| Movie | Rating | Review | Date | Your Rating | Match | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The 39 Steps - PG |
Alfred Hitchcock's The 39 Steps is perhaps the best-known and most well-received of Hitchcock's British films. This film, like many other Hitchcock films is a spy thriller. Early in the film a woman is murdered and an innocent man is presumed guilty. He spends the film running from the police while attempting to figure out who is responsible and what secrets the murdered woman knew. The plot in this film is rather similar to Hitchcock's later films Saboteur and North By Northwest. The lead in this film is played by Robert Donat. His performance is fairly decent, but it isn't his best work. The film also stars Madeleine Carroll who is adequate in her performance. While this film is not nearly as good as some of Hitchcock's American films, it is still a solid film. It contains several Hitchcockian elements, most notably the MacGuffin in the form of the 39 Steps. This film is better than the rather similar Saboteur but falls well short of North By Northwest. Considered one of the greatest British films ever made by any director, this film is worth a watch for just about anyone. 77/100 C+ |
April 27, 2009 | N/A | |||
| American Beauty - R |
Sam Mendes' American Beauty is the story of some people in a suburban town. The film mostly focuses on the life of a family, particularly the husband, and the people in their life. The husband is tired of his job and falls in love with his daughter's best friend. The wife is trying to be a successful real estate agent and eventually has an affair with an even more successful one to advance her own career. Their daughter is insecure with herself and eventually discovers a love interest. Overall, I found this film to be rather interesting. The lead role goes to Kevin Spacy. In this film he was fairly outstanding and would win an Oscar for his performance. His wife, played by Annette Bening, also does an excellent job. Her role probably wasn't significant enough to win best actress, and she did not win losing to Hilary Swank. In addition to the two leads, I found the supporting cast to be quite good as well. Overall, this film is mostly about the lives of somewhat ordinary people. There are a few themes here and there but I don't think they are particularly necessary to enjoy this film. This film was highly successful winning five Oscars including best picture. This film was just a best actress Oscar shy of becoming just the fourth film ever to sweep the five main categories. I'd recommend this to most anyone although young children and very easily offended people might want to skip it. 87/100 B+ |
April 12, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Lord of the Flies - Unrated |
Lord of the Flies is based on the famous novel of the same name. Unlike most novel-based movies, I have actually read this novel. Like the book, this film tells the story of a group of boys aged 6-12 on an uninhabited island during World War 2. Their plane has crashed and they are the only survivors. They attempt to build a society while they await their rescue but the society quickly falls apart. While mostly faithful to the book, this plot played out rather dully while it was vastly superior in the novel. The film stars a group of people who were not, and still are not, famous. Generally I don't care for children as actors. This film is no exception. The children do a decent enough job, but none of them were even close to award-worthy. My main problem with this film is the deviations from the novel. While it is expected that a film will deviate from a novel some, the deviations in here seem quite odd. Simon, one of the most important characters in the novel, is fairly irrelevant in this film. His encounter with the Lord of the Flies, perhaps the most important scene in the book, is mostly omitted from the film. To a viewer who is unfamiliar with the book, this film offers no reason as to why it is titled Lord of the Flies whereas the book makes that quite clear. In addition, Roger, another important character in the book, is barely mentioned in this film. The film is a little less violent than the book largely due to the fact Roger is barely involved in this film. There are other notable omissions or changes, but I will not mention any others. This film goes to show that unless the film is quite famous, films based on famous literature don't generally work. Some of the most important pieces of literature in history (most notably the over 400-year-old Don Quixote) have never been given a decent film adaptation. This film is yet another example of a poor attempt to transform a well-regarded book into a movie. It failed. I would suggest that fans of the book skip this and I would strongly discourage anyone not familiar with the book from even considering watching this film. 42/100 F |
March 7, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Raging Bull - R |
