carljessieson Reviews

Modern Times (1936)

Good one

[8/10 · 8 April 2015]

I love these black and white, old classics! Why does it seem like they did more with their films when they had less technology available to them? They don't have that ~Hollywood Magic~ that does their effects for them, it was all camera tricks and carefully strategized, one-chance-to-get-the-shot filmmaking and it is beyond impressive.

I enjoyed watching this! Full of cool and clever special effects and plenty of moments to make you laugh. Chaplin did such a good job of creating such a silly little character. The story was creative and fascinating, with imaginative concepts and energetic cinematography. It was a fun watch for sure. Delightfully absurd, yet it did give voice to the woes of unemployment and the voracious appetite of capitalism at the price of some disposable human equipment. Silliness with a sting. I recommend it!

8/10

Bye love you

Rebel Without a Cause (1955)

No

[5/10 · 8 April 2015]

I was really excited about this one because of how iconic James Dean is and because I had never seen something with him in it before, and honestly, I was disappointed. I was really annoyed throughout the entire movie. I read a little bit more about the movie afterward and it enlightened me to the film's strengths that gave it "classic" status, which helped a little bit, but I can't ignore the fact that this was a really annoying movie.

I don't usually pay too much attention to film titles, but this one truly says it all. Bunch of angry suburban kids causing mischief for no reason, essentially. I get that there was an element of emotional neglect from adults, which fueled their teenage debauchery, but it played out like a bunch of spoiled white kids messing everything up for everyone else because they didn't know how to deal with their problems. It's a real issue, this painful separation between generations, but this movie was so melodramatic about it. I hate to compare negatives (because a negative is a negative and that's that), but there are a multitude of other more important, more devastatingly horrible issues out there. I don't expect every movie to tackle an societal problem, I get that some movies are just fun, but if they wanted to make a drama about a problem, they should have picked something else. I just didn't care. I didn't feel bad for these kids.

It was so dramatic, the story was weak, a vessel for the studio to make money off of Dean more than anything. That's like every Zac Efron movie. Not much substance, but with an exceptionally attractive male displaying both strength and sensitivity- it's a formula to make profit. That's why I'm surprised this is a classic. Seems like something a 1950s Teen Nick might put out for a quick buck or something. The story-telling was bizarre, also. They tried to do some kind of "let's get this story started and fill in the blanks of his past later," which I've seen work many times, but it just didn't work here. I felt like I came into a movie halfway through, too many details merely implied, too many rapid jumps in story/relationships, just made it frustratingly mysterious for no reason. Pacing was so strange. Starts out ominous and tense, then after bad things happen, it gets light-hearted and silly.

The only things I really enjoyed were the aesthetics, and I'm not sure how much credit they should get for that considering the ~aesthetics~ I enjoyed so much were just how things looked back then. I also did see the spark that has made James Dean so legendary despite his short career/life. His acting was over-the-top, in my opinion, at some points, but he really did have something about him that was fascinating.

Such a bizarre film to me. By the time it was over I had more questions than I had answers and that is enormously frustrating. I really, really didn't like it but I'm so confused that I didn't enjoy such a widely beloved film so I might try to give it a viewing again but I highly doubt it.

5/10

Bye love you

Citizen Kane (1941)

Truly An Amazing Film

[10/10 · 8 April 2015]

Hate to agree with the pretentious, boring film students who basically worship their copy of Citizen Kane (and rebuke every other classic or new film) I used to go to school with, but this is truly one of the greatest films ever made. I've watched it a handful of times and it never fails to stun me.

Everything about this movie is perfect, it'd be a waste of time to list all the characteristics of this film that make it the legend it is- but I'm just gonna waste a little. Welles was so gifted. The cinematography is beautiful the whole way through. Fantastic use of lights and shadows. He was so artistic with his techniques, every scene was planned down to each detail. And the variety! Wow, so many different techniques with Welles' touch on them. His style is like visual candy, and every shot is sweet.

All performances were excellent! Amazing they all came from the same place, and this was the first film for all of them. I was especially blown away by Welles, of course, considering he created one of the most iconic characters in film history. His performance was spectacular, from 25 year old Kane to old Kane, brilliant. The make-up applied to age the characters was so impressive. It looked better than some of the make-up work I see these days even. The character development was impeccable. The script was great. Good dialog, never lags, was always interesting. The non-chronological format was expertly executed, the transitions passing through years, transitions from flashback to present- seamless every time.

There is nothing about this movie that I don't like. Such a monumental achievement, it's such a shame that Orson Welles had so many problems with the film industry. Can't imagine what he'd have left behind had the studios let him have total control. Anyway, obviously I strongly recommend this film and love having it in my own collection.

10/10

Bye love you

It Happened One Night (1934)

An Absolute Mess

[4/10 · 8 April 2015]

I enter every movie viewing with energy and delight, and this time was no different, but by the time that thing was over I was angry. I am shocked that this is a classic and won so many awards- shocked, to an extent. I'm aware that society was ~different~ back then but I can't just ignore the blatant sexism prevalent in films from this time. In the same way that a racist movie would infuriate me beyond my ability to ignore for entertainment's sake, the disgusting misogyny in this film made it nearly unbearable. People say, "it was a different time!" but I don't care. It's disgusting now, it was disgusting back then, and no art/entertainment gets a pardon just because it was a hit when it came out.

Despite this film having a female lead, she was nothing but a plot device. How the main character could make a total of ONE decision of her own within the span of an entire feature film is truly beyond me. Summaries of the film cushion the plot with things like, "she agrees to help him if he keeps her secret" but in actuality this was a woman on the run from a controlling father who was threatened with violence into giving that sleazy reporter a story or else he would give her up to that controlling father. Literally romanticized Stockholm's Syndrome. This is described as a romance movie but there was nothing romantic about it. This is a movie about men wanting a woman to do what they want instead of what she wants. The word "demented" popped into my mind multiple times while watching in reaction to things these men would do to her.

The characters were really annoying, all of them. The things that were supposed to be romantic were just gross. There must be a million ways to make a story about a runaway heiress, you know? It's an interesting premise but it was executed incredibly poorly, with totally unlikeable characters and multiple disturbing dynamics in play. Plot holes so enormous even the male lead's gigantic head would get lost in them. Professional appearance, decent sound, standard cinematography- not a particularly artistic film. Weak story, poorly told, no character development besides developing them from strangers to creepy, controlling jerks. I hope no bizarre situation occurs in which I am ever forced to watch this again.

4/10

Bye love you

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

Such a Magical Movie

[10/10 · 8 April 2015]

I love watching the classics and actually seeing every reason it's a classic in the first place. Some classics make me question the sanity of the people who made them, but luckily The Wizard of Oz deserves its title.

No need for an extensive review, honestly. Everything was great. The performances were wonderful, the story was brilliantly adapted, and the music was just delightful. So many iconic images, moments, and words, a whimsical fantasy land, special effects (COLOR!) that had audiences in 1939 screaming and cheering. Such a fun watch, I can't get over it. I highly recommend you let yourself experience this beautiful film. I can't wait to watch it with my grandkids someday.

10/10

Bye love you

The Grand Illusion (1937)

"You have no right to open my ham."

[9/10 · 1 April 2015]

I really, truly enjoyed this film. I wasn't expecting to because war-related movies aren't particularly my thing, but this isn't really about war. To me, it was a film about humanity, and it delivered its message with such grace. The story was solid and made for a really pleasant experience. I caught myself wondering how the heck the filmmaker made me want them to escape almost as much as they wanted it, and that's awesome.

The acting was excellent. It seemed effortless for them to be these characters, and I've never felt that before when watching a movie. The main character was my favorite, for sure. Handsome in a non-traditional way, and there was something about him that was so mysterious- a combination of cool, tough, fearless, but sensitive. The characters were so genuine. Great performances all around. The respect with which they all treated one another was beautiful, despite the captives/captors dynamic. Not a romance movie but the minor bit of love was surprisingly touching. Not sudden, "I can't live without you!" love like I've seen in a lot of old classics, but gradual, sweet, believable love.

It was a simple, tragic, sweet story. No ground-breaking cinematography, but definitely beautiful. Great establishing shots. The director did a great job of giving the viewer an understanding of the time, the setting, how things worked in the camp, everything. Really smooth and nice panning shots. It's not an especially fast, thrilling story, but it definitely doesn't lag or make you look at the clock either. I enjoyed it the whole way through. No wasting time with unnecessary or redundant scenes or dialog.

I loved this movie, honestly. I definitely recommend it and I'm happy to have it in my collection.

9/10 Bye love you

King Kong (1933)

An adventure

[6/10 · 30 March 2015]

What a movie! I'm not discrediting its merit as a classic, but I have to say that I am shocked that a movie this incredibly sexist is so beloved in the hearts of film buffs. It was dripping with misogyny within the first ten minutes, the male characters insulted women as often as they could, yet were so arrogantly entitled to them?? It was bizarre. The men are rude and ignorant of common decency, and the one female character is oblivious, with her head in the clouds the whole time. The men are so transparent but she never catches on. The grossest exchange was when a man said, "I love you" to a woman, and she replies, flattered and giddy, "but you hate women!!" to which he so eloquently says, "well you're not women." ? That made me angry. It was like this nasty romanticism of misogyny. "I hate women but I love you, a woman" is not cute, or sweet, or romantic.

I could go on but I don't want to get worked up. I just can't get over how unlikeable everyone was. The one female was just a stupid, damsel in distress, plot device, and all the men were pushy white guys who think they can do whatever they want. They were so unbelievably arrogant, like they were all right all the time, knew everything about everything. Deceitful, exploitative, greedy egomaniacs. And there was no character development whatsoever. No one was accountable for their actions, no one learned anything, no one improved and no one became more evil. No change. The character is the same from their first scene to their last. With one enormous exception.

There were things that I did enjoy, don't worry. The story is still exciting despite the pieces of garbage humans in it. Absolutely legendary special effects. The first time we see Kong on screen gave me goosebumps! It was awesome. Try to imagine yourself in the theater in 1933 seeing this stuff, utterly amazed (in between giggles). The special effects blew them away back then but they are wildly adorable now. The special effects aren't perfect obviously, but they're still very impressive for their time and the way that they did it no doubt took so, so, so much work and planning to become the final product. Awesome, awesome creative shots. The planning, the animating, getting these actors to act with something that wasn't there, a tremendous endeavor. The screaming is hilarious, man, it had me cackling. Kong was cute as hell and I love him. The sets are colossal! Awesome hair and make-up. The final scene is legendary and worth the viewing for sure. It is truly a masterpiece on its own- the editing, the sound, the POV shots of the airplanes, so incredible.

Overall, it was just too frustrating to enjoy. Awful characters doing awful things? Not fun. Greed and misogyny? Not fun. Exploitation of women and wildlife for financial gain? Not fun. It was fascinating and exciting, but its cons outweighed its pros, in my opinion. I doubt I'll watch again.

6/10

Bye love you

Grand Hotel (I) (1932)

"Nothing Ever Happens"

[5/10 · 30 March 2015]

Not super impressed with this one. It had its moments but ultimately I can't honestly say that I enjoyed the film.

I guess the importance of this film is that it was the first film to have many main characters with their stories intersecting (seemingly Garry Marshall's recent obsession, with a holiday twist). I absolutely adore that type of filmmaking, so long as the connections make sense and aren't predictable. It worked for this film and I liked that a lot. Another major accomplishment of this film was how it was so star-studded, with a bunch of big actors working together. These two characteristics that made the film a classic were somewhat lost on me because I'm used to them in modern cinema, and better executed at that.

Good subtle character development in the beginning. Less subtle later, but still good. The dialog was very good. Good writing. The performances were great. Still, the story moved too slowly for me and I do need to be at least a little bit invested in the characters to actually care what they do or what happens to them, and I was not invested. I didn't find anyone particularly likable, with maybe a couple exceptions, but overall, I was turned off by how manipulative everything was. The motive behind nearly every action was personal gain at another's expense, and that's gross. Not a fun watch for me, to be honest. I was bored and I was just waiting for it to be over about halfway through. I don't want to watch it again and I don't want to own it ever.

5/10

Bye love you

Frankenstein (1931)

Frankenstein isn't even the name of the monster :O

[8/10 · 30 March 2015]

Definitely deserves its title as a classic! What a fun monster movie, and an important one considering it was among the first of its kind. The whole thing was great. Amazing production design- the sets are amazing, props are creepy, and the setting is perfect. The special effects are creative and effective, occasionally silly but they did great for what they had. The cinematography was well done also. The variety of shooting techniques/angles utilized exceeds those of my recent viewings of films from around this time. The use of light and shadows was impeccable, felt its influence permeate the mood of every single scene. It's so….put-together-looking. Every detail was considered, and it's clear a lot of work went into this film!

The performances were excellent all around. Dr. Frankenstein was the ideal mad scientist. Not excessively bananas, like ridiculously so- just the right amount. Intelligent, handsome, proper young man who just happens to have freaky ambitions when it comes to his career, or his legacy more appropriately. The monster was also brilliantly performed. Outstanding. Dope reveal of the monster. What an iconic moment. I can't imagine what it felt like to be in a theater watching this in 1931, wow. The movie also features some bomb symbolism, adds a few layers to the cake. Great hair, make-up, and costumes. Appropriate for the era, and creepy at the same time.

The story-telling was good! The script certainly didn't waste any time, in good and bad ways. There were points where the plot progressed too quickly/nonsensically (i.e. characters make enormous assumptions based on fragments of information, wholeheartedly invest themselves in them and their plans of action in response, and are correct somehow), but generally it was paced well. I recommend it. I'm sure I'll watch it again someday but I'm not in a rush to add it to my collection.

8/10

Bye love you

Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

A Good Sequel, and Strong Enough as its Own

[8/10 · 30 March 2015]

A fantastic sequel! I was impressed by the voice-over narration and the scenes from the original being included. Really good way to start out a sequel. It had a strong story! Although I do find the title to be a little misleading, but that doesn't really matter, I guess. One thing that I, and every other horror film viewer, know is that horror movies are notorious for having characters who, in their terrorized state, make the worst decisions possible- and this film is no exception. There were so many characters who were constantly making stupid mistakes and causing unnecessary harm to others/themselves. And they never learn." New information? Bad outcome? Who cares! Let's do the same thing over again!" That was a little frustrating, but what can ya do? *shrugging emoji* Fascinating characters, new and old. Great character development with the monster. Amazing effects!! AMAZING, can't believe what they managed to do in 1935. Really impressed by their creativity and innovation in story-telling techniques. Great angles, a wide variety, including some very Beautiful, elaborate sets, and impressive props. A great score complementing the film, wow.

Super creepy, thrilling, and very entertaining. Gotta suspend your disbelief many times regarding the mortality of the characters. I'm sure it was just due to a more modest audience's standards, but to a viewer in 2015, the violence is silly. Any deliberate killing was done with minimal effort and in a way that obviously wouldn't actually kill anyone, but when serious injuries occur they heal rapidly, miraculously.

Definitely a good watch. I recommend it. Don't know if I'll ever watch it again and or own it, but it's a fun one!

8/10

Bye love you

Metropolis (1927)

What a ride

[9/10 · 30 March 2015]

First of all, I just love this movie. It blows me away every time I watch it. Filled with awesome shots and angles, and the special effects are just outstanding. So many facets of this film shocked me just because I did not expect them to be in a film from this time. The techniques and styles that I thought were more modern, results of decades of filmmaking, are actually born from this time. The models of the city, the machines, everything, was spectacular. The sets were so grand and stylized, absolutely stunning. The style of this film is breathtaking. This is my favorite film of the Expressionist era. Characteristics of other Expressionist films that I felt were too dramatic were just right in Metropolis. The acting was just right, not too over-dramatic. There were still moments of arms flailing, eyes bulging, and random, intimate, somewhat forceful embraces, but generally the performances were perfect. I love the way the underground workers performed so uniformly in their exhaustion, despair, and hope, waning hope. Maria's performance was particularly stellar to me. The make-up, the hair, use of lights and shadows, and the set design indicative of Expressionism were all excellent.

