jacabiya Reviews

Regression (I) (2015)

Unbeliever to the end?

[2/10 · 24 March 2024]

When I saw that the director was tackling the theme of satanic rituals I expected the film to finish as it did, no surprise there. It is well-known that the director has a crusade against religion and the supernatural, and treats them as dangeous superstition, thinking either that the supernatural doesn't exist or at least deeming humans incapable of understanding it. I don't know if it is because of some experience as a child or plain ignorance. Yet, he did the Others (a great movie) and I thought maybe he wanted to get back to that type of story; sadly he didn't and preferred to preach his philosophical position, giving us meanwhile a mess of a film, where everybody is unable to discern reality once a suggestion is introduced into their minds. But there's no doubt that the theme fascinates him, which leads me to believe that sooner or later he will understand the position of others on this subject.

Oppenheimer (I) (2023)

One and done

[1/10 · 30 July 2023]

Contrary to most other Nolan films, this one I do not see myself watching again. This story about physicists and politicians is just not interesting. The story of the atomic bomb deserved better, by dealing with the bombs and their aftermath instead of some historically obscure character's confirmation hearing, and the grilling Oppenheimer received in the closed-door hearing. The film has no soul, does not resound emotionally. There were no build ups, everything just happened. I didn't learn anything I already knew from Youtube videos when preparing to watch the film (certainly nothing about quantum mechanics or the bomb) since I was told about the challenge of following the story, which I hence had no problem following, particularly about the life of Oppenheimer. In the film he is suddenly an acclaimed physicist, then suddenly a leading candidate to lead the Manhattan project, and so on. Poor Cillian Murphy was just there, I didn't feel anything nor cared about the character, his genius and alleged depravity, his guilty conscience. His wife been mad at him for not fighting back ironically applies to the actor's performance in the film. The guy was apparently as boring in real life as in the film. There was nothing technically outstanding and have no idea why I needed to watch the film in IMAX nor the reason for the black and white scenes.

Killing Season (2013)

Didn't expect the river

[1/10 · 24 February 2023]

Guess you can hear running water during the first torture scene but the river caught me by surprise and seemed to come out of nowhere. Was also surprised about the hanging by the calf thing and how soon De Niro recovered from it. Also couldn't help thinking De Niro was way too old for the part, and seeing him running like he does and perform all the physical things was ludicrous. The rest has all been said: too many stupid moves and talking letting the other guy get back in the game, gruesome scenes and details, history inaccuracies. Stopped watching the film at the same exact point another reviewer did, when the vehicle flipped and crashed.

Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)

some questions

[9/10 · 25 November 2022]

Big fan, screenplay and cast (6 Oscars). Watched it many times. Keep wondering about things that detract from the denouement, the two big surprises at the end:

Why give as lead people the company know are insane?

When did Roma bring Lingk's contract to the office? Was Williamson there? So, let's say Williamson came back from his home under the pouring rain and met Roma at the office sometime before midnight (let's say Roma convinced Lingk to sign sometime after 9 or 10 pm, going to his home and meeting his wife (who later somehow retracted blaming his husband?)), then he didn't take the contracts home so he could spend some time with the kids, when, at midnight?

Doesn't make much sense.

BTW, since Williamson usually took the contracts from the office to his home for filing at the bank, how exactly was this filing made?

The Banshees of Inisherin (2022)

wow, this was bad!

[1/10 · 6 November 2022]

I couldn't Understand The Point of the movie, and the experience was excrutiating. Having read some Critic' Reviews They Got Exactly What I Got, which is for them wonderful and for me dull and sick. If you enjoy the tribulations of a very depressed fellow in a lonely island where nothing happens then this is the movie for you. It tells volume about the current state of affairs in cinema. Seems the director didnt have much of a budget, which I guess went mostly to pay the stars, therefore the crappy script and production. I enjoyed In Bruges but this isn't even close. The director wishes to immerse you in a very sick scenario, and I pity him, the cast, and anyone who watches this film, moreover if they dare find any meaning.

