Change Your Image
Reverend3000
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
To Catch a Thief (1955)
To Catch a Thief? More like To Fall Asleep..
Disappointing. And I'm a Hitchcock fanatic.
Anti-climactic, a bit boring, and just a bit too cute for Hitchcock.
Halloween (2018)
Overrated and Overhyped
The final fight out was suspenseful, and it was fun to see a badass version of Laurie Strode, but it could not redeem the rest of the movie.
The opening scene at the prison=cheesy.
The inflatable pumpkin opening credits= beyond cheesy. (I did laugh out loud in the theaters)
There were too many characters introduced throughout the film with no closure given to some of them. Some of the twists were truly surprising but not all were convincing (like the whole short lived psychiatrist-as-second-antagonist twist. There was no point to even inserting that into the story.) The dialogue was embarrassingly bad at many points as well.
I do not get why this is being hyped as such an exceptional sequel. (Though of course being an "exceptional" Halloween movie isn't really saying much.) The 1978 original is a classic. Then as we all know, it was over-sequelized, and like other horror franchises, were mostly laughably bad movies in themselves (money makers, as people knew they were bad but still enjoyed the thrills). I honestly would consider this film more of that. It was better than other Halloween movies (but again, that's not saying much). But honestly, I would put it on the same par as the 2007 Rob Zombie remake (enjoyable at parts but not a good movie). I would even say Halloween 4 was better than this.
Go see it for the several thrills, but dont believe the hype. I cant believe Carpenter himself is looking at this film like it's so great. He should know better.
The Grey (2011)
Disappointed
This movie had some shining moments. It had some suspenseful moments. It also had a couple of fine performances. But the outcomes of the events are too much on the teeter-totter tipping toward tragic versus good. But that isn't helped either by the unconvincing events that happen and the unrealistic dialogue by some of the characters. First of all, I expected less survivors from the initial crash, and second, it seems that the film writers are feeding you to much of tale, rather than realistic depiction, of people quite literally getting picked off ONE at a time by wolves. And of course, the most lovable characters seem to be able to survive better. This is with the exception of the one antagonist of the group, whose suicidal decision to make the remaining two leave him, is truly unconvincing with an embarrassing monologue on the beauty of the surrounding nature versus the dullness of his life. Yeah, I was unconvinced and found it near laughable. Also, I read some users on here give it praise for some supposed existential message. This undertone of the film did not play well into the movie, and it was unnecessary. While I did like the scene of Liam's character yelling at the sky, this could've been included without the other talk and minor references. If this is what existentialist subject matter is to some viewers, then I have to say I disagree. The little philosophy that was expounded in this film was very cheap, I would say by anybody's terms. And least of all, but still importantly, I recognize that this is a movie, and can taken cinematic liberties. Even Jaws was an excellent movie despite the inaccurate depiction of shark behavior, but this movie's unrealistic portrayal of how wolves act territorially and in relation to humans, is so over the top. These aren't killer bees! And I have to say, one reviewer on here rightly pointed out that none of these characters with knives,thought to use them as spears tied to sticks, which would be anyone's first explored option for defense. However despite this, I was overall entertained, and engaged, the entire time and thought it did have suspense in numerous areas. Also, the wolves do appear frightening. The way this was done truly gave it a chilling feel (despite maybe being laughable to seasoned outdoorsmen that have dealt with wolves).
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
Rewatched some years later. Definitely see the hype.
Python's satire really shines in this movie. I re-watched this movie years after initially seeing it. While "Meaning of Life" has always been my favorite, my preference for it isn't so high after being able to fully appreciate this movie.
The classic Arthurian legend is embedded in our culture moreso than one would think. I both realized this when watching this movie, and realized how classic myth and history is basically set-up for any Python comedic twist.
The folk-singing Sir Robin crew and the virtuous Gallahad scenes are classic, as well as the brief/blunt God the Father (or is it Jesus) opening up the slide-doors cloud to give Arthur his mission.
It is hard not to laugh at anything Python, and "Holy Grail" definitely provides them.
How to Train Your Dragon 2 (2014)
Not very good.
I was expecting this film to be great. I thought the first film in the series was, and I thought there would be both deeper story and more substance and further development to the characters from the first. Well, there definitely was an attempt, but I just thought the execution failed.