A stellar story! Noticed a couple impossibly fast jumps in plot but that's something I'm seeing in every film I watch from this era. Definitely a movie with a message. Don't 100% agree with the overall moral of the film, but I was pleased by a lot of the films bits of wisdom and poetry. I think this is an incredibly important film on class differences and separation, and the exploitation of the lower class by CEOs with fat wallets and cold hearts- still applicable and hugely important in 2015. The conclusion was more tame and dreamy than it should have been, in my opinion. Nonetheless, it was an incredibly innovative and creative way to show a cultural issue. The first true science fiction epic, made in a medium that was relatively new- wow, this was an enormous endeavor and it was handled like a real visionary. Imagine taking a relatively new art form and doing things so innovative that they're still used and still impressive one hundred years later! The imagination of this filmmaker is absolutely astonishing. I am so impressed with the artistry of this film. The metaphorical sequences were a huge treat, oh man, I love that stuff. The scene with the statue of the seven sins is definitely going on my list of favorite film scenes ever. No doubt. The score is so exciting and ominous, powerful and epic, very good at conveying at setting the mood and conveying the feelings of the characters/moment.

Such an important story, told in such an amazing way- allegorical, but universally applicable, a voice for the people against injustice, a portrait of greed and corruption, the seemingly subjective value of human life, and the price some must pay, sacrificing their lives and dissolving into sweat and dirt for the benefit of the undeserving, unappreciative upper class. Truly an amazing cinematic feat.

9/10 Bye love you

Der blaue Engel (1930)

A Sexy, Mildly Disturbing Classic

[8/10 · 29 March 2015]

I enjoyed this film a lot. It had good character establishment/development, good acting besides some over-obviousness at some points (which was characteristic of films in this era, so can't knock it too much). There was a multitude of great shots, creative angles, and innovative choices in editing- far more than I expected in a film from this time. The sound was clear and the lighting was impeccable. It was the most clean/professional-looking film thus far on my watchlist. The characters were very, very interesting. Lola Lola was hot and so was her attitude. Great performance by her, for sure, but the professor was truly outstanding. The range of emotions his character went through was so expansive, and so excellently portrayed. Great performances all around. The story was good, absolutely. Interesting, sexy, exciting, scary, tragic, and imperfect, of course. One thing I'm still adjusting to with watching old films is how insanely fast people fall in love??? It's like they have one good exchange and then they're embracing each other, grasping each other's biceps firmly with this abrupt burst of passion and commitment, touching noses. No one falls in love that fast. I don't know if their standards were different in real life back then or if they just hadn't worked out how to tell a story where love grows gradually instead of shooting up into the sky. It felt a little bit like lazy story-telling, but only on the romance level. The rest of it had normal pacing, for the most parts. It had its slow, boring moments, but it wasn't too bad. I guess the pacing was kinda weird, rather uneven. The professor's change in character was gradual, foreshadowed, and it made sense- but other developments I found were much too abrupt, without explanation. Anyway, I liked this film a lot. I do recommend it for a viewing. The conclusion was great, mildly disturbing. I wouldn't mind watching it again someday but I don't feel a need to include it in my collection anytime soon. 8/10 Bye love you

Battleship Potemkin (1925)

One good scene and a whole lotta nonsense

[6/10 · 28 March 2015]

I'm not going to lie, I did not enjoy this. I appreciate the importance of the film and the enormous steps it took for early cinema but wow, I was so excited for it to be over. Obviously the context of the film is incredibly important, and it is vital to note that this is a propaganda film. That being said, there aren't really characters. It's like there were just two: the people and the soldiers. The stair scene is just as legendary as it is hailed to be. Halfway through it I noticed my jaw was dropped open as much as possible. I've been watching early films lately and I must say that the violence is shocking. It's not especially graphic or even realistically performed, but the reasons they have to start fighting and the quickness of it was jarring. These soldiers just gunning down civilians was incredibly disturbing and I can't believe that that is a thing that happened, and continues to happen. There were a lot of creative angles and techniques used, absolutely. Just the way the story was told left me guessing a lot. Wasn't a lot of build-up to action, it was just suddenly inaction to action- and since I didn't know what was going on all the time, it was really confusing. Just not a format I'm used to, but I'm working on it.

There were so many points where I was like "okay, I GET IT" like so many repetitive shots and close-ups held for far too long. There were a lot of shots that should have been cut shorter because it would continue on even after the characters were mostly out of frame. There was one scene where two people walk away and the scene keeps going until all we can see is their ankles and I was like, "ok, what do these ankles symbolize" Just kidding, haha, I mean I can't knock this film too much because it's truly an important part of the foundation of modern cinema, and these guys were out there with nothing but ideas and some film equipment. They didn't have film schools, they didn't have movies to watch and study, they didn't have books about filmmaking. I do appreciate this movie's contribution to film but I did not have a good time watching this film. The story didn't do it for me and the shooting style was extremely frustrating to watch. The stair scene is worth a viewing, but I don't intend to watch this again. Not sure why any government would endorse/pay for this, but I'll never pretend to understand Russia.

