| Movie | Rating | Review | Date | Your Rating | Match | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ben-Hur - G |
Ben-Hur tells the story of a man, Jonah Ben-Hur, who has been arrested along with his sister and mother. The story tells his journey to try and find his family. It is sort of like The Odyssey in the sense there is a long, epic journey across thousands of miles to do this. At nearly four hours in length, it is rather difficult to keep the plot going and this film does feel a little slow at times, especially in the first half of the film. After the entr'acte the film begins to pick up quite a bit. The film stars Charlton Heston and a cast of several others. As is typical for an epic film, the lead has a very complex role to play and I'd say Heston played it well. The other actors, when present, also do a good job. While Heston deservedly won the Academy Award for best actor, I am a little surprised that Hugh Griffith won for Best Supporting Actor. While he did a good enough job in this film, he hardly had any screen time and even for a supporting actor his role seemed kind of minor. Then again, it seems like every time I see a film with a best supporting actor I question the decision so I'm probably not the best judge of who is deserving of that award or what a supporting actor actually is. One area of the film worth mentioning specifically is the famous chariot race scene which runs for around eleven minutes. This scene, one of the most memorable in cinema history, is very well-done and along with the chase scene in Bullitt is probably one of the best race scenes I've ever seen. Even more amazing is the fact that there was no CGI or anything of the sort in 1959. While I am not a religious person at all, I think the religion was presented in a subtle enough way as to not be distracting. I didn't really like the miracle at the end of the movie, but it is a religious story so I can't really complain too much about that. Overall, this was significantly better than the only other Heston film I've seen, Soylent Green. Despite the fact the first half was tedious at times and it got a little overly-preachy at times for my liking, this is still a good movie overall and definitely worth seeing. 84/100 B UP NEXT: Either I'll continue with Best Picture winners and move to the following year's winner, The Apartment or I'll go with Witness for the Prosecution. |
July 16, 2008 | N/A | |||
| The Great Dictator - G |
This film, which is directed by, written by, produced by, and starring Charlie Chaplin. Despite the fact this film was released in 1940 and his previous film was released in 1936, this is Chaplin's first talking picture (The Jazz Singer, the first talking picture, came out in 1927). This film satirizes Nazism and Adolf Hitler. In the film Chaplin plays the dictator of a fictional nation along with and a Jewish barber living in a ghetto. The plot basically tells what happens as the war progresses. The plot was sort of slow at times, but overall it wasn't bad. As for the acting, it's kind of hard to really rate. This is the first time I've seen any of Chaplin's work and he seemed pretty good I guess. His comedic style, while good, seemed very strange in a film of this nature. I didn't find many parts of the film all that funny, but I didn't think the film was ever inappropriate in its use of would-be comedy. The supporting cast was nothing special, but they were adequate. The star of this film is Chaplin and he plays his two roles rather well. Overall, this is quite different. This is one of Chaplin's most highly-regarded films, his best box office success, and easily his most popular talking picture. The film's message is a good one and I think the film addresses it well. Chaplin's speech at the end of the film is rather uplifting and offers a lot of hope, but on the other hand it's depressing in the sense that the film was made in 1940 and the atrocities against the Jewish people were far from over at the time of this film's release. I'd say this film was good, but I wouldn't rank it amongst my favorites. Chaplin is known for his comedy and this just seems like a strange type of film to use comedy. The satire was good, but strange at the same time. Still, I'd like to see some more of Chaplin's work. 76.5/100 C UP NEXT: Witness for the Prosecution. |
July 16, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Notorious - Unrated |
This film, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, tells the story of a woman (Ingrid Bergman) whose father was a Nazi spy. She is hired by Cary Grant's character to go to Rio de Janeiro to spy on some Nazis who were friends with her father. The plot here is very slow at first and frankly it wasn't all that interesting. It kind of had a love story in there which was tolerable but not a whole lot happened save a reasonably dramatic scene at a party. The last half hour of the film picked up quite a bit and that saved the film. This film makes use of a MacGuffin, some uranium in this case, which is a hallmark of several Hitchcock films most notably in North By Northwest (the microfilm). Starring Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman, one would expect good acting. The two do a rather good job and their love affair seems believable. In a supporting role Claude Rains does a good job as well. Overall, this is probably ever-so-slightly better than Spellbound but still just a mediocre effort. This film is generally regarded as one of Hitchcock's better films, probably one of his ten best, and I suppose that's reasonable. So far I would say this is worse than at least 8 other Hitchcock films I've seen but still watchable. Unfortunately this film, like Rebecca, Spellbound, and The Paradine Case is out of print (the first 3 were all released by Criterion) and a copy will run between $40-100+ depending on the condition. 72/100 C- UP NEXT: Either Ben-Hur, Witness for the Prosecution, or something else while I'm at home for the weekend. |
July 10, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Spellbound - Unrated |
This Hitchcock film tells the story of a man hired to be a psychiatrist at an asylum. It turns out he's not who he says he is and the actual psychiatrist has been murdered. The imposter (played by Gregory Peck) is thought to be a prime suspect but another psychiatrist (played by Ingrid Bergman) thinks he is suffering from amnesia and completely innocent. The plot sounds rather interesting, especially once all of the nuances and conclusion is added, but it plays out as rather dull. Perhaps I was just tired or something, but this film didn't really get me all that excited at any point. This is nowhere near Hitchcock's best work. As for the acting, Gregory Peck and Ingrid Bergman aren't bad but they're nothing terribly special here either. The supporting cast, like the main actors, is good but not great. Overall, this is a mediocre film and a below-average Hitchcock film. It's probably not worth seeing unless you are a big Hitchcock fan. To make matters worse, this film was released on DVD by Criterion but it is now out of print and a used copy runs $50 and up. 71/100 C- UP NEXT: Either another Hitchcock film, Notorious or something else. |
July 9, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Harvey - Unrated |
Harvey tells the story of a man, played by James Stewart, and his best friend - a six-foot, three-and-one-half inch rabbit. Nobody can see the rabbit except Stewart and the audience never sees him. Basically the whole point of the film is his sister trying to get him committed to a mental hospital but difficulties arise. When I heard this was a comedy about a man and a giant rabbit (and again after reading what I just wrote) I would have to say this is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Yet it isn't. Despite the absurdity of the plot, it's actually most entertaining and at times quite hilarious. As usual, James Stewart does an excellent job portraying Elwood P. Dowd. His role was rather unique in that he was constantly interacting with a cast member that was not actually there. The other notable actor in this film is actress Josephine Hull who won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for playing Stewart's elder sister. While her performance was rather good at times, I felt like she was a little too over-the-top for me and that was probably the film's main weakness. There's not really much else to say. For those looking for a simple, yet highly-entertaining film this is an excellent choice. A fun plot with some well-placed comedy and good acting makes for a good film. The short running time, 104 minutes, is also a plus. 83.5/100 B UP NEXT: A Hitchcock film, Spellbound. |
July 3, 2008 | N/A | |||
| The Paradine Case - Unrated |
This Hitchcock film is a courtroom drama starring Gregory Peck amongst others. The movie is about a woman, Mrs. Paradine, whose blind husband has recently been poisoned. She is arrested accused of murdering her husband. Gregory Peck is to be her lawyer. What follows is a bit of courtroom drama mixed with a bit of romance and suspense. The film starts out rather slow and isn't all that exciting until the court scene. The courtroom part of the film is most excellent, but unfortunately only takes up about a third of the film. The acting, is much like the plot. There's nothing terribly great other than the courtroom scenes with one exception - Mrs. Paradine's character, portrayed by Alida Valli, is very well-acted. Overall, this is a decent effort, but not one of Hitchcock's best. It was the last film he made under David O. Selznick. It's worth seeing for a Hitchcock fan, but the film isn't quite good enough for me to say it's a must-see for anyone else. 77.5/100 C+ UP NEXT: Either My Fair Lady or Spellbound. |
July 3, 2008 | N/A | |||
| My Fair Lady - G |