The Brides of Dracula (1960)

Not too bright a lady

[1/10 · 5 October 2022]

Couldn't get past one of the dumbest characters in movie history, the French lady who talks and behaves like a child. She causes the death of the baroness, sees her dead and her assistant raving mad, runs away in panic, and the next day is fine, no regrets or trauma. She frees the evil man even though she is told he is evil, and by seeing her hostess dead couldn't possibly have any doubt is evil, and then meets him again and accepts his proposal for marriage. At that point I stopped watching. I had heard good things about this film and found its production design and photography one of the best in the Hammer series, but the script is insufferable. Not even Peter Cushing and Martita Hunt can save it.

Being the Ricardos (2021)

lucy

[6/10 · 3 January 2022]

Lucy

It boggles the mind how they can place Judy Holliday in 1941 when The Big Street was made. Or say Lucy was 39 at the time. Or say Desi left Cuba in 1933 because of communism. You don't need an encyclopedia to know these are plainly wrong.

As to the rest, besides Bardem's casting and the o' so smart dialogues, I was entertained, and found Kidman was ok. I also missed actual recreations of the episodes, not mere references.

The Killing (1956)

10 Reasons Why this Film is Bad

[5/10 · 4 October 2020]

While strikingly shot and directed, this film (by Kubrick, I now) is incredibly dumb: 1. Why fly (to Boston?) instead of taking a train or leave by car or bus, moreover with the issue with the suitcase being too big and full of money? 2. Why Hayden didn't plan to have a big suitcase ready if he intended to fly? Didn't he know he wouldn't be able to carry it on? As a matter of fact, Hayden is miscast as a mastermind (he's better fitted to play a hooligan (see Asphalt Jungle)) 3. Hayden does the job and seems unconcerned the guards would return and confront him. And why the clown mask? 4. Why shoot the horse? The wrestling fight seemed to be more productive at the end 5. Everybody dead in the shootout 6. Incredibly silly wrestling fight (the fighter conveniently loses his shirt) 7. Annoying wife of Elishah Cook, Jr., who's extremely stupid 8. Confusing back and forth with repeated, tiring shots 9. Music 10. Add-on narration

Strangers on a Train (1951)

Some thoughts

[10/10 · 28 September 2020]

The first half of the film is riveting, even though Ruth Roman is completely miscast, as Hitchcock thought. The final 20 minutes are a mess, though. Here's something I havent read anyone comment: if Guy needed to be in Metcalf before sundown, why did he play the tennis game to win?

Judy (II) (2019)

Apalling

[1/10 · 28 September 2020]

The actress was fine as Judy until she had the audacity to sing as Judy, and was allowed to. Of course, she is no Judy. Unbelievable...plus, as expected, the story concentrates on her misfortunes and lousy times, not on her magnificent achievements. If they had used Judy's singing voice this film could have been something. As it is, it's appalling. Shame on all involved, including the Academy.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)

Nothing to see

[1/10 · 10 June 2019]

I could barely see Mothra, couldn't see Godzilla nor the 3-headed monster he was fighting in dark Antartida at night, just before I left the theater. The cinematography was atrocious. Everything was dark, and I couldn't see a thing. That this happens in 2019 is incomprehensible to me. The kids in the audience didn't seem to mind, though.

Dunkirk (2017)

Where's Michael Caine?

[22 July 2017]

MAJOR SPOILER: At the risk of been added to the dreaded blacklist, throwing all caution to the wind, I'll say it: Michael Caine is not in this picture.

