Reviews written by registered user
|19 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
People who say "Do the Right Thing"(1989)is simply a bad film really don't know what their talking about. They let their emotions cloud their judgment to much. Now I think Spike Lee's point was to spark up these emotions in people whether they be sad, angry, remorseful, etc... Now I don't know much about race relations in the late 80's in NYC so I guess I'm no expert on the topic of the film but I think he wanted people to come up with there own interpretation of what the right thing to do was. Im my opinion the only ones to "Do the Right Thing" where Da Mayor and Mister Señor Love Daddy. The ending was one person doing the wrong thing after the other but I feel like the real for everything going wrong were Buggin Out and the random group of kids that would just try and start stuff with everyone and try and escalate problems between people. I'm leaving Radio Raheem and Sal out of it because they just both seem like naturally angry people and Radio Raheem would have stuck to just listening to Public Enemy if it wasn't for Buggin Out rallying him to protest Sal's Pizzeria. In short Buggin Out was a punk, got Radio Raheem killed, and had a riot started which destroyed Sal's Pizzeria. I'm glad he ended up going to jail. =)
Honestly this movie puts all the modern Horror movies to shame. This movie was so original (even though it was based of a novel) and in my opinion still the scariest movie of all time. With amazing writers, actors, director, and cinematography this showed people the potential horror movies have! Now a days the best people come up with is "SAW 5" or "Scream 4". Why do people insist on making shitty remakes when "Paranormal Activity" has shown people you can still make an original horror movie in modern times and have it be a big success. Now "Paranormal Activity" doesn't really stack up to the "The Exorcist" (1973) but still fits in the category of amazing horror movies. The key recipe I believe this movie figured out is to slowly disturb people. I mean at first Regan MacNeil simply wireds you out by pissing on the floor at a dinner party then saying some nasty things to the guests but before you know it shes crab walking backwards down the stairs, her head is spinning around 360, and I've soiled my pants! I guess It matters that I was 10 when I first saw this movie but even though I may not show it, it scares me just as much today as it did back then. For going up and beyond what the horror genre was thought to be I give "The Exorcist" a 10/10.
This movie just helped solidify my love of the wave of New Hollywood films even more. Dustin Hoffman is amazing as the newly graduated Benjamin Braddock and Anne Bancroft role as the first seductive and then vengeful Mrs.Robinson is fantastic. While it is just my opinion I feel like Cinema really came alive after the death of the Hayes Code. Now I know along with this came the creation of plenty of films whose only goal is to entertain with shock value but pre-code movies just don't have the raw freedom post code movies have. While I know this isn't the main message of the film I feel like it does a pretty good job of showing it. First of all a man and woman even if married couldn't sleep in the same bed together and here you have a 40 something year old married Anne Bancroft seducing an almost 21 year old Dustin Hoffman; then latter Dustin Hoffman going after Katharine Ross who plays Elaine Robinson Bancroft's fictional daughter. It really showed off the new freedom Hollywood now had and in my opinion opened up cinema as an art form even more. Amazing performances accompanied by an amazing soundtrack by Simon and Garfunkel and amazing cinematography by Robert Surtees make this one of my favorite movies and in my opinion one of the greatest films of all time.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
"Where the Sidewalk Ends" (1950) is a film noir about a New York City police detective named Mark Dixon who in an effort to escape from the criminal past of his father tries to find justice by any means necessary. To be more blunt about it Dana Andrews plays a dick cop who means well. In the film Dixon finds himself trying to solve a murder and put Tommy Scalise, a gangster that was put away by Dixon once only to be let go. While the murder did happen in one of Scalise's gambling establishments he didn't actually kill anyone and in an effort to find evidence he did Dixon ends up accidentally killing the real murderer Ken Paine. In an effort to hide Paine's body and put Scalise behind bars Dixon ends up falling in love with Paine's ex Morgan Taylor-Paine and gets her father caught up as the suspected culprit of killing Paine. In the end in an effort of getting Scalise behind bars and clear Morgans father of all charges Dixon goes to Scalise's hideout and tries to get him to kill him; even though this plan fails Scalise is still caught. In the end Dixon confesses to the original crime and serves his time in jail. It really was a great film and is definitely worth checking out if you have some time on your hands.
"The Killing" (1956) Is by far the worst film Stanley Kubrick ever made. I completely under stand it was a B-movie and this was very early in his career but in my opinion this film is straight up terrible. The main problem is the film tries to follow to many characters at once. It also seems to focus to much on un-important characters and leave important ones with blank backgrounds or at least with major holes in their back stories. George and Sherry Peatty are the perfect example of getting way to much camera time. You would have sworn that they were the main characters even though that place is taken by Johnny Clay. The film also has this terrible narration placed in after post production because the people backing the film thought the films nature of jumping between characters all the time would be confusing. If anything it just made the audience think they were being babied and needed story direction spoon fed to them. The only thing this film has going for it are a decent overall plot, some strong performances by a few actors, and Kubrick's inventive camera work; including an amazing POV shot after a shoot out. I'd say stay away from this movie unless you have to watch it, but that's just one mans opinion.
