which one is Ilsa; a cold bitch, or a caring, wonderful woman? Answer: She is one or the other based on what the film needs at that particular moment. Please keep in mind, this is a completely stereotypical 1940's Hollywood romance. The director, Michael Curtiz, made a career out of mass-producing these genre pictures. You think he did something special in that regard for Casablanca? Fuck no. By the way, I love how not only does Ilsa learn that Laslo is still alive from a friend hours before she is to leave with Rick, but Laslo has some horrible disease and she, with no medical background, is needed. You know, that awful disease which is never mentioned at any other point in the whole picture? Yeah, that one. First of all, you're telling me that Strasser, who always travels with a driver and a security outfit, was COMPLETELY ALONE on that airfield? With no witnesses to Rick shooting him? How wonderfully convenient! That way, the audience can get their Hollywood happy ending! Worse yet, you're telling me that when the Germans pull up, and they see TWO LONE MEN around a dead body on an abandoned airfield, not a single one of them wonders "which one of these guys did it"? Are you serious? Finally, I didn't even mention this, but I laughed at the circumstances of Rick shooting Strasser. He doesn't just shoot when the German major picks up the phone and puts Laslo and Ilsa in grave danger. Oh no. He waits until the German draws his gun first. Because, you know, the "good guy" can never shoot an unarmed man first. Typical Hollywood shlock. No I don't! That's absolutely retarded. If a movie stinks, I don't "have to" do anything, regardless of how many talking heads think otherwise. But I'll make you the same proposal; LucasJackson, did you like Twilight? If not, you owe it to yourself, if you love movies, to really delve into what makes Twilight a great story well told! So now, in order to criticize a movie, I need to have written a screenplay myself? Seriously? So when a fan or even coach calls out a player, the reply "I bet YOU can't dunk a basketball!" is valid?! That's absolutely insane. Why not decide every question in life by a popular vote, then? That's what you're arguing here. Edit- By the way, Umberto Eco, one of the greatest writers of the 20th century, called Casablanca a lousy movie "with 100s of cliches". He's someone that has "written a story and crafted a narrative" better than almost anyone who has ever lived. So even if your fallacy was a legitimate argument, it would be wrong. I love discussing movies, but I hate this nonsense about someone is "supposed" to like certain movies. A lot of people on this forum and in real life sure think "Casablanca" is overrated crap, and they're right.