| Movie | Rating | Review | Date | Your Rating | Match | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest - R |
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a film about a guy in a mental hospital. The guy is a serial-criminal who was recently sent from prison to a mental hospital because the prison thought he might have psychological issues. Although the majority of the film is spent in just the mental hospital and nothing all that major happens during the film, it's still pretty interesting to watch. The acting in this film is top-notch. Both Jack Nicholson and Louise Fletcher would win Oscars for their performances. In addition to these two, the film has a pretty diverse group of supporting characters who play their roles pretty well. This isn't the best acted film I've ever seen, but it's definitely above average. Overall, this is a solid film and one of just three films ever to win the 5 major Oscars (It Happened One Night and The Silence of the Lambs being the other two). It's probably my least-favorite film of the three, but those awards are probably justified. Thematically, the film looks at how poor people were treated in insane asylums in the early 1960s how far psychological care has come since the film was made. The film was a little slow-going at times and tries to do a little too much at the expense of character-development, but it's a solid film nonetheless. 80/100 B- UP NEXT: Three straight Kubrick films in an undetermined order - The Killing, Paths of Glory, and Full Metal Jacket. |
September 28, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Cannibal Holocaust - NC-17 |
This highly-controversial exploitation film is basically made of two parts. It begins with a news reporter talking about how a documentary film crew went to the Amazon to film a documentary on a place no civilized person had ever been before and that the people were never seen again. A university professor (and others) go to the Amazon, discover the crew is dead, but are able to recover the footage. The second half of the film is their footage. The first half isn't all that bad. It's reasonably interesting and not all that violent. The second half; however, is much less entertaining. While it is well done in the sense it seems like uncut documentary footage, nothing much happens other than tons of pretty intense violence. Almost immediately after its initial release (in Italy) the film was banned and the director of the film was arrested for murder. It turns out none of the actors in the film were killed and charges were eventually dropped. The controversy does not end here; however, as six animals were actually killed in the film, often in a rather violent manner. Although the film does offer some social commentary by demonstrating that "civilized" people today are actually the savages, I think this could have been done in a better way. Although not as violent as I was expecting, this film is very violent and should be avoided at all costs by anyone who thinks they might not enjoy tons of violence. There's a few interesting moments in here, but to me it seems like this is nothing but shock value. 60/100 D- UP NEXT: A much less controversial film, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. |
September 23, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Saboteur - PG |
Before I write this review I am proud to report I have now seen all 30 American films Hitchcock made....and 1 of his 27 British films. This film is definitely below-average. Anyways, the film begins with a man who works at a factory (Robert Cummings) trying to help put out a fire that has started. Soon officials believe the fire was started by sabotage and he was the saboteur and responsible for the death of a man at the factory. He thinks he knows who did it, but he cannot track down the man. The film deals with his escape from police and travel across the country to New York City where he discovers a group of saboteurs. Along the way he meets a woman (Priscilla Lane) and falls in love. The plot had its moments that were decent especially the climactic end sequence on the statue of liberty, but overall it wasn't particularly spectacular. Starring in the film were Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane. They do a serviceable job, but nothing that was going to win any acting awards. The supporting cast is full of colorful characters, but again they are nothing special. As mentioned earlier, the best part of this film was the end. Not only was the scene rather climactic, but the effects were great as well. Obviously, they did not have actors dangling from the torch on the Statue of Liberty, but it was shot convincingly enough so that nobody would no better. For 1942 effects and camera tricks, this is pretty impressive. Still, it takes more than great effects to make a movie and this is lacking in quite a few areas. It's worth a watch if nothing else is on, but this isn't a film anyone should go out of their way to see. 66/100 D UP NEXT: Stanley Kubrick's The Killing. |
September 8, 2008 | N/A | |||
| L.A. Confidential - R |