I went to this film expecting exciting action sequences, sweeping drama, technical virtuosity and a genius-level script. All the trademarks of a Christopher Nolan film. Also, obviously, like so many, I went because of Michael Caine. After all, this is a Christopher Nolan film. This is Nolan's first film set in England, well, actually in France, but with British people who want to go back to England. Wait, maybe The Prestige was set in London, I don't exactly remember. Wasn't Tesla in that movie? Tesla was never in England, not that I know. The Batman movies were definitively in Metropolis. Interstellar was in rural America and later somewhere else. So was Inception. In all places except England. Whatever. How will Nolan use Caine? I wondered. This is the first opportunity Nolan has had to use Caine as a British man in a British film that takes place in Great Britain (or in France, oh wait, the Prestige, maybe). Batman's butler may have been British, I'm not sure. Caine as a NASA scientist in rural America, definitively American. So I sat and waited for Mr. Caine to appear on the screen. This is, after all, clearly a British film, I thought, the most British film Nolan has made sans The Prestige. There's Mark Rylance. There's Kenneth Branagh. How much more British can you get? There's Irish Cillian Murphy. Caine should appear at any moment, I thought to myself, and settled for the impending appearance. Michael Caine in Imax again! This will be surely a memorable experience. Will he appear in a boat? In a plane? He's kind of old to be riding around in a plane, you know. Surely, he'll be a general giving commands at headquarters. Or maybe he will be one of those colorful English fishermen. The minutes passed, then an hour, and no Caine. Where's Caine? I kept asking. Not even a cameo? Did I miss him in the crowds? Then a frightening thought crossed my mind. Wait a minute, didn't Caine die in Interstellar? Is he actually dead? Really dead? It can't be, it would have been news all over the world. Then the movie ends. No Caine. Unbelievable. I checked the web and yes, Caine is still alive in real life. Nolan, you ungrateful bastard, how dare you? How could you do this to Michael Caine? You know you would be a nobody if it weren't for Caine! How could you leave Michael Caine out of the film covering one of the most important episodes in the history of Great Britain, in its finest hour? How could you do this to your fans? Did you kill him for good in Interstellar? Did he ask too much money? Why, Mr. Nolan, why? For whatever reason, leaving Caine out of this picture was a big mistake on your part. Mark my words, Nolan: this decision will haunt you for the rest of your life, and will cost you dearly. I guarantee it.

Silence (I) (2016)

Contrary to the Catholic faith

[2/10 · 22 June 2017]

For a brought-up or actual Catholic, Scorsese shows he has little knowledge of the Catholic faith. The goal is Heaven: it is worth suffering in this Earth, since this life is nothing compared to the next life. So why would Jesus – never mind Ferreira - tell Rodrigues to deny Him in order to prevent the Japanese Christians from suffering? That suffering would have made them martyrs and assured their eternal life. Instead the priest saved their lives but many may have ended losing their souls. And for argument's sake, maybe Rodrigues thought they did not actually have faith in Christ, but how did he know for sure? A bigger question that I'm sure has been explored elsewhere and is barely touched in this film is why if Jesus Christ brought salvation to all men on Earth it is so difficult still to this date for the Japanese to be saved by Christ.

Hacksaw Ridge (2016)

A big round of applause for Desmond Doss and Mel Gibson!

[10/10 · 10 November 2016]

This is a remarkable film, that shoots right to the top of best war films in cinema history. The story of Desmond Doss is a compelling one which needed to be told cinematically, and Gibson was the right man for this. The first hour has many virtues, but also problems: Doss' mistreatment seems to lack (comparisons with Full Metal Jacket are inevitable) and the court martial hearing does not ring true. But once they move to Okinawa, what follows is a technical tour de force, with realistic, gruesome battle scenes, extremely well and clearly directed and photographed action, and with an impressive emotional and transcendental punch to boost, which will make you stand up and applaud at the end. I don't see Gibson glorifying war while condemning it, I see him as a true artist, with a view of the history of mankind as war and violence, presenting life in all its hellish reality, and a hero pursuing a higher aim amid the brutality and personal challenge. This film should gather Oscar nominations for best picture, direction, actor in a leading role, script, cinematography, production design and sound, at least. I am particularly happy for Gibson, who survived his own personal trial, and is now back, and in better form than ever.

Noah (2014)

Garbage

[1/10 · 22 October 2016]

Does anyone in this film, except Tubal-cain,realize that if Noah knew of the upcoming flood and the need to build an ark that big, and since all the animals went to the ark, and the deluge actually occurs and wipes out humanity just as Noah said, maybe he knew what he was talking about, maybe God was actually revealing his plan to him? Seemingly Noah's family believed this at first and liked the idea of been the only surviving men, but in the time it took to build the ark they somehow forgot, or thought Noah misunderstood the last part of the message, and began behaving as if God wanted something different. This change apparently occurred because Noah changed his opinion regarding what God wanted and they did not like this change, the children had grown into adolescents, and Ham wanted a companion, and later at the Ark all wanted Ila's baby be born. Is this a comment on human nature?, because if it is, it is extremely lame: what is stated is that men doubt God even after overwhelming evidence of His existence and his will. My opinion is based strictly on what is presented in the film, and not on my beliefs. Aronofsky clearly thought the Bible story of Noah lacked drama to be commercially successful with teenagers, and therefore added the silly plots about Ham's tantrums since he wanted a woman real bad, Methuselah's God-like powers to allow Ila have children, her sudden impulse to get pregnant and the upcoming deluge, and wife and son confronting Noah because of this. His wife, his sons, Matusaleh, do they doubt Noah? Really? Didn't they see the Watchers talking, admiring and helping Noah build the ark, defending it, and finally beaming up to the heavens? And still they believe Noah is wrong, and that what he is doing is not God's will? Is Methuselah defying God? Is he senile, or just playing a joke on God? Is Ham really willing to have his father killed by Tubal-cain? All because they believe Noah is misreading God. What if they are wrong? Are they all willing to risk eternal damnation because of this? (As a matter of fact, there's no mention of Hell) Do they believe God is wrong, of that they know better, or that God will have a change of heart? Really, you minuscule, insignificant, stupid creatures? Not once does Naameh refers to God's will when she confronts Noah towards the end of the film: since she is a woman and a mother she, of course, Hollywood-style, must defend her sons and Ila irrationally, even against God's will. I've never seen such a self-centered clueless bunch. And we are supposed to root for them? And at the end they knew more than Noah about what God really, really wanted? What a pair of cojones this guy Aronofsky has! And at the end Noah concludes he was wrong about God wanting to end humankind, Ila explains to him why he was wrong, Noah looks at the sky and seemingly gets an OK from God, or something? Really?

The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958)

Bad film

[1/10 · 20 October 2016]

The TV host said this is one of the scariest sequels in cinema history, and many agree. Well, I don't, even as the Hammer horror film fan I am. I was particularly surprised given that Terence Fisher directs and Jimmy Sangster wrote the script. Things didn't begin well for me when the TV host revealed the twist about the guillotine and the priest. Afterwards it all went downhill. The script, the main culprit, is contrived, full of predictability and lameness: a girl appears for no apparent reason except that there must be a beautiful lady in the plot, and then the deformed man meets her and falls in love, and after that, following a lead from the conveniently-placed ugly ward employee who is supposed to be funny, she is alone with Karl in his new body, tied up, and of course she is going to untie him, and later he will seek her. Everything goes great with the surgery but then Dr. Stein must step out, and of course something wrong will happen: Karl escapes, and so that you are assured that things are going to go really wrong the doctor and his assistant discuss the possibility of Karl becoming a carnivorous monster if he suffers a traumatic blow, and voila! Karl receives a blow and becomes a carnivorous monster, and then to make sure we understand, the doctor and the assistant arrive at the scene and the assistant asks: Do you think the fight may have affected Karl? By the way, how did he know there was a fight? The story of a lady and her daughter goes nowhere. There's no revenge. Meanwhile another body hangs around for no apparent reason, except of course for the unfathomable one we see at the end. Did the assistant also transplant the face of the doctor? With his old face, how is he going to hide his identity? Who knows? Who cares?