Martin Scorsese's Raging Bull is a film based on the real-life story of boxer Jake LaMotta. The film depicts his fighting career, his relationships with people, his jealousy, and how his life falls apart. Despite the fact I don't care for boxing at all, I found this film rather entertaining. Playing the lead in the film is Robert DeNiro. This film is generally regarded as perhaps the best piece of work DeNiro has ever done, and I can see why. His performance was nearly flawless and he was awarded the Oscar for best actor. In the supporting role was Joe Pesci who was also very good. He was nominated for an Oscar but did not win. This film was also awarded an Oscar for its editing, and I would say the editing in the film was quite good. The boxing scenes were very well put together. In addition, I found the cinematography in this film to be rather well done. While no longer much of a technical achievement, the film is shot in deep focus throughout which created some pretty interesting visuals. Combining the visuals with the editing created a film that was pretty appealing from an artistic standpoint. This film is often regarded as a modern classic. Sight and Sound magazine routinely puts this film in the top-10 list of films ever made and the magazine says that this is the best film made since 1980. While I found the film quite good, I'm not sure if it is worthy of every last bit of praise it gets. Still, it's a good film and a must-see for DeNiro or boxing fans and probably most cinema fans. 90/100 A- UP NEXT: Who knows. |
February 28, 2009 | N/A | |||
| The Jazz Singer - Unrated |
The 1927 film The Jazz Singer is about a jazz singer. It stars Al Jolson and the story is loosely based on his own life. A young Jewish boy comes from a line of Jewish cantors. He wants to be in show business and is disowned by his father. He becomes successful and tries to win his father's forgiveness. The story itself wasn't particularly interesting. This film is generally remembered as the first talking picture. While this film did indeed have spoken dialogue, I'm not sure this is the first non-silent film ever made and I'm not sure this isn't a silent film. First, the sound-on-disc technology had been around since the early 1920s. D.W. Griffith's short Dream Street features synchronized dialogue. The 1926 feature film Don Juan features pre-recorded sound effects and a musical score, but no spoken dialogue. The Jazz Singer went a little further than those works by having both synchronized dialogue and being feature-length. Still, most of the film is silent with intertitles. There are six musical numbers which are sung. In the middle of two of these musical numbers is a brief bit of dialogue. The first time Jolson talks to the audience who is not supposed to respond and the second time he has a conversation with his mother although most of what she says is unintelligible. Overall, this wasn't a very good movie. I'll give it some credit for revolutionizing talking pictures, but it probably gets too much credit for this to begin with. It's worth seeing for those who want a very early example of a sound film, but given that it is mostly silent I wouldn't consider this the first real talkie. 66/100 D UP NEXT: To be determined. |
February 7, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Z - PG |
Z is a French-language film about Greek politics in the early 1960s. Although the film never once makes any mention to the fact it is about Greece, it is. The opening disclaimer states "Any resemblance to real events, to persons living or dead, is not accidental. It is deliberate." The film deals with the assassination of a left-wing politician. The government tries to control things such that the death is ruled an accident thanks to falsified witnesses. The government cannot control what the hospital does and they rule that the death was not accidental. The prosecuting attorney puts together a very convincing case that it was an assassination and that the police were involved. In the end, key witnesses die under suspicious circumstances, the police are not reprimanded, and the prosecutor is removed from the case for no apparent reason. Upon its release, this film was fairly well-regarded. It won the Academy Award for best foreign language film. It also won the Oscar for best film editing which is fairly impressive as very few foreign films have won Oscars in a category with English-language films. I found it a little dull and was not particularly impressed. There's tons of movies out there about unjust governments and this one didn't seem better than any of those. 66/100 D+ UP NEXT: To be determined. |
February 4, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Duck Soup - Unrated |
Duck Soup is perhaps the most famous film starring the Marx Brothers. In this film one of the brothers in in charge of a country and the others have less important roles. Eventually a war breaks out. This film is an anarchic comedy. This is the first film I have seen with the Marx Brothers and it may very well be my last. This film sort of reminds me of Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator only this film is far less humorous and much less interesting. This film supposedly has some sort of political message behind it but I couldn't get passed the nonstop gags that I did not find at all funny. In short, I thought this was terrible. 20/100 F UP NEXT: To be determined |