This movie, a musical, tells the story of a low class woman who makes a career selling flowers on the streets who is discovered by a wealthy professor who vows to change her speech and manner so that she appears to be an upper-class citizen. The plot is nothing terrific, but it isn't bad either. It's a little slow at times, but consistently paced. There's a few moments that are somewhat comical which aids in the watchability of the three hour musical. The film stars Rex Harrison and Audrey Hepburn. They both act rather well. Harrison won Best Actor while Hepburn was nominated for no Academy Award. I was especially impressed with her accent which changes throughout the film At first she's dressed and speaks in a manner such that I couldn't even recognize her as Hepburn. She ends the film with an entirely different accent that sounds nothing like what I'm accustomed to for her. While the acting was pretty good, the singing and dancing was less than stellar. The movie didn't have much in the way of dancing at all which seems a little odd for a musical. While I don't particularly care for the singing and dancing aspect of musicals, this one didn't seem to do this particularly well. Singin' in the Rain had lots of singing and dancing which I didn't care for either, but it seemed like it was much more well-done in this film. The major problem with this film is Audrey Hepburn's singing, or lack thereof. Her singing was dubbed by Marni Nixon which was very distracting as Nixon's voice sounds nothing like Hepburn's - it's way too high and Hepburn's character sings so much it is quite annoying. Hepburn did a little bit of singing in previous films I've seen and famously sung "Moon River" in Breakfast at Tiffany's (which I have not seen) so I'm not sure the dubbing of her voice was necessary. Overall, this was probably more enjoyable a film than Singin' in the Rain despite its shortcomings. With the very distracting dubbing of Hepburn's voice and lack of impressive musical numbers, this film probably ends up being just slightly worse than Singin' in the Rain. For a fan of musicals (which I am not) this is probably a great film. For everyone else, this is a good movie, but not great. 72/100 C- UP NEXT: Harvey. |
July 3, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Das Boot (The Boat) - R |
First of all, this movie was outstanding, simply amazing. The idea of following Germans in a U-Boat during World War II seemed like a pretty unique concept that could be anywhere from horrible to great depending on how it was done. This movie exceeded any expectations I had prior to viewing it. Despite the fact that this film is 3.5 hours long (at least the version I chose), it doesn't seem like it. Almost the entire movie is action sequences and the pacing is outstanding. Every now and then the action would slow down for a few minutes and you'd start to get impatient before realizing that it's essential to have some sort of plot development in order to work. This movie stars all kinds of people whom I've never heard of. There are far too many to attempt to list individually so I will not attempt to do so. The ship has some 41 crew members but only around five or so are described in that great of detail. This isn't a flaw by any means as attempting to go into detail with all 41 members would take hours and be dull and repetitive. The main characters were logical choices such as the ship's captain and other officers. Overall, the acting in here was quite good and I found it to be rather believable. The main aspect that drew me to this movie was the idea of seeing this from the German side. While it seems quite odd, to state, as the movie got going you really sympathized with the characters and were cheering for them not only to survive, but to be successful in their mission which included the sinking of Allied ships. While many people nowadays tend to think of World War II era Germans as Nazis or evil Hitler clones, this movie does a good job demonstrating this is not the case. Only one member of the crew is a member of the Nazi party while the rest of the crew is either Nazi indifferent or openly anti-Nazi. The effects in this film are also worth mentioning. As this film is relatively modern, completed in 1981, I hold it to much higher standards than a film such as The Bridges at Toko-Ri (completed in 1954). The effects here did not disappoint and were comparable to a modern-day film. Overall, there is almost nothing to not like about this film. The opening scene prior to the crew's departure wasn't all that exciting although it was rather brief. Midway through the film several crew members almost leave but are ordered not to. This scene is technically necessary as it allows the ship to resupply itself which was needed at that point, but it did slow the plot down slightly for the few minutes it lasted. Even with these very minor flaws the film is simply outstanding and needs to be seen at once by anyone even remotely interested in World War II or war films. I don't particularly care for World War II (I like World War I better) or war movies, but I still thought this was great and it's well deserving of a nearly perfect score. 95.5/100 A UP NEXT: Depending on how much time I have it'll either be a three-hour musical ,My Fair Lady, or a Hitchcock film, The Paradine Case. |
June 29, 2008 | N/A | |||
| The Best Years of Our Lives - Unrated |