Did I enjoy it? No Do I ever want to see it again? No Do I ever want to include it in my own collection? No

6/10 Bye love you -Jessie Carlson

Nosferatu (1922)

Amazing for its time, pretty good for today

[7/10 · 25 March 2015]

Nosferatu is a 1922 German film directed by F.W. Murnau, written by Henrik Galeen, and starring Max Schreck, Gustav von Wangenheim, and Greta Schröder.

Liked it, didn't love it. There are so many times during horror films when I think of a smarter plan of action than the characters did, and this movie was just the same. I totally understand that it is a classic, and it definitely deserves to be. It's important to note the time this movie came from while critiquing it. Things in the film that may seem amateur now were ground-breaking back then. The film unfolded in a somewhat confusing manner. Something I've noticed about watching these earlier films is that the pacing is strange. It will be moving incredibly slow and/or including scenes that weren't really necessary, and then things that should take a long time happen in a snap with no explanation. I know that's vague but when watching, be prepared for seemingly random behavior stemming from somewhat ambiguous motives. I thought I was having difficulty suspending disbelief, but you can only blame it on that so many times before you have to accept that the film just isn't filling in all the blanks. It was successful in creeping me out, that's for sure. Interesting enough but I did find myself ready for it to be over a while before it actually was. It has awesome special effects for 1922. There were interesting, creative angles. It is a classic for a reason, definitely, and I'll recommend it, I guess.

Bechdel test: 0/1 Did not pass. Only one female character and her sole reason for existence was to worry about her husband and be in utter despair.

Did I enjoy it? Yes. 1/1

Do I ever want to see it again? I would watch it again, yes.

Do I ever want to include it in my own collection? It's already included but I don't think I would intend to buy it if it wasn't.

7/10 Bye love you -Jessie Carlson

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)

What force drives a man insane?

[8/10 · 25 March 2015]

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is a 1920 German film directed by Robert Wiene, written by Carl Mayer and Hans Janowitz, and starring Werner Krauss, Conrad Veidt, and Friedrich Feher - about a creepy old man and his freaky fair sideshow and the mysterious murders taking place during their presence.

Direction: 2/2 Very strong direction. The director was very in control and thorough with his actors performances and setting the mood for the story. The sets are absolutely amazing, in a bizarre way. The colors, the shapes of the doors, buildings, windows, etc., the make-up, the behavior, was all so peculiar and well done. It definitely kept my attention.

Acting: 2/2 Extremely dramatic. I would consider it too dramatic but I don't want to knock points off for different styles in different eras. It worked for this film, for sure. It was laughable at some points but it's a silent film so I understand that they had to be creative with communicating through their bodies. Dr. Caligari and Cesare were acted perfectly. They were so creepy and weird. They did a great job.

Screen writing: 1/2 It's a silent film so really all I can do is comment on the story, rather than the dialog. The story itself was a trip. Creative, different, interesting. I really enjoyed this film. I was glad to find that it still spooked me despite being from a different time, from a different country, and honestly, because I just don't get spooked too easily. Definitely a fan of the story. I have to say though that if a movie constantly makes me think "Why did you do that?? You should have ——" then in my opinion, it could have been better. There were many times where the characters did things that were straight up stupid or just completely puzzling.

Cinematography: 2/2 Good!! Gotta keep in mind that this was made during the very early years of cinema and the cinematography was either of their own invention or a technique borrowed from fellow film pioneers.

Bechdel test: 0/1 Did not pass. The only female character was Francis's romantic interest and her only role was to be the prize and the dame in distress.

Did I enjoy it? 1/1 I sure did! Definitely recommend it!

Do I ever want or need to see it again? Yes, I would want to watch again. Do I ever want or need to include it in my own collection? Yes, I own it happily.

8/10 Bye love you -Jessie Carlson

Cabiria (1914)

A Tremendous, Epic Accomplishment for Cinema

[7/10 · 24 March 2015]

This was a confusing, yet highly important, one to watch. I have to say that I haven't watched a silent film in a long time so adjusting to the many, many differences was a struggle. I found the captions to be really lacking in clarity. I appreciate the beauty of their writing but I'm not really trying to decode poetry when watching a silent epic, you know? It's not even that, really, it was the constant introduction of new names without describing who they were or what the hell their problem was. I was under the impression that the captions would describe what was about to happen, but really they just introduced it, which meant that I understood a bit of what was happening before their mouths kept moving and their arms started flailing and fights started happening and I was lost again. I definitely wish I had a historian in my room just quietly explaining where these ancient cities were and why everyone was so upset all the time. I could Google it while watching but I have a strict rule against touching my phone while a movie is on. Try to read up on the context surrounding the story before watching if you can.

Anyway, the sets were grand even by today's standards and that impressed me a lot. Even the special effects they utilized were outstanding, because at that time in cinema, they weren't special effects as much as they were visual tricks that the filmmakers had to figure out and pioneer on their own essentially. I really liked the Maciste character and I wasn't surprised to find that he was extremely popular when this movie came out, too. The naked children everywhere and live birds flying around a set that is actively crumbling and in flames was bananas! It made me wonder how many people/animals died on sets back before there were regulations. The story had many complexities to it and that was cool. It definitely deserves it's title as an epic. It is not an easy watch, but it is a worthwhile one. No doubt it was piloted by a strong plot. I agree with the many others who have said that this is a must-see for people who truly love film. I definitely recommend it and am happy to have it in my movie collection.