January 26, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Rashômon (Rashomon) (In the Woods) - Unrated |
Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon is about the rape of a woman and murder of her husband. The film is a frame story with several layers. The film gives several accounts of what exactly happened by several witnesses told by another narrator who himself is also a witness. I did not find this film particularly enjoyable because it was fairly repetitive. While the details of each person's account are different, they were all basically the same - a bandit seduces a woman, ties her husband up, and gets into a sword fight with the husband. The audience never knows exactly what happened and I suppose that's supposed to make this film better. This film is generally regarded as one of the finest examples of Japanese cinema and a masterpiece of cinema in general. Sight and Sound magazine ranks this film as one of the ten best films ever made. I hate to disagree with critics, but I found very little to like in this film. Parts of it were okay, but overall I found this to be below average. 69/100 D+ UP NEXT: To be determined |
January 26, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Breathless (Ā bout de souffle) (By a Tether) - Unrated |
Jean-Luc Godard's film Breathless (Ā bout de souffle) is one of the first films of the French New Wave. In this film, a young Frenchman is a thug who models himself after Humphrey Bogart. The film opens with him riding in a stolen car, being chased by a cop, and then shooting the cop. He falls in love with an American girl who works for the New York Harold Tribune and tries to convince her to go to Rome with him. For the most part, the plot doesn't seem all that significant and nothing much happens. The film is mostly people talking. The film's two stars are Jean-Paul Belmondo who plays the Frenchmen and Jean Seberg as the American girl. Seberg was originally an American actress, but was generally regarded as terrible so she went to Europe where she became a famous actress of the French New Wave. Like Belmondo's, I found her performance in this film to be quite good. Stylistically, this film is most famous for its jump cuts - cuts within continuous movement or dialogue, with no attempt made to make them match. While such a noticeable technique appears intentional, Godard did not intend to do this when he made the film. The original version of the film was 30 minutes too long. Rather than edit out scenes that he didn't find important, Godard instead edited out the portions of scenes that were less interesting creating an interesting effect that has since been duplicated in numerous films. This film is also notable for being amongst the first films of the French New Wave. The French New Wave, influenced in part by Italian Neorealism and classical Hollywood cinema, is the birth of the modern film. The style essentially rejects classical cinematic form and embraces radical experiments with editing, visual style, and narrative. These films often feature fast dialogue, strange camera positioning, and low budgets. While this film is essentially a love story, I found it to be quite brilliant. The two main characters in this film are quite interesting, the dialogue is oftentimes rather comical, and the style is quite memorable. This film heavily influenced Bonnie and Clyde but is superior in almost every way in my opinion. This film achieves a turning point in cinema just as Welles did with Citizen Kane before it and Griffith did The Birth of a Nation before that. 94/100 A UP NEXT: To be determined. |
January 24, 2009 | N/A | |||
| 2010: The Year We Make Contact - PG |
2010 also known as 2010: The Year We Make Contact is the sequel to Stanley Kubrick's film 2001: A Space Odyssey. The film is based on Arthur C. Clark's novel 2010: Odyssey Two which is the sequel to his original novel which formed the base of Kubrick's 2001. This film was not directed by Stanley Kubrick, but rather Peter Hyams. With that out of the way, this film takes place nine years after 2001. A group of American and Soviet astronauts are headed to Jupiter to rendezvous with the Discovery spaceship left behind from the previous film. They want to figure out what the giant monolith near Jupiter is for and why HAL 9000 malfunctioned. At the same time, there's a huge war between the Soviets and the Americans going on back at earth. This war is not depicted, just mentioned constantly. This film was actually fairly interesting although the war sub-plot didn't feel all that necessary. This film isn't as weird as 2001: A Space Odyssey so people looking for a more straightforward film might prefer this one. The film stars Roy Scheider as the leader of the American astronauts. The film also has Douglas Rain (HAL 9000) and Keir Dullea (Dave Bowman) playing their roles form 2001. The acting here is decent, although HAL 9000 came off as far less interesting in this film. Overall, this was a decent film. As mentioned earlier, the Cold War tension in this film was not particularly interesting. The Cold War is over and having to hear about it still going on in 2010 got boring fairly quickly. The film also has some other predictions that turned out inaccurate, but that is to be expected of a movie set in the future. This film is by no means the Stanley Kubrick masterpiece, but it's worth watching for people who did enjoy 2001: A Space Odyssey and possibly those who did not. I would not recommend this film to people who have not seen the original as this film is inferior, and references the original film rather heavily. 74.5/100 C UP NEXT: To be determined. |