The Best Years of Our Lives tells the story of three World War II veterans returning home and attempting to adjust to civilian life. They all have various sorts of difficulties and wonder if the best years of their lives are behind them. As someone born more than forty years after the war ended, I found it somewhat difficult to relate to the actors' problems. Despite that flaw, the plot was well-paced and rather interesting so the film was still enjoyable. The film features an ensemble cast and everyone does a reasonably good job. Of the ensemble, Fredric March and Dana Andrews seem to be the two principle actors in the film. They both did a pretty good job and March was awarded the Academy Award for Best Actor for his performance. I felt that Andrews actually had a larger role and was better, but March is probably more famous so that's why he won. The film also has Harold Russell who portrays a sailor who has returned home from war without any hands. Russell himself did not have hands and was not a professional actor. He delivers quite an impressive performance in a supporting role and deservedly won Best Supporting Actor. In fact, he won an honorary Academy Award for this performance as well because the Academy thought he had not shot at winning the actual award and wanted to honor him somehow. He remains the only actor to win two Oscars for the same performance and is one of just two non-professional actors ever to win an Oscar for acting. The film also has Teresa Wright, Myrna Loy, and Cathy O'Donnell all of whom deliver good performances. Overall, this film is a pretty good one. As previously mentioned, the film seems somewhat dated in the sense that it is a feel-good post-War film and the War has long since passed. While any old movie is going to be at least somewhat dated, this felt a little more so than average. It's not all that bad, but worth noting - twice in fact. The story is rather uplifting and the ending is a happy one. It's a good movie and worth a watch for those that have three hours to spare. 83/100 B- UP NEXT: Das Boot. |
June 28, 2008 | N/A | |||
| The Grapes of Wrath - Unrated |
This movie tells the story of a Depression-era Oklahoman family who loses their farm and heads west to California looking for a job. This is one of relatively few Depression-era films that actually dealt with the Depression and it does a pretty good job at it. The plot is rather engaging although it is somewhat repetitive and predictable. Overall, it's still better than average. The film stars Henry Fonda and he is great in this film. He's a plain-speaking idealist in the film and does a very good job. He was nominated for Best Actor but that award was wrongfully awarded to James Stewart in The Philadelphia Story which was given to him because he was not awarded the Academy Award for Mr. Smith Goes to Washington which was too controversial at the time. Unfortunately, that's the was the Academy works. The other actors in this film are pretty good as well especially Jane Darwell who plays Ma. She delivers a fairly memorable speech and the end and her portrayal won her Best Supporting Actress which seems well-deserved. This film is based off a book and from what I understand the latter half of the film is not at all representative of the book. I'm not sure if that's good or bad, but it's probably worth noting. The film does leave a rather bleak portrayal of the plight of the characters during the era and should be applauded for that. Overall, this film is a pretty good one. The ending seemed a little too cheerful for me which is not the case in the book and that's probably the film's biggest flaw. It's still very good and definitely worth a watch. 81/100 B- UP NEXT: The Best Years of Our Lives. |
June 27, 2008 | N/A | |||
| The Shining - R |
I'm not a fan of horror movies at all, but Kubrick directed this so I thought I'd give it a watch. This was actually quite good and joins Psycho as the only good horror movie I've ever seen. The film is about a family taking care of a hotel and living in isolation. After that the plot is mostly straightforward although like every Kubrick film I've ever seen there are some rather bizarre moments. The plot leaves quite a bit open to interpretation and doesn't really give a direct answer to most questions, but that's okay. For those that don't really want to pay attention, this film works because the plot is easy to follow. For those that want to study it closely, this film works on a much deeper level so it's good there, too. This film has three actors who have more than a few minutes of screen time. Jack Nicholson does a very good job, especially as the film progresses. Stephen King (who wrote the book this is based on) suggests Nicholson was a bad choice for the role due to his previous work as a crazy person in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest but I haven't seen that film so I can't comment on this. Shelley Duval plays his wife and I'd say her acting was quite good as well. The other main character was their son played by Danny Lloyd. I don't really care for children at all in movies, but he does a good enough job so I can't complain. Overall, this was quite good and probably my favorite Kubrick film so far. There are parts that are very strange, but that is to be expected from a Kubrick film. The film is most entertaining and leaves quite a bit of it open to interpretation which leaves open the possibility of repeat viewings. 90/100 A- |
June 16, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Goodbye, Mr. Chips - Unrated |