The City of the Dead (1960)

Horrific Hotel

[1/10 · 18 October 2016]

I'm not going to discuss at length this turkey, with incompetent acting and a ridiculous setting in a town covered with fog where visitors come to stay in a hotel for no reason and like to take strolls along weird looking local people. Just wrote this for one of the stupidest scenes I've ever seen: the good guy is firing bullets right at the chest of the approaching Christopher Lee who continues approaching, unfazed, but when the good guy runs out of bullets and throws his gun at him, Mr. Lee ducks! Uf, 10 lines required! Well, good photography by distinguished British cinematographer Desmond Dickinson. For some reason some great cinematographers were working in low budget horror films in the early 60's, for example, Eugene Shufftan in Eyes without a Face.

Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968)

Dracula is a pussy

[6/10 · 31 October 2015]

If you can stand a pathetic weak bald priest at the center of it all, spoiling everything, plus giving a big chunk of time to a plump busty non-sexy redhead girl, the rest is not bad. BTW, Barbara Ewing in Torture Garden is slim and pretty.. Dracula, besides the ridiculous, out-of-character premise of him seeking revenge does nothing but give orders (why didn't he ask the bald priest at the beginning of the film to remove the cross? Guess only a virgin could remove it, but this is never explained, similarly to other scenes), wait on the fringes, make dramatic entrances, and be a pussy. Who killed the girl at the beginning?. Vampires are supposed to have no reflection, but I guess this doesn't apply to water. A stake through the heart should do it for Dracula, not in this film, and the reason why is not clear. Dracula is been pursued by the young lad after this, and suddenly he's not mad at the lad anymore: he's just standing there at the rooftop waiting for the blonde girl, who seemingly has a knack for walking on rooftops; the annoying priest, who seems to be involved in every scene to ruin any chances of success, hits the young lad over the head with a candlestick, and 30 seconds later the lad is up and confronting him; before that the lad asks him at the inn's stairs to go visit the blonde girl at her home; minutes later he finds him again in the same exact place climbing the stairs (it seems this actually happened several hours later, but the film is so poorly constructed you need to watch the film more than once to find out), where the priest of course lies to him again. Dracula sucks the blood of the redhead, later Paul finds her in her underwear and talks to her matter-of-fact as if he's used to seeing her undressed. Dracula sucks the blood of the blonde at her room and the next night she is again at her room, unguarded, with the monsignor reading some books downstairs. When Dracula enters the room the monsignor appears, thank God, but for what, but to end up hit in the head by the annoying bald priest, while Dracula runs away from the monsignor like a pussy. The monsignor before dying asks the lad to save his niece, but forgets to tell him about the annoying bald priest who hit him over the head. Of course Paul goes to the bald priest for help, who then proceeds to hit him over the head. Besides the convoluted script the film is badly directed as discussed above, with another example: while Dracula is with his fiancé for what seems like an eternity, Paul, who was downstairs and didn't see her, goes upstairs and is told to look for her downstairs, can't find her again, goes upstairs, is told again to look for her this time further upstairs, he goes upstairs and sees some smoke and decides to go downstairs a third time and finally finds her. That is a very clumsy way to create suspense. It would have helped if someone had mentioned the subbasement where Dracula and his girl were located. And Dracula is impaled not once but twice! Dying only by a silly accident instead of by the actions of the hero. The very spiritual and redeeming ending, however, is great.

Witness for the Prosecution (1957)

Some comments

[10/10 · 23 August 2015]