January 20, 2009 | N/A | |||
| THX 1138 - PG |
George Lucas' THX 1138 is about a futuristic society living in an enclosed town. In the film there's a guy, named THX 1138, who decides he's tired of the way things go and stops taking his mandatory emotion-eliminating drugs. At this point he falls in love with someone and they decide to escape the city. That doesn't work quite as expected as she does not make it, but he decides to escape anyways. I found this plot to be rather dull. I also thought the ending was a little unexciting. To spoil it, THX 1138 does escape but the viewer doesn't know what lies outside the enclosed city. People do not live there so it's unclear whether he will survive. Birds are seen flying by so life is possible, but being the only person outside the city seems like it wouldn't exactly work. The only thing interesting about this film is its visuals. The majority of the film consisted of characters dressed in white on all white backgrounds which was kind of strange to look at. The effects were pretty impressive at times, but I don't know which of these effects are from 1971 and which ones are more recent. As is typical of George Lucas, he has re-edited this film to death and the original version is rarely screened. Due to this, I can't award any points for special effects, because they aren't groundbreaking for today - just for 1971. Overall, I thought this was pretty bad. The idea of a futuristic society where someone is watching over everyone isn't exactly an original idea. I'm sure Lucas was inspired heavily by Nineteen Eighty-Four so I would recommend that book or either film based on it over this even though I'm not familiar with any of those works. While I did not expect this film to be anywhere near as good as Star Wars, I expected a lot more from this film and it did not deliver at all. 33/100 F UP NEXT: The sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey - 2010: The Year We Make Contact which is not directed by Stanley Kubrick. |
January 19, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes (Aguirre, the Wrath of God) - Unrated |
Werner Herzog's Aguirre, the Wrath of God (Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes) tells the story of a group of people in search of El Dorado in the mid-1500s. The majority of the film deals with the people on a raft sailing down a river in the Amazon rain forest. Over the course of the film, Indians kill off the people on the raft. The plot is intentionally minimalistic. Overall, I found this film to be quite boring. The main character, Aguirre, is played by Klaus Kinski. While he was fairly decent portraying a guy going deeper and deeper into madness, I didn't find his performance overly-great. The other actors were fairly uninteresting. Overall, I didn't care for this at all. The film was fairly popular upon its release and remains a well-respected film. In 2002 Roger Ebert, along with a lesser-known critic, included this film in his list of 10 films for the Sight and Sound poll of the greatest films of all-time. After viewing this film, I would not even consider placing it in such a list. 64/100 D UP NEXT: To be determined. |
January 18, 2009 | N/A | |||
| The Circus - G |
The Circus is directed by, produced by, written by, and stars Charlie Chaplin. This film is about a circus. It opens with Chaplin's tramp character being chased by the police at a circus. He is hired by the circus and is a big hit. There's also a love story thrown in. Overall, this was pretty funny. Unfortunately, I found the film significantly less funny once the police business was over. The rest of the film was amusing, but didn't live up to the beginning. Still, it's a pretty good film. Chaplin is of course the most important actor in this film. He plays his tramp character quite well and delivers quite a few memorable scenes. These scenes aren't quite as memorable as those in some of his other films, but they're still good. Overall, this isn't Chaplin's best work, but it's a good film nonetheless. It is surely a must-see for Charlie Chaplin fans. 77/100 C+ UP NEXT: To be determined |
January 16, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Smultronstället (Wild Strawberries) - Unrated |