This movie tells the story of a retired schoolteacher. The movie is a flashback of his life as a teacher. The teacher, Mr. Chipping (Mr. Chips) is played by Robert Donat who ages 63 years over the course of the flashbacks. The plot wasn't all that quickly-moving and didn't have much happen, but it was a rather touching story I suppose. It was nothing great but good enough to keep you watching even if you don't get to sentimental about these kinds of things. The movie has several reasonably famous actors and they're all at least adequate, but the only one that really matters is Robert Donat. Other than the first five minutes or so of the film there's never more than 30 seconds or so where he was not on screen. Donat won the Academy Award for Best Actor for this film which is quite remarkable seeing as it was made in 1939. His competition that year included Clark Gable in Gone With the Wind (a film which won 10 Oscars), James Steward in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington , Laurence Olivier in Wuthering Heights and Mickey Rooney in Babes in Arms. I haven't seen the last two films mentioned but the first two have outstanding acting by their leads and Laurence Olivier is generally regarded as an outstanding actor in his own right. While Donat's performance here is good, I cannot believe he won the award over Gable and Stewart. Gable was very good and his movie won just about every award and Stewart was brilliant. Sure, Donat was good, but the best actor that year? I beg to differ. Anyways, this isn't a bad film and it does make you think back on former teachers. I don't think I've ever had one quite like Mr. Chips although a few were pretty good. 74/100 C UP NEXT: Probably Touch of Evil. |
June 16, 2008 | N/A | |||
| The Big Sleep - Unrated |
This movie was a bit of a disappointment. The main problem with this movie is its plot. While the plot is rather good, it is quite confusing. Even after reading a complete plot summary on wikipedia, the plot still doesn't make all that much sense. The film has far too many major characters for a film that is under two hours. In addition, this film seems to borrow all the basic principles of the far superior The Maltese Falcon - Bogart is a private detective who is hired at the start of the film to unravel a mystery, people get shot, and he has a love interest. The two plots are indeed different, but the general idea is reasonably close. The acting in here wasn't bad but there's so many characters that it doesn't really matter. On a first viewing you're so concerned at trying to remember who is who you don't really remember their acting. Bogart wasn't bad, but this wasn't his best work. Bacall wasn't bad either although she wasn't on screen all that often. Overall, this is a highly-regarded film noir but it probably requires multiple viewings to really get a feel for it. The first viewing leads a lot to be desired. 70/100 C- UP NEXT: To be determined. |
June 9, 2008 | N/A | |||
| To Have and Have Not - Unrated |
All right. This was pretty good. This is a story much like Casablanca. Bogart is an American in a foreign land during World War II and there's a girl he loves that he tries to ship back to the US. I've never heard of a critic calling this better than Casablanca so I probably need to rewatch that particular film as I no longer have the flu. I found this movie's plot to be rather engaging and quite interesting. The acting in here was top-notch as well. You know you can't go wrong with Bogart, and you don't. He's his usual self. He's still not The Maltese Falcon or The African Queen good, but he's still quite good. Of the three films I've seen so far, this is easily Lauren Bacall's best performance. This is her film debut and what a debut it is. She gives a very good performance. Lastly, while not a star, perhaps my favorite actor in this was Walter Brennan. He's basically just a drunk, but he does a great job at it and you really get to like his character quite a bit. As I previously mentioned, this film borrows some ideas from Casablanca. It's set in another continent and quite different, but the similarities are there. Bogart is an American mixed up in a foreign land during War. He spends most of his time at a drinking establishment and there's a reasonably important character who plays a piano. Since this movie came out a couple of years after Casablanca and has so many similarities I'll have to deduct a few points, but that doesn't mean this film isn't quite good nonetheless. 85/100 B UP NEXT: The final, and most well-regarded, Bogart and Bacall movie - The Big Sleep. |
June 8, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Key Largo - Unrated |
This wasn't too bad of a film although it's not one of my favorites. It tells the story of a guy who ends up at a motel and everyone there is taken hostage. The film sort of reminds me of another Bogart film, The Petrified Forest, which came out some time before this one. The plot was a little slow at times which detracted from the film a bit. The film stars Edward G. Robinson, Humphrey Bogart, and Lauren Bacall. All of them do a good enough job, but none of them are all that spectacular either. Bacall was better in Dark Passage and Bogart was far superior in The Maltese Falcon. Overall, while a decent film this is nothing terribly memorable. It was the last film Bogart and Bacall made together. 72/100 C- UP NEXT: More Bogart and Bacall - To Have and Have Not. |