I try not to be too critical of movies, especially ambitious projects like this. But this movie felt rushed, and the way the problems and obstacles presented were resolved toward the climax also seemed rushed.
The music of this movie is a definite highlight, but I'm afraid can't make up for a lot of the sappiness in this movie, which is found heavily in Hiccup's familial circumstances and revelations.
This is definitely a wait-for-it-to-come-out on DVD or Blu Ray, if you're going to bother to see it.
Les diaboliques (1955)
Entertaining, more suspense needed
This movie boasts a story with a surprising twist. I could see this formula used in later T.V. serials as a solid thrill tale.
Despite this, I felt I wasn't left on edge throughout the unfolding events. Though well-written, I felt a sense of being dragged on, up until the final twist, which I honestly did not see coming. But despite the unpredictableness of the ending, I could not connect with the two leads as I was always thinking they did something wrong. They were never developed fully in the protagonists I would've liked to see, and that I have seen in other suspense thrillers.
Though for its time, Diabolique enjoyed some mainstream success for being a movie of macabre (something that outside of perhaps Hitchcock films, was not something done too often). I can appreciate the movie for that.
La passion de Jeanne d'Arc (1928)
Cinematography ahead of its time. Interesting recovered film.
This movie, restored for the present day, is visually appealing to the modern viewer. The portrayal of Joan with bright, open eyes stirs up a variety of feelings. It also gives off the vibe of mystique and wisdom well beyond her years, a girl ground in her conviction, always cornered by dark forces in the room, yet remains a light.
It is rather confusing with no back-story,as not everyone grantedly knows the story of Joan of Arc. But like any passion play, the purpose is not so much the circumstances to the setting, but the actions and reactions of the people in the moment.
I found the film very ahead of its time in many aspects. Then dark tone in soon time became the staple of this director. The imagery of death and torture, though not graphic, seems graphic, and gives an illusion of terror in a way that may have seemed taboo in the more conservative 30's,40's, and 50's film making.
The age old battle of clericalism vs. authentic faith and the centuries old account of Joan of Arc, are told through this near-90 year old movie that has a very modern feel. It has a timeless quality rare for an old movie.
I do not think it ranks as high as the historians and students of film proclaim it. But is a must-must-see for any appreciator of film and arts.
The Fault in Our Stars (2014)
Powerful
The Fault in our Stars (or Tfios), is a faithful adaptation of the book by John Green. Green was inspired to write the book after working in a hospital setting with sick children and young adults, when he was contemplating being a chaplain.
Tfios, like the book, shows cancer patients as your everyday person, not as just victims of misfortune. This movie had two strong lead actors portraying Augustus and Hazel.The actress who played Hazel's performance is especially memorable.
Though the third act dragged (as some critics agrees) a little, it was so minimal. At no point during the 2 hours+ length was this movie dull. The movie has enough comedic touches to give a delightful viewing, with also a lot of highly emotionally-charged scenes. It really shows a realistic inside view of people who live their lives with a "foot in the grave".
The love story is central. It is really incredible that these situation surely happens in real life; where two people with highly limited life spans find each other and are meant for each other, as compared to people that are healthy and live a long time that may never find or appreciate that kind of love.
The movie is powerful. It is hard not to be emotionally affected, and moved by it. I highly recommend it.
Shutter Island (2010)
Far too long, slow-moving
I expected much better for another Scorsese-DiCaprio collaboration.
The movie starts out well. I was immediately pulled into what seemed like an interesting story where we'd have a super sleuth investigating a incident and cracking down antagonists one-by-one.
Instead it turned into a psychological thriller that reminded me all too much of other recent psychological thrillers, making it run-of-the-mill.
I thought the movie took far too long to wrap everything up. This could've been done in an hour and forty minutes time. Many of the long dream sequences could've been shortened, they weren't effective anyway, and fall short when compared with Bernard Hermann music-backed dream sequence of Vertigo (which is what Scorsese was going for).
I think this movie is overrated, and the director and lead actor involved have done much more impressive things in their careers, both respectively and together.