Ingmar Bergman's film Wild Strawberries (Smultronstället) is about an old man's life. The man in the film is a doctor and a professor. He spends the film making his way to the town of Lund where he is to receive an honorary degree. Over the course of the film he has nightmares and daydreams which cause him to reevaluate his life as he thinks about his old age and impending death. The plot was interesting, but I found Bergman's The Seventh Seal to be a more engaging film. The old man is played by Swedish actor Victor Sjöström. I thought his performance was fairly good. As I do not speak Swedish, it is somewhat difficult to critique his delivery of his lines, but I found his facial expressions and mannerisms to be quite good. For his portrayal as Professor Borg, he was awarded the National Board of Review Award for Best Actor which is an impressive feat as he is the only actor to win the award for a foreign-language film. The award was first handed out in 1945. Overall, this film felt a lot like Bergman's film Autumn Sonata. While this film did not feature any actors famous to American audiences (like Ingrid Bergman in Autumn Sonata), I thought this was a better film. While Autumn Sonata attempted to do much of what this film did, the characters didn't come off as interesting. If I would have seen this film first, I would have been even less impressed with Autumn Sonata as it offers very little that this film did not already offer. I would still rank this film as slightly inferior to The Seventh Seal as I'm not really sure what deeper meaning this film has. It talks about a man's life but this man isn't really that important in the grand scheme of things. While people can relate to the idea of reassessing their lives, this doesn't seem terribly significant. Still, it's a good movie and will actually receive a higher score than The Seventh Seal which in retrospect was graded too harshly. 76/100 C UP NEXT: We'll see. |
January 15, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari. (The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari) - Unrated |
Robert Wiene's film The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari) is perhaps the first important Expressionistic film. The film opens with two men talking. The younger man says he has a crazy story to tell, setting up a frame story. In the story, the man and his friend are at a carnival. At one of the exhibits a man called Dr. Caligari has somnambulist (sleepwalker) who can predict the future. The somnambulist says one of the two men will be dead by sunrise. This ends up being the case and the man decides he'll solve the crime and the chief suspects are Dr. Caligari and his somnambulist. The film stars Werner Krauß (Krauss) as Dr. Caligari, Friedrich Fehér as the man who does not die, Hans Heinrich von Twardowski as the man who dies, Conrad Veidt as the somnambulist, and Lil Dagover who is the expressionistic version of a film noir femme fatale. Of these actors, I thought Caligari's part was fairly well-played. Overall the acting seemed very over-exaggerated, even for a silent film, but given the Expressionistic style this film uses, I found this acceptable. Of course, the most important part of this film is its style. Made in 1920, this film is one of the earliest, and certainly the first important, film made in the style of German Expressionism. Once the main story begins, even a person with no knowledge of Expressionism would have no trouble determining this film is of a distinct style. The sets do not even come close to looking realistic - windows, doors, and buildings are almost always misshapen - and shadows are painted onto walls and ceilings. To go with the strange appearance to the film, the plot is also Expressionistic dealing with madness, insanity, and other intellectual topics. Given this, the film could be seen as one of the earliest examples of a horror film. While undoubtedly a landmark in cinema, this film is not for everyone. The film is of course silent and even for a silent film this film is fairly distinct. The plot is more complicated than a silent comedy and given that it was made in 1920 as opposed to the late 1920s, the film techniques are fairly primitive even for a silent film. Still, anyone who appreciates silent films should be able to find some redeeming qualities in this and I would recommend it without any reservations to anyone willing to watch a silent film. 81/100 B- UP NEXT: To be determined |
January 6, 2009 | N/A | |||
| The Lady from Shanghai - Unrated |
Orson Welles' The Lady From Shanghai tells the story of an Irishman, played by Welles. He meets a girl who is married to a famous lawyer and the two decide to run away together. To get money he arranges to confess to murdering her husband's partner who is planning on faking his death to collect insurance money. They decide that if Welles confesses to the murder the insurance money will be paid but Welles cannot be arrested because there is no proof that a murder actually took place. The man ends up being murdered and the police find the confession on Welles' body. The famous lawyer agrees to defend Welles but then wants to lose the case when he discovers his wife's affair. The film's climax is Welles discovering who killed the man - I will not spoil the answer here. The plot is quite odd and the narrative structure isn't all that seamless. The first half hour of this film is horrible, but it picks up fairly quickly after that and by the time its over it's actually not a bad film. Supposedly Welles wasn't terribly interested in this film but needed money to produce a play. He came up with this film while talking to the head of Columbia pictures only because someone near him was reading a book that he had never heard of (If I Die Before I Wake) and he had no better ideas. The film stars Orson Welles, his