June 8, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Frenzy - R |
Hitchcock's penultimate film, the 52nd of his career, shows that even after 50 years as a director, Hitchcock can still make good movies. This film is filmed in set in England where Hitchcock's career began five decades earlier. It tells the story of a man who rapes and strangles women to death with his tie. This film was rated R and for good reason. The plot is a pretty good murder mystery, although it's not really a mystery. The identity of the murderer is revealed very early on in the film although he is not a suspect as there is substantial evidence against a completely innocent man. For those not afraid of a few scenes that are somewhat graphic and a little swearing, this plot is great. This film has a few main actors although none of them are all that notable for an American audience. They all do a pretty good job so there's not really anything to complain about. Like previous Hitchcock films, this one deals with mistaken identity and murder. While this is hardly anything new from Hitchcock, he was able to do things not previously allowed. This film would never get past the censors while the Hays Code was still in effect. Hitchcock was known for his ability to push the Code to the limit, but this film goes far beyond what he did in any of his previous films. While some may say there were moments that were unnecessarily violent or vulgar, I don't think that was the case. While Hitchcock's film making brilliance was pretty much over once Vertigo, North By Northwest, and Psycho were released in a three year span, this film shows that Hitchcock still had a something left. While nothing he made after the three aforementioned films (with the possible exception of Family Plot which is the only post-1957 Hitchcock film I haven't seen) comes anywhere near the greatness of his earlier works, this film is probably the best of the bunch and worth a watch not just because it's a Hitchcock film. 83/100 B- UP NEXT: Something with Bogart and Bacall. |
June 8, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Dark Passage - Unrated |
This film tells the story of a guy (Bogart) who escapes from prison. There's a lot more to it than that obviously but the rest is not necessary for the sake of this review. The plot is rather straightforward and decent. The whole plastic surgery part seemed a little odd since this takes place in 1947, but it was made in 1947 so plastic surgery must have existed back then. I wouldn't say this plot was all that great, but it still gets the job done. The film stars Humphrey Bogart so how could you go wrong? Well they tried. Despite the fact he is the main character of the film, they hide him the first half of the movie by never showing his face - just his hands and voice. He gets a new face and is then bandaged up for a lot longer. There's some neat first-person perspective, but this is Humphrey Bogart, the best actor ever, why would you try and hide him? This is the first film of Lauren Bacall's I've seen and she wasn't bad. She's no Katharine Hepburn, but she didn't need to be. Stylistically, this film is said to be a film noir. It has most of the required features, but didn't quite do it for me. It was lacking something. Too many scenes were too well-lit and the low-key lighting was lacking. Of course the film noir genre didn't exist until the film noir films had already been made so you can't really fault the film for not living up to the genre that only existed after all the films were made. Overall, this is a solid picture, but not a great one. It's a must-see for a Bogart fan and far superior to Sabrina. 76/100 C UP NEXT: Hitchcock's second-to-last film and the only one that was R-rated when it came out - Frenzy. |
June 8, 2008 | N/A | |||
| The Uninvited - Unrated |
This was about an average movie. The plot is about some people that move into a house that's haunted. I'm not really a big fan of ghost stories but I'll try to give this a fair review nonetheless. The plot wasn't too bad although it got a little confusing towards the end. I'm not sure I really liked the conclusion to the movie but I've seen worse. The two main actors in this movie are Ray Milland and Gail Russell. Neither of them did anything overly spectacularly, but their acting was good enough that it didn't stand out as bad. Overall, I don't really have much to say about this film and this review is going to be rather short. It's a decent movie but nothing great. For those that like ghost stories it's worth a watch but other than that there's nothing special about this. 70/100 C- |
June 7, 2008 | N/A | |||
| All About Eve - Unrated |