Hook (1991)

"Thank you for believing"

[8/10 · 11 October 2010]

Hook I used to watch this movie all the time when I was little. I hadn't seen it for probably 12 years when I saw it on TV and decided to watch it. I really can't think of another time in my life where I have been flooded with memories. For all these years, I've had all these images floating around my head and I had no idea where they came from, and then I watched this movie and I found that they were all from it. I must have watched it a hundred times when I was a tiny tot, haha.

All right, to the review. This is a Steven Spielberg film following a grown-up Peter Pan, who works as a lawyer and completely forgot about his life in Neverland. He is pushed back into his childhood when Captain Hook, hungry for a rematch, kidnaps his kids and holds them ransom. I think it's a really cute, original idea. I never wondered anything beyond the Peter Pan fairytale, so it was cool to see someone else's vision of what happened.

It's a movie aimed to be another Spielberg blockbuster; therefore, it's full of jokes designed to satisfy a large audience and overflowing with enough cheesiness to make your tears taste like Gouda. It tries to appeal to a large audience, and that's it's biggest downfall, I think. It seems like the only funny jokes are the ones where it didn't seem like they were trying to get you to laugh. I liked that though, I love hidden gold.

The actors were pretty good. I didn't hate Williams' character. I didn't like him so much either, but I didn't feel the same way I did about him in RV. Most of the child actors were awful, but I don't mean for that to sound as bad as it does. Usually I can't stand child actors, usually I think they all suck, but some of the Lost Boys were adorable and acted like real kids, instead of cute little robots. I laughed a lot during this movie, and most of the time it was because of those little boys. They're funny.

I'm certainly not saying this is the best movie ever, or Spielberg's gem, but it has a special quality to it that I'm not sure I can describe. It has all the qualities of a movie I'd hate, but somehow I love it. Why is that? Just nostalgia? I don't know. Maybe it's the message, maybe it captures my hatred of becoming an adult and losing all powers of imagination. I love the moral of the film, it's cheesy, yes, but delicious. I hate to sound like a sentimental grandma, but I feel like this film contains a lot of that "movie magic" that makes cinema so special. It's a cute movie, it's a feel-good thing. It's full of creativity and happiness, family and love. Nice things. I'm definitely gonna buy it some day and watch it with my kids over and over. I love it. I recommend it. :)

Night of the Living Dead (1990)

A Great Zombie Flick!

[8/10 · 11 October 2010]

I had always heard of this film, heard it was an amazing classic, so when it came on free one day I decided to check it out. I'm not sure if the "classic" is only the original or if the remake qualifies for that title as well, but I thought it was good! The 1990 Tom Savini-directed version follows a young woman who goes to visit her mother's grave with her brother but is attacked by a zombie and seeks refuge in a house with other uninfected humans.

The graphics are pretty good for the '90s! I was cringing a lot. This movie really scared me, not in the way where it's hard to go to sleep, but I was scared for the people in the film. The characters were all right. The acting wasn't amazing and the character development wasn't top-notch but it wasn't horrible. You could tell whether Savini intended for you to like the character or not, which is nice. I like when you either favor or dislike a character in a horror film because the feelings you have about them directly influence how the movie makes you feel: you're happy when your beloved character survives and stoked when the one you hate gets his head bitten off, or you're bummed when your favorite dies and your least favorite walks away with nothing but a scratch. I just love when movies make me feel something, even for just a little while, and this film succeeds.

There aren't any especially beautiful shots. I didn't notice any spectacular cinematography, but I still really enjoyed it. The zombies are great. I love how they walk, I love their appearances, I love how they attack. This movie is a great zombie flick! Completely satisfying in its genre. I laughed, I got angry, I got frustrated, I celebrated (not really, but I got stoked a few times :P). The script is pretty good, it fits the genre and the style. There's a character you hate (you'll know which one) and his lines are incredibly ridiculous! Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if he got his insults from a kindergarten playground. I didn't really blame the film, because it's a zombie film and from the '90s, I thought I'd let it go. Like, I'm not expecting an Oscar-nominated film, you know? Haha.

So, yeah, I loved this movie a lot. It's everything a zombie movie should be. I may or may not buy it, I dunno, but I would love to watch it a few more times in my future. It's good stuff! I recommend it.

I Think We're Alone Now (2008)

Bizarrely Sad

[7/10 · 11 October 2010]

I Think We're Alone Now is a documentary by Sean Donnelly about two mentally-disturbed individuals obsessed with '80s pop star Tiffany. This is one of the most interesting documentaries I have ever heard of. I almost bought it at Salzer's as soon as I read it because I was so intrigued, but it was like $28 for some weird reason and I only had $6. :( I finally got to see it and I was not let down. It was just as interesting as I thought it would be, possibly even more, in fact. I thought I was just going to witness the infatuation of one middle aged man, but I actually got to meet a 31 year-old hermaphrodite who saw Tiffany in a vision she had during a coma and now believes she's "the one." Damn. I could not look away from this movie. I was exhausted, but I never turned it off. It is completely fascinating. It's funny, but you feel bad for laughing because it's most likely at something weird that one of the stalkers says. I don't like laughing at them but their thoughts are so unbelievable. I never got the impression that Donnelly was making this film so that we could laugh at these people, it was never like that. I think the purpose of the film is more to show people who these stalkers are, to see their reasoning and understand their disease. I don't think they're sick monsters, they're just lonely.

My problem with it was that it didn't flow smoothly. It was a pretty choppy film. You'd be watching, and then randomly it would switch to the middle-aged man, then randomly back to Kelly, the hermaphrodite. It was all over the place bouncy, staccato. It was still enjoyable though.

It's a very emotional film. It's tragic to see these people, outcasts of average society, believe wholeheartedly that they can capture the heart of a celebrity. They have no doubt that if Tiffany just had a conversation with them, that they could convince her to marry them and live together. It's bizarre. It's so crazy to see these mental illnesses in action. I was flabbergasted by almost everything they said. They really live in a delusion, and it's really amazing to witness. Tiffany is actually in the film a lot too, and it's interesting to see how she handles them. She's very sweet.

I do recommend this film. It's a great watch, incredibly difficult to put your attention elsewhere as it plays on your screen. I may buy it someday, for an occasional re-watch to make me laugh and feel thankful for my sanity, but it's not a priority. It's only about an hour long so even if you don't like it, you won't feel too bad about the time spent with it. It was thoroughly enjoyable.

See No Evil (2006)

A Horrible Horror Film

[2/10 · 11 October 2010]

This film, by Gregory Dark, is about a group of juvenile delinquents who clean an abandoned hotel harboring a gigantic, murderous psychopath who enjoys killing people and taking out their eyeballs. Sound fun? It isn't.

I feel like it has a pretty interesting premise. It takes the whole cliché of homicidal religious fanatics and teams it up with a group of kids getting into trouble. It's an all right idea, but it has disappointing execution. The actors are terrible. Not only the young actors, but the older ones as well. I wasn't expecting much out of this film when I saw it was a WWE production though, to be honest. I can't think of anyone who I think did a good job acting. Seriously, no one comes to mind. That's terrible. The dialogue was stupid. It was just really lame, C movie material. It was pretty predictable. It was gory, yeah, but I was pretty bored. I wasn't ever scared; however, I was clenching my fists in frustration often. It's one of those movies where the characters are completely oblivious to everything that's going on and just make stupid mistakes. It's annoying.

There's one thing I liked about this movie and it is the cinematography. Things were well lit, there were nice angles, beautiful shots. It's a nice looking movie. Too bad it didn't have any substance.

I watched this movie a couple years ago and hated it. I thought maybe I just had no taste back then and I might like it now, but no. It's still awful. I definitely don't recommend it. I certainly will not be buying it ever or watching it again.

RV (2006)

A Waste of Time

[4/10 · 4 October 2010]

Oh my goodness, terrible. My friend and I tried to pick a movie to watch that we wouldn't have to get into, wouldn't have to think much about, and we picked the right one. This one has pretty much requires no intelligence to understand. Everything is made obvious to you, even the things that are meant to be "implied." There are stares that go on for way too long, as if you couldn't get the meaning in the first second of it. I was kind of insulted watching this film, thinking, "Man, they must really expect the viewers to have no cognitive abilities." I understand that movies aimed toward the child demographic need to be a little more forward than films for old folks, but come on. There are plenty of kids movies that don't make average-minded people feel like geniuses, take Wall-E. Most of that movie doesn't even have substantial dialogue and kids love it! This movie is just a huge failure.

It's a comedy, but I laughed one time. Once. And the only reason I laughed was because of how funny it looked and how impossible it was. Almost everything that happens in this film is completely unlikely. I had a hard time getting into it because every time I almost did, something happened that could never really happen. Yeah, I get that one of the best things about the art of film is the freedom to make impossible things happen, but it's supposed to be a film relating to the "average" family, it's supposed to be a caricature of real life. I guess, in a way, it succeeded in that respect, because caricatures are exaggerated versions of the truth, but it exaggerates too much. I didn't like anyone in the family. I guess the son was all right, but the rest were terrible. They were just a bunch of jerks. The daughter who is supposed to be the typical grumpy teen, is just a hateful witch. I couldn't stand her. Anybody with a kid that awful would send them away or something. She was terrible. But the weird thing was, in one cheesy second, she'd be an angel. And then another second would pass and she'd be spitting acid on her poor father again. She was some kind of crazy, bipolar dragon.

One good thing was the establishment of the Gornicke family. It's not that they're lovable, but they're developed. The combination of their back story and their unorthodox antics makes an interesting, entertaining piece of the film. At a couple points, I actually felt bad for them. I think that was a success, to make me sympathize with people that annoyed me. That was good.

Other than that, no. Don't watch it. I don't recommend it, not even for kids. Go watch Wall-E.

Notorious (2009)

A Good Biopic

[7/10 · 29 September 2010]

Notorious is a biographical film about the rapper Notorious, how he came to fame, and his death. It's pretty educational regarding his life, I learned a lot of things I didn't know.

Something that really bothers me about movies based on real life is when the characters don't look anything like who they're supposed to be. The only person who really looked like who they were supposed to was Notorious, but everyone else was confusing. A lot of the time I was just waiting for someone to call somebody else by their names before I knew what was going on. That was really frustrating for me.

Another thing I've heard is that it doesn't capture the amazing personality of Notorious, and I kind of understand. It does capture a little bit of it though, for sure. The film didn't really make me understand how he became so famous and loved so fast. It tried to say it, but it was way too vague and quick about it. There was too much focus on his love life and not enough on his career, in my opinion.

The plot was interesting. It's made even more interesting because it's true. I liked the story-telling techniques by the director, but I feel like he could have done better. There were some things that needed more explaining, and some things that needed less. It's all right.

The music is great, but of course, only if you like rap. If not, you probably won't have a good time. I really love Biggie's style and I think he was really skilled, so I really enjoyed watching the parts when he was rapping. It has a great soundtrack.

Main point, I liked this film. It had beautiful shots and a nice style. It captured the streets of New York and the dangers of the gangster life. I'm not saying it's the best one ever, but it was a little better than decent. I recommend it for a rent or to borrow from a buddy, but I probably won't be buying it soon.

The Graduate (1967)

A Great Classic

[9/10 · 29 September 2010]

First of all, I completely understand why this film is a classic. It's the story of a young college graduate, uncertain about his future, beginning an affair with a tempting older, married woman. It's an interesting plot, a dirty one. That's what makes it so interesting.

Dustin Hoffman does a great job playing the character of Benjamin. All of his mannerisms, his words, his facial expressions work together to create a young college graduate perfect for this film. Bancroft is excellent in her role as well, as a seductive, bitter housewife. I really believe every actor did a great job in his or her role, I was impressed.

Another thing I really loved about the movie is the soundtrack. I wouldn't say I'm particularly a fan of Simon and Garfunkel, but after seeing this movie, I'm considering purchasing some of their music. The way it complemented the scenes, the mood it set, was extraordinary. I really loved it. I always think it's cool when movies have just one artist making the soundtrack, because their sound becomes synonymous with the message of the film somehow. Every time I hear a song from a movie, I really want to go watch that movie, and I feel like that's what's going to happen anytime I hear some Simon and Garfunkel. I'm looking forward to it, it was really great. :) The plot is really interesting. I thought the film was only about this affair, but it evolved into more than that. It evolved into a love story, and I really was not expecting that. The only weird thing to me was how quickly and easily things happened or were resolved. Some characters seem to get a little crazy and obsessive by the end, but maybe that's just the portrait of love Nichols was going for. Hah.

There are a lot of good scenes and filming techniques that make this movie a huge joy to watch. I was entertained the whole time and I laughed a lot. I definitely recommend it and would love to add it to my collection someday. :)

Babel (I) (2006)

A Beautiful Film

[8/10 · 29 September 2010]

This is one of those films where several different stories are weaved together, and fortunately, it's one of those films that does it well. Four stories: a couple vacationing in Morocco deal with tragedy, a maid battles between responsibility and personal needs, young boys make a mistake and are too afraid to come clean, and a deaf-mute in Japan deals with peer pressure and the death of her mother. These are the most bare summaries I can give, because I don't want to give too much away, but I promise this is a really interesting movie. It's very good. Definitely worth your time.

Because of the four different stories, there's a lot going on and there aren't really any boring points. I remember being interested the whole time, and I really liked it.

The first time I watched the movie, I didn't put subtitles on. I thought they would come on automatically, and since they didn't, I thought it was a brave move by the filmmakers, an attempt to make the viewers interpret the plot according to facial expressions, body language, and intensity of vocalization…abstract, film student things like that. Hah. I was wrong. You need subtitles. It's definitely better with them. :P This film is very visually pleasing. The cinematographer did a really great job. Pretty much every scene is beautiful, and every landscape shot is gorgeous. The dialogue is very good. It helps the story, it helps the viewer's understanding of the character, and it's well written. The acting is good. There was no one I really had a problem with, no one really destroyed the illusion, so that was great for sure.

It's a very good movie and I like it a lot, but for some reason, I didn't love it immediately. Maybe I need to watch it a couple more times or something, ponder it further, I don't know. There's something keeping me from loving it and wanting to buy it as soon as I can. Nonetheless, I recommend it. It's a good film.

2:37 (2006)

Deserves to be Watched without Comparison to Elephant

[8/10 · 29 September 2010]

This is an Australian film following the day in the life of several high school students, a day concluding with a suicide. It's very engaging. The whole film you're wondering which one is going to be the one to end his or her life, you're looking for signs. The ending is not disappointing, in my opinion.

I loved this movie. The acting could have been a little bit better, but most of the actors were very good. The dialogue was good, the techniques in filming were good. The "twists" were somewhat predictable, unfortunately, but they still entertained me. If you're one to want twists to blow your mind, this will disappoint you.

The ending is debated highly. Some say it doesn't make sense. I can completely understand why someone would say that, although I completely disagree. I see the meaning in the film, whether intended as I interpreted or a product of my own mind, haha. I was very satisfied with the ending, it made sense to me immediately.

A lot of people compare this to Gus van Sant's Elephant because of the technique van Sant used, where often the same scene can be present several times in the movie from different perspectives. People criticize the movie because they think the director was pretty much just copying Elephant with a different twist, but the director acknowledged van Sant's idea and meant to imitate it in a respectful display of admiration. I personally prefer people to come up with their own ideas, but I don't think it's an awful thing to want to replicate something someone else did as long as you give them their credit. Another thing people do, because of this shared technique, is compare the two. I suggest refraining from that and watching each film on its own terms. To be thinking "Elephant did it better." or "I understood things more in 2:37." is unfair to yourself the whole time. They're both interesting, good films. Elephant is more artsy, more intended to be subject of self-interpretation. 2:37 is uses documentary-like confessionals which set up better character development. That's the main difference between the two. Which one you'll like more depends upon whether you like to think about things in your own way or like to have a lot of the details filled in for you. Anyway, I recommend both.

I would definitely buy this movie.