L.A. Confidential is a neo-noir film about a group of people working for the Los Angeles Police Department in the 1950s. The majority of the film consists of several police officers leading an investigation concerning a murder that took place at a diner. Over the course of the movie, the film talks about organized crime, police corruption, prostitution, drugs, and more. The acting in this film is top-notch. It stars Russell Crowe and Guy Pearce who were mostly unheard of at the time. They are both very good and Crowe is especially memorable. The supporting casts consists of the likes of Danny DeVito, Kevin Spacey, and Kim Basinger. Basinger would go on to win the Academy Award for best supporting actress and this award is probably well-deserved. While highly-entertaining, the plot does get a little confusing at times. I was hoping for a film like The Maltese Falcon, but this felt a little more like The Big Sleep. While this is a good movie, the convoluted nature of the plot during the first viewing will cost it a few points. In addition, the climactic shootout scene in this film was a little much. It felt like something out of a video game more than anything. Still, this is probably worth seeing especially for film noir fans looking to see a neo-noir film. 84/100 B UP NEXT: Either The Killing or something else. |
September 5, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Mulholland Drive - R |
David Lynch's Mulholland Drive tells several stories. For the most part it is about a woman who was in a car accident and has amnesia. Another woman tries to help her discover her identity while also being an aspiring actress. The film combines aspects of film noir and surrealism. Unlike most films, this film isn't all that linear and is oftentimes difficult to follow. Although the film has film noir aspects and has a title which alludes to Sunset Boulevard, this film is almost completely different. Some of the plot elements such as aspiring talent in Hollywood are similar, but the film more closely resembles the Italian film 8½. Like 8½ this film spends a great deal of time discussing a director making a film. The film even goes so far as to cast Justin Theroux and give him an appearance much like Marcello Mastroianni (playing Guido) in 8½ - he wears a similar costume and wears dark glasses throughout the film. The acting in this film is pretty good. While Naomi Watts' performance is a little week when she is first introduced and meets the amnesic woman, it becomes rather strong as the film progresses. Overall, this film comes off as well below average. While its surrealism is the most praises aspect of the film, it does not appear all that original borrowing far too heavily on the vastly superior 8½. 55/100 F UP NEXT: L.A. Confidential. |
September 4, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Under Capricorn - Unrated |
Alfred Hitchcock's Under Capricorn is a period piece set in Australia in 1831. The film is also the second Hitchcock film (after Rope) to be filmed in color. In addition to being Hitchcock's only period piece, this film is an atypical Hitchcock film in that it isn't a thriller at all. The film tells the story of a man (Michael Wilding) who arrives in Australia and meets someone (Joseph Cotten), an ex-convict. The ex-convict's wife (Ingrid Bergman) knows the other man's sister in Ireland and a love triangle soon develops. To make matters more confusing, the ex-convict's maid soon falls in love with her boss and tries to turn his wife into an alcoholic. The plot is rather dull and seemingly complicated although most of the confusion is probably a result of a rather boring film. Amazingly, the ending of this film is absolutely amazing. It took 100 minutes, but when the suspense finally sets in, the film is great. As mentioned a moment ago, this film stars Ingrid Bergman, Joseph Cotten and some others. It took them a while to get going, but Cotten, and especially Bergman, are quite excellent in this film. This film is also notable for having several very long takes. Being released immediately after Rope, it seems that Hitchcock was rather fond of the long takes at this point in his career. While the film isn't what seems like one take as in Rope, these occasional long takes are still rather noteworthy. Being a period piece, the costumes and stylistic aspects are worth mentioning. The costumes are nothing all that fancy but they do seem to work. The scenes in this film often take place at night and are lit by candlelight. Unlike Kubrick's film Barry Lyndon, this film is lit with artificial lighting so the candlelight scenes are far less aesthetically pleasing. Overall, this isn't really all that spectacular a film. It's one of the worst American Hitchcock films I have seen. It has a few redeeming qualities and Cotten or Bergman fans might find it reasonably enjoyable, just don't expect a typical Hitchcock experience. 60/100 D- UP NEXT: My newest film yet, Mulholland Drive. |
September 1, 2008 | N/A | |||
| The Gold Rush - Unrated |
There are two versions of this, the original 1925 silent version and a 1942 re-release narrated by Chaplin. This review is for the silent version... Charlie Chaplin's The Gold Rush tells the story of a lone prospector (Charlie Chaplin) in Alaska during the Klondike Gold Rush. Chaplin encounters severe weather and is stranded in a cabin without food. When he is finally able to leave, he goes to an Alaska town and gives up on gold mining. Here, he meets a girl and falls in love which creates further drama. The plot of this film is mostly good. While the first half hour does establish Chaplin's character and includes several memorable scenes, it seemed a little slow-moving. The second half of the film was particularly good although the cabin being blown around in the wind and teetering on the edge of a cliff was highly unrealistic. In addition to the aforementioned Charlie Chaplin, the film also stars Georgia Hale as Chaplin's love interest. While