In my own opinion if you want to make a musical about a musical you better be Mel Brooks. "Singin' in the Rain" (1952) is by no means a bad movie and the dancing and comedic feats of Donald O'Connor as Cosmo Brown are sure to delight anyone, but the this musical movie is about the making of musical movies and at times seems to trade of substance to add an extra dance number. If you love Musicals by all means this is the film for you, but if your like me and your indifferent about them I'd steer clear of this one. To me a good musical will incorporate the song/dance number into the actually plot, "Singin' in the Rain" (1952) often fails to do this. Now the scene where Don Lockwood and Kathy Selden finally meet up again and have a romantic duet in a studio on a Hollywood lot the film does a great job of incorporating the song into the plot. An example of where the movie fails to do this is during the number "Moses Supposes" where Don and Cosmo are at a professor of linguistics office and break out into this goofy little number for pure entertainment. Now I don't mind a funny goofy musical scene but at least make it matter!!! If you love musicals and have some time to waste then by all means enjoy the film; if not please look elsewhere because "Singin' in the Rain" is not for you.
When I first saw this film I blown away. It was the first older film I ever saw and thought, "simply amazing!" It really turned me on to the classics and opened my mind to the concept that in terms of how great a movie is it doesn't matter when the film was made. Orson Welles was only twenty six when he made "Citizen Kane"(1941)! Some men will spend there wholes lives trying to create a movie as amazing as this and most will fail yet Welles hit this one out of the park at such a young age! On top of that it was Welles first film ever made! The success might be credited to that Welles was given full creative control of the film by RKO Pictures. The use of sound in this film is unreal, and it seems like every scene can be deconstructed to find 100 different meanings behind every characters action and the objects/places that surround them. This Film à clef uses exceptionally peculiar narrative and direction to tell you the story of Charles Foster Kane. Starting from Kane's last words, going to a news real, then jumping between the interviews of reporter Jerry Thompson to the flashbacks of the ones he questioned. All this accompanied by daring and creative cinematography and amazing acting by Orson Welles and his crew solidify this piece as cinema gold. Don't get me wrong this is in no way my favorite film but I'd think even a person who despised this film would have a hard time saying it wasn't the greatest film known to man. For this I give it 10/10.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
While "Foreign Correspondent" (1940) may not be the greatest Hitchcock film it's still a Hitchcock film which basically in it's own right makes this film great. Joel McCrea is fantastic as Johnny Jones an American reporter trying to expose German spies over in Great Britain; around the time just before the British entered WW2. The whole films great but the part that really stuck out to me as amazing was the scenes of the thought to be body guard Rowley following "Huntley Haverstock" (Johnny Jones) around England. Time and time again Rowley tries to off Jones (and fails) while pretending he's actually trying to save him. While the concept is quit dreary the actual scenes are hilarious. This comes to an end though when they find themselves hiding out from imaginary men ,whom Roley said were following them, in the Westminster Cathedral. When they get to the top Roley keeps trying to get Jones to look at the view while he tries to make sure no one else is up there with them. Finally when Roley gets the two of them alone he takes a running start and tries to push Johnny Jones over the edge but is sidesteps and goes diving over himself. This is shown by a barley believable dummy being tossed of off the Cathedral. To me this is by far the funniest scene in the entire film and while the Master of Suspense was trying to keep you n the edge of the seat during this scene you could also tell he was having a crack at your funny bone at the same time. I can't say that this film is one of my favorites but that scene is definitely up there.
Until recently I've never seen "Casablanca"(1942). The only thing I could tell you about it was that Humphrey Bogart was in it and there was a scene on a foggy airfield somewhere. Other than that I just thought it was some good classic film that simply got over hyped like so many others. Within 30 minutes of the movie I could clearly see I was mistaken. The story, acting, and sets were all fantastic but what really won me over was the amazing cinematography work by Arthur Edeson. Especially the scenes shot in "Rick's Café Américain". The use of lighting and shadows was fantastic and gave this film a sort of film noir precursor feel. This film knows exactly when to let information go at exactly the right time and when to add a little comic relief when things start to get tense; whither it be the delight wit and charm of Bogart or the antics of Szőke Szakáll. "Casablanca"(1942) will keep you guessing with whats going to happen with the characters facing many moral dilemmas and you not knowing if their going to take the high or low road. This was one amazing film that lived up to its hype and for that I give it a 10-10
When I say this I don't mean in the sense of how accurately the film follows Steinbeck's novel; the film starts to stray from the books story around halfway through the movie. What I mean is the film is great on it's own and ,unlike most film adaptations of books, this movie kept most of the others message intact. The key difference I found was that the book was much sadder. I know it's hard to believe seeing how depressing this movie was but their were many things the director chose not to show. The biggest difference was in the endings. The film leaves you with some since of optimism for these people, the novel does no such thing. The book leaves you with Rosasharn giving birth to a stillborn and offering her breast milk to a man dying of starvation. This obviously could have never been shown in theaters during the 1940's and I'm glad for it. I believe it would have been one powerful scene but the book was way to sad to begin with and the film was pretty depressing as well. Currently we could have handled a film like that just fine but back in the 1940's this was some amazingly heavy stuff. I just think keeping to Steinbeck's original ending would have instilled to much ill feelings in Americans in a time where we needed some optimism. So great film, don't watch it though if you can't handle a little despair though.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |