I love that movie.dvdjunkie wrote:Excalibur (1981) Blu-ray
What Movie Did You Just Watch? ... And Robin
-
Disney's Divinity
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16239
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
- Gender: Male
I thought the same. I don't really care about any of the younger characters in either version, I just like Jennifer Coolidge's interpretation of the Stepmother better. I like Jane Lynch, too, though.
Listening to most often lately:
Taylor Swift ~ ~ "The Fate of Ophelia"
Taylor Swift ~ "Eldest Daughter"
Taylor Swift ~ "CANCELLED!"
-
Dr Frankenollie
- In The Vaults
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)
Who doesn’t love vampires? Vampires-the mythical, mysterious and malevolent creatures of the night, who use their abnormally sharp canine teeth to puncture holes in large-bosomed women’s necks to drain blood from them until their victims become vampires themselves. The vampire was popularised as far as pop culture is concerned in 1897, when Bram Stoker wrote the chilling horror novel Dracula, which also introduced the monstrous Count Dracula of Transylvania who travels to London and starts drinking the blood of Miss Lucy Westenra and later Mrs Mina Harker (née Murray). As this review is being written, I have read most of the original novel and have only a few chapters left, and am still captivated even though I know the ending and have to have a dictionary nearby most of the time.
Dracula and vampires have evolved over the years after the likes of F.W. Murnau and Tod Browning introduced them to Hollywood, leading to colourful portrayals of the evil Count by the likes of Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee and Frank Langella; however, a lot of these adaptations deviated away considerably from the original novel, often getting rid of some members of the supporting cast and at one point setting a warped version of it in 1972.
Arguably the most faithful adaptation was released in 1992, and is the movie I’m reviewing. Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather), the first thing you notice about this movie is its title: Bram Stoker’s Dracula. You can’t possibly get more pompous; Coppola seemingly thinks that his version, not the dozens of previous versions, is the definitive adaptation of Bram Stoker’s novel.
But admittedly the plot is very faithful to the book’s: solicitor Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) goes to Transylvania to help oversee the spooky Count Dracula’s (Gary Oldman) buying of Carfax Abbey in London, only to discover that Dracula is little more than a monster with three cannibalistic half-naked women living in his castle. Via the Demeter, Dracula arrives in London and tries to seduce Harker’s worried fiancée Mina Murray (Winona Ryder), who he believes to be the reincarnation of his lost love (whose suicide made Prince Dracula renounce God in the first place). At the same time, Dracula starts drinking the blood of Mina’s best friend Lucy Westenra (Sadie Frost), thus weakening her. When Dr Seward (Richard E Grant) is baffled, the respected expert of disease, Professor Abraham Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins) arrives and is horrified to deduce that Lucy is the victim of a vampire, and will soon become ‘the Devil’s Concubine!’
Meanwhile, Harker escapes Transylvania and after marrying Mina, he joins Van Helsing, Dr Seward, Lucy’s lover Arthur Holmwood (Cary Elwes) and Quincey Morris (Billy Campbell) on a quest to hunt down and finally kill Dracula.
Both the novel and this adaptation don’t have characters driven by the plot, but instead the plot is thankfully driven by the characters, just like it should be. This of course means that the way these characters are put forward by their portrayers and the screenwriters is the most crucial thing to judge whether this movie is good or bad. Performance wise, this film is rather hit-and-miss: there are two great performances, one really good performance, several satisfying and average performances and one awful performance.
The one awful performance is by Keanu Reeves, who is almost laughable as Harker; his attempt at an English accent is pathetic, and for the entire movie he has nothing but a blank stare on his face, even when Dracula attacks him with a sword. Reeves is a dreadful, dreadful turd of an actor and based on his ‘performance’ in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, I don’t think he’d be able to emote even if it was a matter of life and death.
The several satisfying and average performances are mostly by the supporting cast like Billy Campbell, Sadie Frost and Cary Elwes, but Anthony Hopkins also gives just a satisfying and average performance. Whilst Hopkins is able to nail the accent of Van Helsing and comes across as wise and intellectual like he should, he doesn’t have any warmth to him, and whilst he’s good as Van Helsing, I don’t think that he’s brilliant.
Penultimately when it comes to performances, the one really good performance is by Winona Ryder as Mina Murray-Harker. Whilst some believe that Ryder is stiff and even compare her to the awful Reeves, I think that whilst she’s never brilliant, Ryder is very good as the love interest to both Harker and Dracula, and is perfect as the stereotypical Victorian young woman.
The first of the two great performances is Tom Waits as asylum patient and slave to Dracula, R.M. Renfield. Waits is extremely memorable and effective; from his brilliantly-shot first appearance to his comeuppance, Waits is marvellous as the mentally unstable Renfield, and is at times quiet and mutters seemingly to himself, but can also be robust and melodramatic very entertainingly. Waits takes the character of Renfield and makes it something quite different to what Renfield was like in the book, and is quite simply a joy to watch; in fact, I’d go as far to say that Waits’ portrayal of Renfield is the definitive portrayal.
The other truly great performance is of course Gary Oldman as Dracula, who is in my opinion just as good as Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee. In fact, the job he has is much more difficult; not only does he have to try and make the almost cliché character of the creepy, cackling Dracula seem fresh whilst being faithful to the original literary persona (and visually, it is very faithful, as Dracula grows younger just like in the book), but also has to play another side to Dracula-the human side. Also, he has to play the creepy cackling Dracula in two different ways: when he’s old and when he’s young.
This movie presents us with an in-depth backstory for Dracula and a clear explanation for how and why he became a vampire, what his motivations are, etc. Oldman is great as both, and in one scene with Harker is able to be unnerving and psychotic at one moment, but a few seconds later is very emotional and is displayed in a believable sympathetic light.
However, I’m not fully decided upon whether it’s good that we learnt Dracula’s backstory. In some ways, it’s great that we understand Dracula, as that gives the movie a great emotional depth and weight and gives it so much thought-provoking substance; but in other ways, the backstory stops the movie from being as scary as it could be; forgive me for comparing this to the book, but in the book there is a bubble of tension that never pops and just gets bigger and bigger, and even when it isn’t terrifying us there is a great underlying sense of terror that never goes away. In this movie, I was never scared, just unnerved at times, but those were usually because of Dracula’s first main victim’s fate.
When it comes down to it, it’s a simple matter of personal taste: do you prefer it when villains are given fleshed-out backstories that explain their actions and sometimes make them sympathetic, like with Salieri in Amadeus or Gollum in Lord of the Rings; or do you prefer it when the origins of the villain are left a mystery which make them more compelling and sometimes more frightening, like with the Joker in The Dark Knight or the demon Pazuzu in The Exorcist? Usually, I prefer it when a villain is shown to have a human side, but the book Dracula whose motivations and backstory aren’t explained and shown is much more terrifying and creepy than the cinematic Dracula presented in Bram Stoker’s Dracula. To be honest, I’m not entirely sure whether I’m happy or not that Coppola sacrificed Dracula’s scariness to make him a believable and sympathetic character.
Stylistically, the film is beautiful; I could watch parts of it without sound and still be captivated, due to the varying cinematography (which can give a claustrophobic sense of being enclosed in a small space, like the aforementioned introductory shot of Renfield, but can also add a rich sense of scope and grandeur at times), great sets (like the intricately, wonderfully designed interior of Dracula’s castle) and fabulous costumes (like Prince Dracula’s warrior armour and later his unforgettable sweeping cloak, both being the same colour as blood). Meanwhile, the macabre musical score by Wojciech Kilar and Annie Lennox is fantastic, and nearly as good as the equally brilliant score of the more iconic 1931 version of Dracula (starring the aforementioned Lugosi), although the latter wasn’t written for the movie.
Overall, whilst there are a few unmentioned flaws, some performances could be better (and in the case of Keanu Reeves, could be a lot better) and it isn’t as scary as I would’ve liked, Coppola’s 1992 adaptation of the horror classic is still worth watching (although the book is about ten times better).
6/10.
Who doesn’t love vampires? Vampires-the mythical, mysterious and malevolent creatures of the night, who use their abnormally sharp canine teeth to puncture holes in large-bosomed women’s necks to drain blood from them until their victims become vampires themselves. The vampire was popularised as far as pop culture is concerned in 1897, when Bram Stoker wrote the chilling horror novel Dracula, which also introduced the monstrous Count Dracula of Transylvania who travels to London and starts drinking the blood of Miss Lucy Westenra and later Mrs Mina Harker (née Murray). As this review is being written, I have read most of the original novel and have only a few chapters left, and am still captivated even though I know the ending and have to have a dictionary nearby most of the time.
Dracula and vampires have evolved over the years after the likes of F.W. Murnau and Tod Browning introduced them to Hollywood, leading to colourful portrayals of the evil Count by the likes of Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee and Frank Langella; however, a lot of these adaptations deviated away considerably from the original novel, often getting rid of some members of the supporting cast and at one point setting a warped version of it in 1972.
Arguably the most faithful adaptation was released in 1992, and is the movie I’m reviewing. Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather), the first thing you notice about this movie is its title: Bram Stoker’s Dracula. You can’t possibly get more pompous; Coppola seemingly thinks that his version, not the dozens of previous versions, is the definitive adaptation of Bram Stoker’s novel.
But admittedly the plot is very faithful to the book’s: solicitor Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) goes to Transylvania to help oversee the spooky Count Dracula’s (Gary Oldman) buying of Carfax Abbey in London, only to discover that Dracula is little more than a monster with three cannibalistic half-naked women living in his castle. Via the Demeter, Dracula arrives in London and tries to seduce Harker’s worried fiancée Mina Murray (Winona Ryder), who he believes to be the reincarnation of his lost love (whose suicide made Prince Dracula renounce God in the first place). At the same time, Dracula starts drinking the blood of Mina’s best friend Lucy Westenra (Sadie Frost), thus weakening her. When Dr Seward (Richard E Grant) is baffled, the respected expert of disease, Professor Abraham Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins) arrives and is horrified to deduce that Lucy is the victim of a vampire, and will soon become ‘the Devil’s Concubine!’
Meanwhile, Harker escapes Transylvania and after marrying Mina, he joins Van Helsing, Dr Seward, Lucy’s lover Arthur Holmwood (Cary Elwes) and Quincey Morris (Billy Campbell) on a quest to hunt down and finally kill Dracula.
Both the novel and this adaptation don’t have characters driven by the plot, but instead the plot is thankfully driven by the characters, just like it should be. This of course means that the way these characters are put forward by their portrayers and the screenwriters is the most crucial thing to judge whether this movie is good or bad. Performance wise, this film is rather hit-and-miss: there are two great performances, one really good performance, several satisfying and average performances and one awful performance.
The one awful performance is by Keanu Reeves, who is almost laughable as Harker; his attempt at an English accent is pathetic, and for the entire movie he has nothing but a blank stare on his face, even when Dracula attacks him with a sword. Reeves is a dreadful, dreadful turd of an actor and based on his ‘performance’ in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, I don’t think he’d be able to emote even if it was a matter of life and death.
The several satisfying and average performances are mostly by the supporting cast like Billy Campbell, Sadie Frost and Cary Elwes, but Anthony Hopkins also gives just a satisfying and average performance. Whilst Hopkins is able to nail the accent of Van Helsing and comes across as wise and intellectual like he should, he doesn’t have any warmth to him, and whilst he’s good as Van Helsing, I don’t think that he’s brilliant.
Penultimately when it comes to performances, the one really good performance is by Winona Ryder as Mina Murray-Harker. Whilst some believe that Ryder is stiff and even compare her to the awful Reeves, I think that whilst she’s never brilliant, Ryder is very good as the love interest to both Harker and Dracula, and is perfect as the stereotypical Victorian young woman.
The first of the two great performances is Tom Waits as asylum patient and slave to Dracula, R.M. Renfield. Waits is extremely memorable and effective; from his brilliantly-shot first appearance to his comeuppance, Waits is marvellous as the mentally unstable Renfield, and is at times quiet and mutters seemingly to himself, but can also be robust and melodramatic very entertainingly. Waits takes the character of Renfield and makes it something quite different to what Renfield was like in the book, and is quite simply a joy to watch; in fact, I’d go as far to say that Waits’ portrayal of Renfield is the definitive portrayal.