Hale was not originally for this part, Lita Grey was fired as a result of a scandal giving the part to Hale. Interestingly enough, Hale was also cast in City Lights after Virginia Cherrill was fired, Cherrill was eventually rehired. In this film, Chaplin played his part rather well. While there were no scenes quite as memorable as the final scene in City Lights, Chaplin's performance was still quite good. This film is particularly memorable for several scenes. While stranded in a cabin, Chaplin and another character eat one of Chaplin's boots. Shortly thereafter, the other character imagines Chaplin as a chicken. This is particularly well-done especially considering the time at which it was made. Perhaps the most famous scene is Chaplin performing a dance with dinner rolls and forks. While a similar scene was performed in Buster Keaton's The Rough House, this is the more famous version. Lastly, the scene with a cabin teetering on a cliff, while unrealistic, is quite memorable. Overall, this film is far more comical than the other two Chaplin films I have seen, The Great Dictator and City Lights. Despite the comedy, the plot drags early on and the climax is rather unrealistic. Chaplin often stated this was the film he would most like to be remembered by, and it is a solid effort. 78/100 C+ UP NEXT: Alfred Hitchcock's only period piece, Under Capricorn. |
August 27, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Killer's Kiss - Unrated |
While Stanley Kubrick had previously directed Fear and Desire, this film is often cited as his first film as Kubrick was displeased with Fear and Desire and attempted to purchase all copies so that it is never seen. This is about a guy in a train station. While waiting for a train he thinks back on the last three days of his life. He is an aging boxer and lost a fight. Shortly afterward, he meets a dancer and falls in love. The dancer is sort of romantically linked to someone else, but she doesn't care for him. Trouble arises when the two try to run away together towards Seattle. Overall, the plot isn't very good at all. As the film is just 67 minutes long, there isn't really time to do everything it tries to do. It just sort of throws tons of plot elements out there and then tries to sum everything up very quickly. Also, there are several dialogue-free scenes which are very long. While this would be appropriate for a film of reasonable length, these scenes take up way too much time and don't really further the plot at all. They are well-filmed, but unnecessary. As this is a low-budget film, it doesn't have any big stars. The biggest name is Frank Silvera. The acting in here is mediocre at best, but it's rather difficult to judge as the film is so brief and has so little dialogue. Overall, this is terrible. It has some pretty good stylistic features that gives it a film noir feel, but that doesn't make up for its glaring weaknesses. The plot is all over the place and briefly narrates several aspects which are rather important. There are also a few moments that seem rather unrealistic. The most obvious was a guy diving through a second story window, breaking the glass in the process, landing on the sidewalk, and getting up unharmed. I've never tried to dive out a second story window or through a closed window, but this seems like it would be a lot more difficult than the film suggests. That particular scene isn't that important, but it's one of many examples of what makes this film poor. I will not give this film any bonus points because it's a Kubrick film and therefore this film is indeed awful. 40/100 F UP NEXT: Charlie Chaplin's The Gold Rush. |
August 27, 2008 | N/A | |||
| The Shawshank Redemption - R |
Since I started reviewing movies in March I've seen 111 other ones. This is the newest film I've reviewed. The film takes place in the 1940s through the 1960s so that makes it feel older than it actually is. Anyways, the film is about a man sentenced to two consecutive life sentences for killing his wife and her lover. Like just about everyone in the prison, he says he is innocent. The film basically chronicles his life in prison over the course of twenty years. As an educated man and former banker, he gives a great deal of financial advice to all the prison's employees. Eventually more happens, but I don't want to reveal too much. The plot was fairly interesting, although the first half isn't quite as good as it does little more than show what prison life was like in this fictional prison. I thought that the end of the film was a little unrealistic as the long-term project the protagonist performs would have surely been found out and even if it wasn't I can't imagine it would work as easily as it did for him. Regardless, it was still fairly interesting. The main actors in the film were Tim Robbins as the aforementioned protagonist and Morgan Freeman who plays a fellow inmate who becomes the protagonist's best friend in prison. Robbins wasn't bad, but wasn't particularly great either. Freeman was a better actor and was nominated for an Academy Award. There's a lot of secondary characters and they're all fairly-well acted. Overall, this is pretty good, but I don't think it's worthy of the number one ranking on IMDb.com. Even though this took place a while ago, I don't think guards were ever able to beat inmates to death with little consequence. The climax at the end of the film seems a little unrealistic as does the majority of what Robbins' character does in the second half of the film. It's a good movie, sure, but it's not the greatest movie ever or even close. 77/100 C+ UP NEXT: Stanley Kubrick's first film (depending on how you count), Killer's Kiss. |