real-life then-wife Rita Hayworth, and Everett Sloane. I was sort of disappointed in Welles because he plays an Irishman with an Irish accent. I'll admit he does a pretty convincing job, but because of this he is not like the Orson Welles I've seen in his other films and I prefer that Welles. Hayworth is decent and Sloane is better than she is. As this is a Welles film, a review could not be complete without discussing some of the filmic elements. This film isn't particularly interesting visually until the last few minutes which feature a fairly interesting sequence in a mirror maze. The film makes good use of optical printers for some effects and is mostly in deep focus. It also contains quite a bit of low-key lighting which is expected as it is a film noir. While visually interesting, this film is not nearly as impressive in its visuals as Welles first film, Citizen Kane. As mentioned previously, this film isn't bad. The film could have used some improvements, but Welles wasn't particularly interested in the film. The studio heads at Columbia heavily edited this film so that may be part of its problems. I don't think the editing was as drastic as in The Magnificent Ambersons, but it is a film by Orson Welles so I'm sure it was altered for the worse. Welles didn't make very many films so this, along with the majority of his other films, is a must-see. 81/100 B- UP NEXT: To be determined. |
January 3, 2009 | N/A | |||
| The Shop Around the Corner - Unrated |
This film is about some people working at a store. A new employee is hired and hates one of her coworkers. At the same time, these two are writing love letters anonymously to someone and are in love. It turns out they're writing to each other. The film wasn't too bad and the plot was interesting enough to be the story for several remakes. The two stars in this film are Margaret Sullavan and James Stewart. I'm not all that familiar with Sullavan so I can't say how this compares to the rest of her work. I found her decent in this film, but not good enough for me to seek more of her films. James Stewart wasn't bad, but he's had far better performances. Overall, this was an average film. This isn't a film I find all that memorable and probably won't watch it again. Still, there are a lot worse films out there so I wouldn't discourage anyone from seeing this film if they have a chance - I just wouldn't recommend going out of the way to see it. 74/100 C UP NEXT: To be determined. |
January 3, 2009 | N/A | |||
| The Bridge on the River Kwai - PG |
The Bridge on the River Kwai is the first of David Lean's epic films. The film is about a group of soldiers during World War 2 in a Japanese POW camp. The simplified version of the plot is these soldiers are building a bridge across the river Kwai. Their commanding officer, played by Alec Guinness, becomes quite motivated to build this bridge and takes great pride in the bridge despite the fact it will be used against the Allies. At the same time, an American former POW, played by William Holden, is part of a group of soldiers attempting to detonate the bridge as the bridge's first train crosses it. As mentioned a moment ago, the film stars William Holden and Alec Guinness. The two briefly meet each other in the beginning of the film but are mostly involved in different storylines. Holden was pretty good but his storyline was fairly dull at first. Guinness gives a brilliant performance, better than any performance of his I have seen, and was justly awarded an Oscar. In a supporting role, Sessue Hayakawa plays the commander of the POW Camp. His performance is very good and he was nominated for, but did not win, best supporting actor. The film also includes some other actors who are more than adequate. While this film is generally regarded as inferior to Lean's epic Lawrence of Arabia, I found this film better. It may not offer the stunning visuals offered by Lawrence, but the film is far more interesting. I would say this film is easily the best David Lean film I've seen. Overall, this film is nearly perfect. The only complaint I have with the film is about 10 minutes worth of William Holden's side story. Other than that the film is about as flawless as I have ever seen. The film may not be as innovative as other great films such as Citizen Kane, but I don't think that matters. The story, the acting, the visuals, and the score are all amongst the best I have ever seen. This may not be the greatest film ever made, but it is perhaps my favorite and is well-deserving of the highest score I have ever awarded. 98/100 A+ UP NEXT: To be determined. |
January 3, 2009 | N/A | |||
| The Lost Weekend - Unrated |
Billy Wilder's The Lost Weekend tells the story of a drunk. A man is supposed to go away for the weekend with his brother, but drinks too much and doesn't go. The film mostly deals with his alcoholism during that weekend although it has a few flashbacks to the history of his alcoholism. Overall, the plot paints a very good picture of the struggles an alcoholic will go through to get his liquor. My only problem with the plot was the ending. It was set up to be fairly climactic, but fell very flat and wasn't very convincing. The film stars Ray Milland as the alcoholic. He comes off as a rather convincing alcoholic and was given an Oscar for his performance. I'm not quite sure this performance was Oscar-worthy, but looking at the other nominees this one probably works. There are a few supporting cast members, but their roles are mostly small and they were of little interest. When this film was released it was probably quite shocking to audiences. While alcoholism isn't a new phenomenon, it is not something that was as openly discussed at this time. Movies of this period generally depicted drunks in a much more optimistic light. Up until this point no film had ever depicted drug or alcoholism as accurately and bleakly as this film. Overall, I found this film to be pretty good. Billy Wilder is one of my favorite directors and this film is at best my fifth favorite of his behind Double Indemnity, Ace in the Hole, Witness for the Prosecution and Sunset Boulevard. Unlike those films, this film was awarded an Oscar for best picture. I'd recommend this film to anyone interested in classic cinema. 79/100 C+ UP NEXT: Possibly The Bridge on the River Kwai. |
January 1, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Dead Reckoning - Unrated |
Dead Reckoning is a film nor starring Humphrey Bogart and Lizabeth Scott. Bogart's character and his friend are returning home from service in World War 2. His friend is to be awarded the Medal of Honor but flees before he can be photographed. He returns home and is murdered. Bogart spends the rest of his time trying to figure out what he was hiding from, who killed him, and why. The plot can ramble at times, but it's mostly decent. As mentioned earlier, the leads are played by Bogart and Scott. Bogart plays his typical noir character in fairly typical fashion. He's had far more memorable performances, but this worked well enough. I was less impressed with Scott. She was passable, but seems a little expressionless and deliberate in the film. Overall, this film is an average film. It has some good suspense and plot twists to keep the viewer interested, but it is not a highly-memorable film. The film received decent reviews upon its release and today is just a minor footnote in history. It's good enough to check out, but probably doesn't warrant a second viewing. 73/100 C- UP NEXT: To be determined. |
December 31, 2008 | N/A | |||
| The Searchers - Unrated |
John Ford's epic western The Searchers tells the story of several men looking for a captured relative. Shortly after the film begins, a group of Indians raids a house, killing all the women except a little girl who they take hostage. Over the course of many years, the protagonists attempt to get her back. I was expecting this film to be fairly interesting, but found the plot to be quite dull. The star of the film is John Wayne. Wayne comes off as somewhat psychotic during the film, but I wasn't particularly impressed. I found Humphrey Bogart's character in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre to be far more dynamic and better acted. The rest of the cast has some big names like Vera Miles and Natalie Wood, but none of them leave any sort of lasting impression. Overall, I was very disappointed in this film. The American Film Institute calls this the greatest western ever made. If this film is indeed the best American western ever made, that says little of the ability for the Americans to make western films. I find every western of Sergio Leone's to be far superior especially The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly which betters this film on every level. This has John Wayne so fans of him might want to watch, but I thought this was awful as did contemporary critics. 50/100 F UP NEXT: Dead Reckoning |
December 30, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Inherit the Wind - PG |
Stanley Kramer's Inherit the Wind is a fictionalized retelling of the Scopes Trial where all names are changed. The general premise is about the same - a man is arrested for teaching his students Darwin's theory of evolution and put on trial. The film is mostly a courtroom drama and is fairly entertaining throughout. The film stars Spencer Tracy as the defense attorney, Fredric March as the prosecuting attorney, and some other people. Tracy's performance in the film is quite superb and he was nominated for an Oscar, although he did not win. The rest of the characters are well-acted, but Tracy's performance stands out the most. Thematically, the film is intended to criticize McCarthyism and how McCarthyism is a threat to intellectual freedom. More literally, the film could be looked at as an interpretation of the evolution versus creationism argument. The film may come off as offensive to the select few that do not believe in evolution despite overwhelming evidence in favor of it as the film does come off as pro-evolution and presents the creationists as hostile, hate-filled bigots. Overall, this film is quite good. The film is not an exact retelling of what happened during the Scopes Trial, which is unfortunate as the viewer is left with an impression that it does. The ending wasn't quite as interesting as the rest of the film, but it suffices. Parts of the trial seemed somewhat unrealistic, but I am not a legal expert so I cannot be certain that this is the case. The film is definitely worth checking out for fans of courtroom dramas. 91.5/100 A- UP NEXT: The Searchers. |