This is a delightful film with a wonderful performance from some say the best English actor in the 20th century, Charles Laughton, and an excellent supporting cast, mostly British. It is curious to me how Billy Wilder, one of my favorite directors, a German who developed his career in Hollywood, ended up with this project – an Agatha Christie play - more suitable it seems to a British director. Some people even think Hitchcock directed this film. While I very much enjoyed this film, I have some reservations: the denouement is difficult to assimilate – one initially believes Vole and his wife are simply playing another trick when he openly kisses his girlfriend in front of his wife and lawyer, and it is not until his wife reacts that we come to believe his actions, and her reaction thereafter, are real, moreover when we have been convinced that his wife does not love him, and her final act somehow fails to dispel this notion and move us to believe she was deeply in love with her husband. This is so because Tyrone Power fails to convey the type of man a woman would fall in love with, and Marlene fails to convey the type of devoted woman we finally find she is, and this because we are supposed to understand she is much older than him, when Dietrich actually looks much younger and beautiful (thanks to the use of her "tape lifts", and some pair of legs) even at 56, and Power looks much older. Another story it would have been if they had used William Holden in his role. I also had a problem with the notion that an overweight attorney with a 240/110 blood pressure and a weak heart, constantly fainting or wincing in pain, would be allowed to litigate in court,and to see him run to the train station in his condition was difficult to believe. Moreover when trial ends his nurse announces he would not go on vacation but continue with another criminal case, which is simply absurd. These I guess are things a less demanding audience in the 50s in that simpler Hollywood age would not have minded. Another grievance is that Dietrich's voice when playing the cockney girl is clearly dubbed, maybe by herself in the studio, but nevertheless it somehow feels like a cheat. Some people even believe some other actress played the part, but so much mystery surrounded this film due to its surprise ending and the need to keep everything secret that we will never know, and this some say cost Dietrich at least a nomination for the Oscar. Finally while I don't agree this film should be in position #76 based on only 50K plus votes (Throne of Blood is in the list with only 26K votes), I understand the problem of raising the 25K minimum votes to let's say 100K, which would drop many deserving classics like The General, City Lights and the Treasure of the Sierra Madre. I do not believe this film is in the same league as these other films, but that is only my opinion, and at the same time it is much better than many other films in the list.

The Out of Towners (1970)

Funny movie, funny Jack Lemmon

[9/10 · 4 January 2015]

Saw it a couple of days ago following "The Odd Couple" at TCM, and contrary to the opinion of a fellow commentator who also saw them that day, enjoyed both films similarly. These have always been some of my favorite film comedies (I can't help though watching "The Odd Couple" and thinking what Billy Wilder would have made of that film). These are the Neil Simon films I enjoy most (I may add Seems Like Old Times), and I simply have to watch "The Out of Towners" every time they show it on TV. I lived in NYC so it is always a treat to revisit the city. Watch this film to see what real cinema was in the 70's, with real people, real crowds, on location filming and no special effects – except the amazing scene with the manhole cover, which I can't believe was the real deal even though it looked that way. I was also impressed with how much running Lemmon and Dennis do. Lemmon even carries Dennis in his arms up a small hill in Central Park. Like I said, the real deal. Lemmon of course is a physical comedy genius, and I also find Dennis very funny. After repeated watching some scenes – the kid in the park, e.g. – seem now forced and unfunny. I'd also have to agree about Lemmon's poor decision-making, but this is a comedy so that doesn't bother me too much. The Martin-Hawn remake, on the other hand, was simply horrendous.

Prometheus (I) (2012)

Still an awful script

[1/10 · 13 December 2014]

Just re-watched this film, but now on cable TV with full blast sound instead of a DVD version with poor sound, and the sound makes a big difference: now I could get lost in the production and effects and pay less attention to the silly script. This time I confirmed the film is addressed strictly to the mindless, so there's no need for me to revisit this film anymore. I join all the criticism regarding the script. Some comments: the scene with the alien driver had some power and potential, but why was he so mad and remained so mad, who knows. The old man at first I thought was Rutger Hauer, and I thought to myself, nice touch, Ridley Scott: later I find out it was Guy Pearce and my question, as many have asked, is why? The reason must be in order to sell the film in Australia. Charlize Theron's character served no purpose whatsoever and then was killed for no reason. I guess I'll be curious to see the sequel, but my expectation will not be high.