August 24, 2008 | N/A | |||
| To Catch a Thief - Unrated |
To Catch a Thief, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, tells the story of a retired jewel thief living in Southern France. A bunch of jewels are stolen and the crimes seem very similar to those of the ex-thief so police assume he's back to his old ways. The former thief swears he's innocent and seeks to find the real thief while evading capture from the police. Overall, the plot was interesting but it wasn't particularly great. Starring in this film are Cary Grant as the former thief and Grace Kelly as a woman who Grant encounters while looking for potential burglary victims. Grant and Kelly are both pretty good, but these performances don't stand out as the best they've done. The supporting cast is good, but not good enough to leave a lasting impression. This is a decent film, but far inferior to some of Hitchcock's better works. The fact that it's decent, directed by Hitchcock, and stars Grant and Kelly means it's probably worth a watch even though it's nothing terribly impressive. 74/100 C UP NEXT: What will be the newest film I've reviewed, 1994's The Shawshank Redemption. |
August 23, 2008 | N/A | |||
| A Fistful of Dollars (Per un Pugno di Dollari) - R | Saw this a while back. Not sure why the review wasn't on here. Too lazy to find what I wrote. | August 21, 2008 | N/A | |||
| The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance - Unrated |
This John Ford western begins with a senator (James Stewart) and his wife (Vera Miles) returning to a western town in an unnamed state to attend the funeral of a man (John Wayne). While visiting the body, Stewart tells the story of how they all knew each other and why this seemingly unimportant individual is the reason he became senator. The flashback takes up the majority of the film. In it, Stewart is driving through town in a flashback when a man named Liberty Valance (Lee Marvin) robs his stagecoach. Stewart is a lawyer and wants to prosecute him but John Wayne explains to him that's not how things work in the film. The plot is pretty good, although I'm not sure the flashback was all that necessary. It didn't add all that much and the audience never does know how John Wayne died. As mentioned a moment ago, this film stars James Stewart, John Wayne, Lee Marvin, and Vera Miles. Of them, James Stewart is the only one whose character has much depth and he's the only one who really stands out in terms of acting. The other main characters are good, but nothing great. There were a lot of townspeople and I didn't really care for the way they acted. Many of them were supposed to be drunk half the time which was fine, but they weren't all that convincing and more irritating than anything. Overall, this is a pretty good film but it's not up there with something like The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. It's the first John Wayne film I've seen, but it's usually regarded as one of his better ones so I'm sure this is a must-see for John Wayne fans. This is generally regarded as one of Stewart's better westerns, but again it's the first one I've seen. Fans of westerns will probably enjoy this, but I don't think it's good enough to where people who despise westerns will find much to enjoy in this film. 80/100 B- UP NEXT: To Catch a Thief. |
August 20, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Strangers on a Train - PG |
Strangers on a Train tells the story of a tennis player and a man who are complete strangers on a train. The non-tennis player decides that since he hates his father and the other character hates his wife, they should do each other a favor and kill the other, with no motive they would get away with it easily. The tennis player is frightened by this seemingly insane guy and quickly leaves and dismisses the motion. Of course the guy is not only crazy, but serious and kills the tennis players wife. The rest of the film deals with the police trying to prove the tennis player is guilty and the actual murderer trying to get the tennis player to kill his father. The first two or three minutes of this film have some meaningless dialogue that establishes the two characters but isn't all that interesting. Other than that, pretty much every moment of the film is exciting. The stars of this film are Robert Walker as the murderer and Farley Granger as the tennis player. As a villain, Walker is outstanding. His character is pretty insane and Walker is perfect. He doesn't come off as over-the-top at all, but seems like a real psychopath. Granger is pretty good, too but not on the same level as Walker. Also worth mentioning is the fairly significant role by Patricia Hitchcock, Alfred Hitchcock's daughter, who plays the sister of Farley Granger's mistress. While her part isn't a lead, she was billed as one of the stars of the film and does a pretty good job. Overall, this is easily one of Hitchcock's top films, at about the same level as Vertigo and North by Northwest. Pretty much the only real problem with this film was the climactic scene near the end which, while very well-done, feels a little over-the-top at times. Still, this is better than the vast majority of films I've seen and is highly-recommended for everyone. 94.5/100 A UP NEXT: The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. |
August 20, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Judgment at Nuremberg - Unrated |
This is a fictionalized telling of the Nuremberg Trials that took place a while after World War II. Basically, the trials attempted to determine if people were responsible for crimes committed by the state. The trial scenes are pretty good, but this movie has tons of stuff outside of court that seems to have little relevance. While it does give the characters more depth, I'm not sure it was necessary as the movie was quite long (over 3 hours). The last scenes in court were very well-done and left a good final impression, but unfortunately the movie continued for another 10 to 15 minutes which sort of soured that. The acting in this film was outstanding. Marlene Dietrich was pretty good in a role that is probably a starring role. The film also had Spencer Tracy who was quite good and was the most important character in the film. He was nominated for best actor but did not win. The winner that year was Maximilian Schell who was also in this film. Not often does a film get two nominations for best leading actor, but they were both good. I'm not sure who I would have given it to. Schell was probably better, but less important than Tracy. The film also has Judy Garland and Montgomery Cliff who were both outstanding although their roles weren't very big. They both received nominations for best supporting actor but did not win, probably because their roles were too small. Excellent acting notwithstanding, I wasn't particularly fond of this film. While its use of actual footage of concentration camps is historically significant as the public had not seen much of this footage at the time, the film itself is just too long and has too many irrelevant scenes for it to be great. 70/100 C- UP NEXT: Strangers on a Train. |
August 18, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Dr. Strangelove Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb - PG |
Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is a black comedy dealing with the Cold War. Basically, a crazy Air Force general orders a group of US B-52 bombers to carry out "operation R" which means the President has been killed and they are to proceed with a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. The President is not dead and the President wants to order a retreat but that is impossible as the planes will not receive outside communication unless the correct 3-letter sequence is given first and there are 17,576 possible permutations. While the film warns us at the beginning that there are security measures in place making this film impossible, it doesn't really matter. The film attempts to satirize the Cold War and the theory of mutual assured destruction, and it is quite effective in doing so. The starring actor in this film is Peter Sellers who plays the title character of Dr. Strangelove, the President of the United States, and a group captain. Playing three roles in one film is rather impressive in itself, but Sellers is great doing so. The group captain is British and Seller produces a realistic British accent (which is no surprise as he is British), the President is American and Sellers comes off as American, and Dr. Strangelove is a former German Nazi and his German accent is equally impressive. The film also has actors like George C. Scott and James Earl Jones. Everyone else is good enough, but Sellers' characters are easily the most noticeable. Overall, this is a good, fast-paced film that's largely entertaining. While it isn't the greatest film I've ever seen, it's certainly above-average and offers very good criticism of the Cold War. 82/100 B- UP NEXT: Judgment and Nuremberg. |
August 17, 2008 | N/A | |||
| The Ten Commandments - G |
This Cecil DeMille film is a remake of his own 1923 silent film of the same name. Basically, the film deals with the life of Moses from his birth until his death. The vast majority of the film deals with the events leading up to the freeing of the slaves from Egypt and leading up to his receiving of the commandments. The film covers a lot, but it isn't too difficult to follow even for someone who isn't an expert on the Bible. The biggest stars in this film are Charlton Heston who plays Moses along with Anne Baxter and Edward G. Robinson. There are some other important characters, but they're played by actors who are less famous. While everyone does at least a decent job, they didn't come off as overly-spectacular either. I prefer Heston in Ben-Hur over this one. The main problem with the film was its epic scale. At 220 minutes, it is a very long film to sit through. Unlike Ben-Hur which had some pretty exciting moments like the chariot scene, this doesn't really have anything like that. The special effects, while good for 1956, don't really come off as all that believable. The burning bush doesn't look like it's on fire, etc. As the film sticks to a rather well-known story, it is quite predictable. Unlike Ben-Hur, this film has a strong religious tone throughout and often times comes off as overly-preachy. While it's a decent film, the sheer length means this probably isn't going to be all that enjoyable to people who aren't at least somewhat religious. Add in special effects which seem a little primitive by today's standards, a predictable story, and average acting and you have a film that's only around average. 70/100 C- UP NEXT: A much shorter film, Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. |
August 16, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Shadow of a Doubt - PG |