December 29, 2008 | N/A | |||
| The Day the Earth Stood Still - G |
Currently in theaters is the remake of the 1951 science fiction classic The Day the Earth Stood Still. In recognition of that I have decided to watch the original. The film opens with a spaceship landing on a baseball field in Washington, D.C. An alien that looks like a human and a robot come out. The human-like alien speaks English and comes in peace. Throughout the entire film he attempts to deliver a message warning of grave danger to earth, but encounters difficulty as the people of earth are terrified. Overall, the film moved along quite slowly and the payoff at the end wasn't all that great. The acting here is nothing to write home about. Michael Rennie plays the main character and came off as sort of bland. As he was portraying someone from another planet, I suppose this is reasonable. The supporting cast was passable, but not deserving of any major recognition. Thematically, this film was probably more relevant during the Cold War. The film tries to be as realistic as possible given the subject matter such that viewers could interpret the aliens as the Soviets. The film delivers an anti-war message, but I have trouble accepting any profound meaning from a film of this type. The film is considered a science fiction classic, but I was disappointed. While the film did make use of some decent special effects, they were not particularly impressive even for 1951. I was expecting this film to me more groundbreaking in the effects department, but it wasn't. 65/100 D UP NEXT: To be determined |
December 28, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Doctor Zhivago - PG-13 |
David Lean's Doctor Zhivago, based on the novel of the same name, tells the story of a Russian doctor, Doctor Zhivago. The film takes place during a tumultuous period in Russia from around 1905 to 1921 which includes Bloody Sunday, the 1905 Revolution, World War 1, the Russian Revolution, the Russian Civil War, and the establishment of the Soviet Union. The film's plot is most famous for a love story between Doctor Zhivago, his wife, and another woman although this didn't take up as much of the plot as I would have expected making the film far more interesting. While a knowledge of Russian history is not necessary to enjoy this film, it probably wouldn't help. The film stars Omar Sharif in the title role. The film is over 3 hours and he is in nearly every scene so his role was quite demanding. This isn't the best acted performance I've seen in an epic film, but it was still pretty good. I'm surprised he wasn't even nominated for an Academy Award for this role although he did win a Golden Globe for it. The film also stars Julie Christie and Geraldine Chaplin as the two love interests. They do fine, but are less memorable. Alec Guinness is listed as a star in the film, but his role is very minor. Upon its release, this film was immensely popular grossing over $100,000,000 at the box office. Adjusted for inflation it is the 8th highest-grossing American film of all-time. The film grossed more than all other David Lean films combined which is quite significant given the fact he directed two of the highest regarded films ever in Lawrence of Arabia and The Bridge on the River Kwai. The film's score is quite memorable and won one of the film's five Oscars. Overall, this film felt like a Russian version of Gone With the Wind. Like that film, this film features a fairly complicated love story and has a Civil War in the middle. Both films are also quite long (although this one is half an hour shorter). I found Gone With the Wind to be slightly more interesting, but this is still a good effort and worth seeing. 79/100 C+ UP NEXT: To be determined. |
December 28, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Psycho - R |
Alfred Hitchcock's film Psycho is perhaps the greatest horror movie ever made. In 1998 Gus Van Sant decided it would be a good idea to not only remake the film, but copy nearly every shot from the original creating a shot-for-shot remake. This film is nearly identical to the first one, but it does strive to throw in some sexual content whenever possible. Overall, the plot is great but so what? Everything including the dialogue is copied from another movie. The worst part of this film is clearly the acting. Anthony Perkins plays Norman Bates nearly perfectly. In this film the director decided to go with a comedian, Vince Vaughn to play Norman. Vaughn is beyond awful in this film. He attempts to copy the style Perkins used in Hitchcock's film, but everything about his performance is horrible. The rest of the cast is equally bad. In short, this film proves a shot-for-shot remake is pointless. Copying a brilliant movie and making only very minor changes makes a terrible movie. If the original version of this film never existed I suppose this could go down as a decent film spoiled by horrible actors, but this film is complete garbage. 20/100 F UP NEXT: Something else. |
December 23, 2008 | N/A |
221 ratings
172 reviews