I was rather disappointed in this. This movie receives tons of praise and it, along with Sunset Boulevard, was one of the most highly-praised films of 1950. This didn't live up to my expectations at all which will be explained in just a moment. This movie tells the story of an aging Broadway actress and an up-and-comer trying to become a star. I didn't really get all that excited about the plot and it became less and less interesting as the picture wore on. It was rather straightforward and I didn't find anything all that unpredictable about it. The movie ends in much the same way it began which was a reasonably effective plot device, but doesn't add all that much. Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of this film was the acting. All over the place I've read that Bette Davis and Gloria Swanson somehow canceled each other out and therefore neither one of them won the Best Actress award that year. Gloria Swanson delivered what is likely the best acting performance I have ever seen in Sunset Boulevard whereas Bette Davis was far inferior to Swanson in this picture. In fact, I'm not sure if she should even count as a leading actress - Anne Baxter had more screen time and was also nominated for Best Actress. I would argue Baxter was more deserving of the award than Davis although they're both far below Swanson. The award went to Judy Holliday but I have not seen Born Yesterday so I can't comment on the decision. Continuing with the acting, Bette Davis just seemed too old. While I realize she was supposed to be playing an older character, this just did not seem like Bette Davis. I've seen Davis in two other films from the 1930s and that is the Bette Davis I think of when I think of Bette Davis. While she went on to make plenty of movies after this film, I would argue her best years were behind her at this point despite the fact most critics say this is her best performance. She was nominated for 8 Academy Awards prior to this film (winning 2) but just twice more after this (winning 0). Overall, this is a decent movie, but nothing all that spectacular. It competed with Sunset Boulevard in almost every category at the Academy Awards that year and I found this to be a far inferior film. It's certainly worth a watch but probably not worth a repeat viewing. 70/100 C- UP NEXT: To be determined. |
June 6, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (Nosferatu, a Symphony of Horror) (Nosferatu the Vampire) - Unrated |
This film tells the story of Nosferatu or Dracula, whatever you want to call him. It's basically a Dracula story but they had to change the name to avoid copyright infringement. It didn't matter as they were still sued for copyright infringement and the studio went out of business after this film - its only film. All copies of the film were ordered to be destroyed which didn't happen obviously. Anyways, the plot here was rather dull I thought. It didn't really focus all that heavily on Nosferatu. As typical for a silent film, the plot isn't overly complex and not all that much happens all that quickly. That isn't necessarily a bad thing as it can build drama, etc. but it was a major drawback here. The premise of the story seems decent but this left a lot to be desired. This film stars some people that the average person has never heard of. I still don't know how to rate silent acting but this didn't feel all that impressive. Then again it didn't seem bad either. It was probably typical for silent acting. Despite the fact nothing ever really happened in this film, you kept waiting for it to happen. I kept getting the feeling that something exciting might happen but it never did. Although the fact that nothing great ever happens is a major drawback, the fact that I could feel something about to happen is probably positive. This film had some moments that were pretty cool. The shadows at the end were quite neat to see and were probably quite creepy for audiences in 1922. On a slightly less relevant level, there were two things about this film that really bugged me. First, I don't like tinted film. This film is obviously black and white and that's fine. All the tinted scenes seemed more distracting than anything. The Birth of a Nation makes heavy use of them as well and I don't really think they add much, if anything. Second, the intertitles were written in a terrible font. It was some sort of Gothic font and incredibly difficult to read. I realize this film was set in the 1830s and they wanted a font to match, but it was just awful to try and look at. Overall, this film is rather groundbreaking in the horror genre of films but has some major flaws. It established some techniques that are still utilized today and it deserves some credit for that but this just has too many problems to be considered great. While I do appreciate the groundbreaking nature of this film, I will not reward a film all that heavily for groundbreaking work unless the rest of the film is excellent as well. Citizen Kane established a lot of techniques that were quite new at the time but the film was also outstanding so I have no problem rewarding that particular film for its work. This film, groundbreaking filming techniques notwithstanding, is poor at best. |
June 2, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Satan Met a Lady - Unrated | June 1, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| The Birth of a Nation - Unrated | June 1, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| Topaz - PG | June 1, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| The Sunshine Boys - PG | June 1, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| The Untouchables - R | June 1, 2008 | N/A |
219 ratings
170 reviews