Changing Lanes (2002)

Not for attorneys

[5/10 · 9 November 2014]

Anyone with knowledge of courts and the law will find the initial plot device absurd. If the original power of appointment was such an important and irreplaceable document, the firm partners should have had Atty. Gavin Banek go to court to file the document escorted with security guards. More realistically, they would have filed a motion with a certified copy of the document, and later file the original if necessary. That Gavin, knowing the document was irreplaceable nonetheless brings it out of the car to be inadvertently dropped is also quite silly. The other nonsense is that Gavin had to be on time at the hearing, or else, even after suffering the traffic accident. Having Gavin do other things on such a precarious day, like interview job candidates, makes no sense. That Gavin is one of the partners son-in-law further piles on the absurdity.

Meanwhile, Doyle Gibson, while no lawyer, does some very stupid things of his own, like not cashing on the opportunity and picking up a computer in a bank and throwing it down to the floor (with no consequences). Later Gavin very tensely confronts the same officer, who seemingly not having learned his lesson, continues to behave like a jerk. I was expecting Gavin to throw down to the floor his newly installed computer too.

Then we have Master Hacker, who can with just a name enter a man's banking and credit accounts and delete them all and declare him bankrupt, and later undo all these things, all in just minutes. He is a useful, convenient but totally unreal device. Why use him instead of hiring some goons to force Doyle to return the document, well, I guess the reason was that Gavin did not know any goons, only Master Hacker.

Gavin gets panicky and activates the sprinklers in the office in order to access a file. Water flows in buckets for minutes while people are forced to evacuate and firemen rush in. Gavin returns later in the evening and the office seems OK, no signs of the deluge. Hell, even one of the interview boys is still around.

Why then the 5 stars you may ask? The film seemed good intended. And contrary to others, I liked the denouement. A lot.

The Roaring Twenties (1939)

Spaghetti with extra cheese

[2/10 · 12 October 2014]

This might be the biggest WB gangster production of the 30's, and have Cagney and Bogart in it, but it is one corny and dated movie with cardboard characters and an inept script. The WWI scenes are ludicrous. After the first hour mark it gets better but not enough. Cagney when annoyed punches people while Bogart draws his gun. This style of filming might have worked in the early 30's but by 1939 seemed outdated, even though I can understand this film marks the end of an era and should be seen with sympathetic and nostalgic eyes. Lane does not belong here, and I couldn't wait for her to leave, which she doesn't since I later find out she is an integral part of the story. Why she is such an attraction as a singer is beyond me, and we get at least 2 musical numbers from her. The shootout at the Italian restaurant is also ridiculous: Cagney and his people go in looking for the foe, wide open, no strategy. This movie however did something for me: after watching the dining scene I went to the kitchen and made me a big plate of spaghetti with extra cheese.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)

Dr Jeekyll

[6/10 · 14 September 2014]

Not having read the book but the plot line, I wish any future remake would follow that plot line closely. The use of subjective and tricky camera shots seem to have no purpose, and the plot turns boring after a while. This film could have been made in 70-75 minutes, like any Universal monster movie of the period. There are also too many on screen transformations for my taste, one should have been enough. Mr Hyde's make up, particularly his teeth, is way over the top. As it is, the film is interesting in patches but I do not believe it is a matter of not aging well, it is simply overall not very well constructed. On the other hand, the art direction is excellent, with a nice reconstruction of London, and the laboratory, and March's performance is so good you believe another actor is playing Mr. Hyde. I also noticed some scenes that were hard for me to believe were done by March himself, which now I've found out were of course done by a stunt man. And yes, it's Dr. Jeekyll, I say!

Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959)

Bad

[9/10 · 31 August 2014]

Saw this film this week following Halliwell's review and since the premise of the story seemed interesting, albeit wondering how realistic a journey to the center of the earth could be made and how they would manage to insert 2 females in the plot. I respect the late Halliwell, but there's nothing watchable in this film. His 3-star films are mostly very good but this one is a duck, excuse me, a turkey, even trying to see the film through 1959 eyes. The film takes too long to get going and then it doesn't go anywhere. The actual story underground is very disappointing. Bernard Hermann's music is understandably closer to Jason and the Argonauts than to Vertigo or Citizen Kane, and James Mason is good, and tries his best, but these didn't mean much in this dreadful film, even with Charles Bracket in the writing credits.