Bronenosets Potyomkin (1925)
Stunning Imagery, important but still I feel a bit romanticized even for the time
It is hard for me to criticize this movie because of its importance in cinematic history. As early as 1925, filmed images of large angry, determined masses of people were I am sure few and far in between. Something we take for granted with movies of our time like Hoffa.
Battleship Potemkin, though a must see for any buff or one who appreciates historical events in their context, played out to me like too much of a cliché propaganda film. Obviously I know it was meant for propaganda purposes, so I cannot fault the movie for that. And again, as early as 1925, there wasn't really a mold yet for how propaganda films should look or feel. However, there was news footage, yes even then there was short filmed, propaganda packages with a concise point.
The propaganda of this movie is sometimes just too blatant for me to appreciate it cinematically. Surely, in this time, we had yet to see the horrors and failures of 20th century forced collectivism, and in recent memory was far-right imperial rule in which made the living reality for everyday working men and women, (as always, the majority of the population) a living hell. So in this context, one may try to view this as a film that broke through some kind of barrier to catch that revolutionary spirit and heart of the everyday people who may see this film.
But unfortunately I felt it could've done better. It didn't achieve this exactly at a human level, or a gut connection. The heroes and villains of this seemed too cardboard for me. With every officer, and a clergyman, as stiff oppressors,not one that was sympathetic. Hardly could this be 100% realistic when we are talking of human situations.
I am glad I have finally watched this film. I look forward to watching more of Eisenstein's work.
Blackmail (1929)
The Silent version/presentation does this movie true justice. A monumental silent film.
Being some years since I viewed the commonly available talkie version of Blackmail, in which I did moderately enjoyed, I had the great experience, that I wouldn't take back for anything, to view the restored silent version of Blackmail at the historic Michigan Theater in Ann Arbor, MI accompanied by a live organist.
This movie is incredibly moving. Throughout, I had to shake my head a few times to make sure I wasn't dreaming that I was seeing some movie Alfred Hitchcock made in 1929, just to find out it wasn't really a movie "like this" and be teased. No, this was reality, and yes that's how good I think this film is.
Without the dubbing of Joan Barry (who is an otherwise excellent actress) the actress who plays Alice, shines much brighter. This movie was simply meant for the silent screen.
The plot is different from usual Hitchcock formula. There is no completely wrong perpetrator. It's more a situation of your everyday human beings, with all their good and bad side, caught up in a web that's hard to break, without breaking someone in it. As the drama unfolded, I felt my arm tightening from the suspense.
Not exactly an overlooked film, at least not usually, but I would say Blackmail is a bit underrated. Compared to most of Hitchcock's movies from the 1920's through 1933, this is by far the best. But beyond that, I think it ranks up with the silent greats from Murnau, Vidor, or Griffith. Very enjoyable, especially theatrically.
Lady Jane (1986)
Disappointed.
Helen-Bonham Carter and Cary Elwes give fine performances in the lead roles. Also I think the portrayal of Mary I in this film was good. But despite some of the good performances, I found this movie not very pleasing.
Having read several books on the historical Jane Grey, it is hard to honestly find good in this film despite its historic inaccuracies. But putting aside, when looking at this at a cinematic standpoint alone, I still find much about it I don't enjoy.
The romance between the two leads, makes for what one would call a good "chick flick". However, I think most audience, regardless of gender, would find this display of the romance heavily mawkish. It is hard for me to relate to, and I am someone who usually enjoys romance in film.
Outside of the two leads, the rest of the characters come off as very cardboard-like. And they seem to fit into two different camps: a) plotters/schemers (which no doubt, that kind of thing definitely went on in the Tudor court) and b) honorable people (but are kept at surface level).
For as much cinematic liberties as this took. Some of these character (though usually historic) should've just been molded into one character to save on time for casting, and because it seemed excessive to have as many historic portrayals as they did all in one movie.
I tried to find much good in this film, and I just couldn't. I'd recommend Tudor Rose (1936) aka. Nine Days a Queen, as the superior of these two films in presenting the story as well. Tudor Rose was an incredibly moving picture,and concise (unlike the needlessly lengthy runtime of Lady Jane) but with great performances all around by a solid 30's British cast. It wasn't as historically accurate either. But from a cinematic standpoint, I found Tudor Rose better than this film in terms of Jane Grey movies.