Alfred Hitchcock often said Shadow of a Doubt was his favorite film he made. In short, it isn't mine. While he had previously made 2 films in the United States, both of those were set in England. This was the first American film he made that actually took place in the United States. Basically, the film is set in what was once a small town (Santa Rosa, CA). A teenage girl (Teresa Wright) is bored and then discovers that her uncle (Joseph Cotten) is coming to visit. She idolizes her uncle but eventually her uncle comes off as rather suspicious. The plot takes forever to get started and even once it starts, it's not all that great. There's a romance that's thrown in that seems completely unnecessary and unrealistic as the two people barely even have a chance to get to know each other. It may have been Hitchcock's favorite, but there's very little I liked about this film. Joseph Cotten and Teresa Wright are the two main actors in this film. They're both pretty good, but their acting doesn't really make up for an otherwise dull film. Overall, this is not something I'd consider Hitchcock's best. It had its moments but they were few and far between. 65/100 D UP NEXT: To be determined. |
August 15, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Double Indemnity - Unrated |
Double Indemnity is a film noir directed by Billy Wilder. It is about an insurance salesman (Fred MacMurray) who helps one of his clients (Barbara Stanwyck) kill her husband. The salesmen and wife trick the husband into purchasing a large insurance policy, with a double indemnity clause, just before his murder. They stage a murder to make it look like an accidental death so that the double indemnity clause will kick in and pay double. A claims adjuster (Edward G. Robinson) that works with the insurance salesmen is a little skeptical and tries to avoid having to pay out the huge claim. This film, like Wilder's noir Sunset Boulevard, is told in flashback so the audience pretty much knows how it will end right from the start. I'm not sure I like this technique, but overall the plot was very good. While I did not care for Edward G. Robinson in the only other film I've seen him in, I thought he was pretty good here. He did not play a villain so perhaps that is the reason. The main character, played by MacMurray, does an excellent job. While he's not as good a film noir villain as say Humphrey Bogart, he delivers a superb performance despite the fact he was generally known for his role in light comedies as a nice guy. Stanwyck is also excellent as a femme fatale, and earned an Oscar nomination. While this film is mostly good, it isn't perfect. The murder itself seemed somewhat unrealistic, and once it was carried out not a whole lot happened that was all that interesting. It's a good movie, but not Wilder's best. 82.5/100 B- UP NEXT: Shadow of a Doubt. |
August 11, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Dial M for Murder - PG |
Dial M For Murder is a Hitchcock film based on a play. It tells the story of a man whose wife is cheating on him. His wife is quite wealthy and he is the beneficiary to her will. He attempts to have her killed by blackmailing somebody, but this plan goes all wrong and his wife kills the would-be murderer in self-defense. The man then attempts to frame his wife so it looked like she murdered him and it wasn't in self-defense at all. As this film was originally supposed to be in 3D, it is presented in two halves despite the short running time (since theaters only had 2 projectors and 3D films required 2 at once, a brief intermission was necessary to load the second half of the film). From almost right at the start until the intermission, this film is absolutely brilliant, nearly perfect. The second half, while good is far inferior to the first half. Overall, the plot is great. As this was adapted from a stage play and makes very few changes, both the set and cast are rather small. With a few exceptions, this film takes place in a single room. Hitchcock was the master of tiny sets, and this film doesn't come off as claustrophobic at all. The film stars Ray Milland as the husband and Grace Kelly as the wife. Milland comes off as a villainous Cary Grant and is quite good. Grace Kelly is even better and is a prototypical Hitchcock blonde. While this film isn't perfect, it's one of the better Hitchcock films I've seen. The suspense is phenomenal and despite a slight drop in quality in the second half, the way things are constantly changing at the end is brilliant. An absolute must-see. 90.5/100 A- UP NEXT: Double Indemnity. |
August 11, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Barry Lyndon - PG |
Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, an adaptation of the 19th century novel The Luck of Barry Lyndon tells the story of Irishman Redmond Barry. The film is set in the mid-18th century in various parts of Europe. The title character is a seemingly ordinary person who, over the course of his life, doesn't do anything all that extraordinary. While he does serve in two different armies during the Seven Years War, marry, have a child, get in duels, etc. nothing in this film is really all that exciting. While parts of the film, namely the second half, were good, the fact that it's three hours of seemingly random actions made for a sub-par plot. While the plot itself isn't all that great, everything else is pretty good. The film won four Oscars, all of which were for more artistic categories. The costumes in this film were outstanding and the film really felt like it was set in the 1760s. Special lenses were developed so that the film could be filmed using candlelight and natural (or simulated natural) lighting, and this was also well-done. The music, which samples a wide variety of 18th Century music, is also good. Ryan O'Neal plays the title character and does a pretty good job. The other actors aren't bad either, but with only a few exceptions, they have smaller parts. Overall, this film is a lesser-known Kubrick film and it isn't one of my favorites. While it's artistically brilliant, the sheer length and dull plot makes it a chore to sit through. The film also doesn't really feel like a Kubrick film as there's nothing all that bizarre in the film. Decent, but nothing special. 70/100 C- UP NEXT: More Hitchcock, Dial M For Murder. |
August 10, 2008 | N/A | |||
| The Man Who Knew Too Much - PG |
The Man Who Knew too Much is Alfred Hitchcock's 1956 remake of his own 1934 film. Despite being a remake, this film has quite a few differences. The film tells the story of a doctor (James Stewart) and his wife (Doris Day) vacationing in Morocco with their son (Christopher Olsen). While in Morocco they meet a few strange people and witness a murder. Just before the murdered man dies, he whispers a secret about an assassination plot to James Stewart who know is a man who knows too much. Their son is kidnapped and Stewart is told he must tell the secret to no one or his son will be in grave danger. While the film has its differences from the original (this starts in Morocco as opposed to Switzerland, the kidnapped child is a son this time, etc.), it's basically the same idea. While Hitchcock prefers the remake, I thought this film was a little long (it's 45 minutes longer) and confusing at times. The whole kidnapping and why Stewart was given this information is never really explained. The acting in this film is pretty good. James Stewart and Doris Day are both superb. Other than that, nobody else is all that memorable. While Hitchcock films tend to have interesting characters in minor roles, nobody in here was all that great. The biggest weakness in this film was a good villain. The original The Man Who Knew Too Much had the great Peter Lorre playing the villain while this film's villain wasn't really focused on one person and none of them were all that memorable. Also notable for this film is the music. Like the original film, this film has its climax at London's Albert Hall. There is a long sequence at Albert Hall that runs around 10 minutes where not a single word is spoken. This film is rather well-done. Also important is Doris Day's singing. In this film she sings, several times, the song "Whatever Will Be, Will Be (Que Sera, Sera)" which won an Oscar for best original song. While this film was pretty good at times, it wasn't quite as clear as the original and ran a little too long. The lack of a Peter Lorre type character was especially disappointing. Overall, this is just a decent film. 74.5/100 C UP NEXT: From one great director to another, Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon. |
August 9, 2008 | N/A | |||
| All Quiet on the Western Front - Unrated |
My 100th review is a World War 1 film based on the book of the same name. The film follows a young German, Paul Bäumer (Lew Ayres), over the course of the war. While eager to serve his country at first, he quickly realizes that the war is dehumanizing and serves no purpose. While the film is somewhat slow to begin, the second half is much better and offers a powerful anti-war message. The film stars Lew Ayres and numerous others. As the film follows Ayres' character throughout, the majority of the cast members have small parts. Ayres is rather impressive portraying a typical soldier. Over the course of the film, the audience becomes emotionally attached to his character and is sympathetic towards his plight. Although the plot is slow at times and most of the action in the film seems somewhat random, this is still a very good film and powerfully delivers its message. As Variety wrote, "The League of Nations could make no better investment than to buy up the master-print, reproduce it in every language, to be shown in all the nations until the word 'war' is taken out of the dictionaries." 84/100 B UP NEXT: Alfred Hitchcock's remake of his own film, The Man Who Knew Too Much. |
August 8, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Family Plot - PG |
Family Plot is the final film directed by Alfred Hitchcock who died 4 years later in 1980. It tells the story of a woman pretending to be a psychic and is hired to find an elderly rich woman's long-lost nephew who is her only living heir. The fake psychic and her boyfriend attempt to track down the man and it turns out that he and his girlfriend are jewel thieves. The plot has some holes, most notable almost everything that happened in the first cemetery scene, but overall it's pretty good. It's not the most interesting plot one will find in a Hitchcock film, but certainly not his worst. The film stars Karen Black, Barbara Harris, Bruce Dern, and William Devane. They all do an adequate job although it's nothing great. There's some bits of acting that aren't all that great, but most of it is at least decent. While this is not Hitchcock's best or even close, it's still a pretty good movie. Unfortunately, Hitchcock's declining health prevented him from filming The Short Night despite the fact he had it all set to go before deciding not to. Still, Frenzy and Family Plot weren't a bad way to go out and are vastly superior to his antepenultimate film, Topaz. 77/100 C+ UP NEXT: My 100th film, the 1930 Best Picture winner All Quiet on the Western Front. |
August 8, 2008 | N/A | |||
| The Exorcist - R |
What a terrible movie. It's because of garbage like this that I very rarely watch horror movies. For those that don't already know, this film talks about the demonic possession of an adolescent girl which requires an exorcism to be performed. While the plot is simple enough, the film tries its hardest to make in confusing. The first 15 minutes depict a priest, who is also an archaeologist, who we later find out has conveniently performed an exorcism, in Iraq. He discovers a coin which is shown at the end of the film but really has no significance at all. Perhaps a second viewing and this might make more sense, but as far as I can see, the first 15 minutes of this film are completely worthless. The next 20 minutes or so go all over the place and accomplish very little. Finally at about the 45 minute mark the girl starts behaving somewhat strangely. Even here nothing much happens and this is all a bunch of garbage. After an hour the plot begins. The actual plot which takes an hour to begin is as bad as, if not worse than, the first hour. The girl has something wrong with her and we spend quite some time trying to figure out what to do. As this film is titled The Exorcist it's quite obvious that an exorcism is going to be performed. Overall, the plot is just dreadful. The acting in this film isn't much better. The mother's mom, played by Ellen Burstyn is just terrible. Her performance is way over-the-top especially early on in the film when her daughter's problems appear to be rather minor. Her daughter, played by Linda Blair, doesn't really do much in the film. While she is the central character in the film, almost everything she does is just special effects and most of her dialogue is demonically-possessed being dubbed over by another actor. Basically all she does is spends the entire film strapped to a bed. The film has a bona-fide star in Lee J. Cobb, but his role isn't that significant and the side-story involving him is completely irrelevant. The only good thing this film has is its special effects which were quite impressive for 1973. Most of this is just done for shock-value and these effects do nothing more than establish a new low for grotesque special effects. This effects were reasonably impressive at first, but became less so as the film progressed. The film seemed to rely on effects and nothing more and that's the recipe for a terrible movie. While I suppose this could be scary to some viewers, I did not find it all that frightening. Since nothing all that unpredicted happens, the viewer isn't really startled by anything. The grotesque nature of the effects may scare young or squeamish viewers, but that's about it. In fact, I found this film almost comical since it portrayed a 12-year-old girl using quite a bit of profanity. To continue my previous statement as to why I hate horror films, this film has 2 sequels and 2 prequels to run the franchise further into the ground. As this film is the "masterpiece" of the franchise I can't even begin to imagine how terrible the rest of the series is. In short, this is just terrible and surpasses The Birth of a Nation as the worst film I've reviewed. The film has no redeeming qualities and should be avoided by all. 25/100 F UP NEXT: Alfred Hitchcock's final film, Family Plot. |
August 7, 2008 | N/A | |||
| The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Il Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo.) - R |
The final film of Sergio Leone's "Man With No Name Trilogy" stars Clint Eastwood (the good), Lee Van Cleef (the bad), and Eli Wallach (the ugly). This epic spaghetti western takes place during the American Civil War as the three main characters are searching for buried Confederate gold. Unlike previous Leone westerns, this is less of a shoot-'em-up and has a lot more character development. While there is plenty of shooting, this is less of the focus here. The plot also addresses the absurdity of war. Overall, this film covers a lot even for a three hour movie. It occasionally tries to do a little too much and cover too much, but it's easily the best of the series. As previously mentioned, the stars of this film are Eastwood, Van Cleef, and Wallach. While this film isn't dialogue-intensive and the roles aren't terribly demanding, this is a pretty well-acted film and required a lot more from the actors than previous Leone westerns. Wallach probably has more screen time than even Eastwood and he does a superb job blending in a little comedy in an otherwise serious role. Wallach's character is the only one where his backstory is explored as well. While spaghetti westerns are generally poorly-received by critics, this managed to get pretty good reviews when it came out and almost all positive reviews today mainly because this is a great film. While it has its fair share of faults, the last 30 minutes or so are outstanding. The Mexican Standoff scene at the end is brilliant despite the fact that the majority of the scene nothing happens, the camera just cuts to the different actors faces over and over. Like previous Leone films, the score here, by Ennio Morricone, is brilliant. This score is particularly well-done. This film is an absolute must-see for any western fan. 85/100 B UP NEXT: Probably the last horror film that interests me, The Exorcist. |
August 6, 2008 | N/A |
221 ratings
172 reviews