The other truly great performance is of course Gary Oldman as Dracula, who is in my opinion just as good as Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee. In fact, the job he has is much more difficult; not only does he have to try and make the almost cliché character of the creepy, cackling Dracula seem fresh whilst being faithful to the original literary persona (and visually, it is very faithful, as Dracula grows younger just like in the book), but also has to play another side to Dracula-the human side. Also, he has to play the creepy cackling Dracula in two different ways: when he’s old and when he’s young.
This movie presents us with an in-depth backstory for Dracula and a clear explanation for how and why he became a vampire, what his motivations are, etc. Oldman is great as both, and in one scene with Harker is able to be unnerving and psychotic at one moment, but a few seconds later is very emotional and is displayed in a believable sympathetic light.
However, I’m not fully decided upon whether it’s good that we learnt Dracula’s backstory. In some ways, it’s great that we understand Dracula, as that gives the movie a great emotional depth and weight and gives it so much thought-provoking substance; but in other ways, the backstory stops the movie from being as scary as it could be; forgive me for comparing this to the book, but in the book there is a bubble of tension that never pops and just gets bigger and bigger, and even when it isn’t terrifying us there is a great underlying sense of terror that never goes away. In this movie, I was never scared, just unnerved at times, but those were usually because of Dracula’s first main victim’s fate.
When it comes down to it, it’s a simple matter of personal taste: do you prefer it when villains are given fleshed-out backstories that explain their actions and sometimes make them sympathetic, like with Salieri in Amadeus or Gollum in Lord of the Rings; or do you prefer it when the origins of the villain are left a mystery which make them more compelling and sometimes more frightening, like with the Joker in The Dark Knight or the demon Pazuzu in The Exorcist? Usually, I prefer it when a villain is shown to have a human side, but the book Dracula whose motivations and backstory aren’t explained and shown is much more terrifying and creepy than the cinematic Dracula presented in Bram Stoker’s Dracula. To be honest, I’m not entirely sure whether I’m happy or not that Coppola sacrificed Dracula’s scariness to make him a believable and sympathetic character.
Stylistically, the film is beautiful; I could watch parts of it without sound and still be captivated, due to the varying cinematography (which can give a claustrophobic sense of being enclosed in a small space, like the aforementioned introductory shot of Renfield, but can also add a rich sense of scope and grandeur at times), great sets (like the intricately, wonderfully designed interior of Dracula’s castle) and fabulous costumes (like Prince Dracula’s warrior armour and later his unforgettable sweeping cloak, both being the same colour as blood). Meanwhile, the macabre musical score by Wojciech Kilar and Annie Lennox is fantastic, and nearly as good as the equally brilliant score of the more iconic 1931 version of Dracula (starring the aforementioned Lugosi), although the latter wasn’t written for the movie.
Overall, whilst there are a few unmentioned flaws, some performances could be better (and in the case of Keanu Reeves, could be a lot better) and it isn’t as scary as I would’ve liked, Coppola’s 1992 adaptation of the horror classic is still worth watching (although the book is about ten times better).
6/10.
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
**TOY SOLDIERS**
A well-constructed thriller. Sean Astin heads a bunch of troublemaking teens who decide they're going to play the heroes when their all-boys school is taken over by a terrorist group. It's nicely done, with the setpieces being well-constructed, and plenty of time for conversation scenes. The film's primary focus is these kids banding together to get information out to the government and to help all the other students escape. Another key aspect is the frienemie relationship between Billy(Astin)and his teacher(didnt look at the credits; too busy typing this). Decent performances helped sell the film a bit, and the heroic music makes this not so much a dark film as an action film.
Bottom line: ***1/2. Might raise it.
A well-constructed thriller. Sean Astin heads a bunch of troublemaking teens who decide they're going to play the heroes when their all-boys school is taken over by a terrorist group. It's nicely done, with the setpieces being well-constructed, and plenty of time for conversation scenes. The film's primary focus is these kids banding together to get information out to the government and to help all the other students escape. Another key aspect is the frienemie relationship between Billy(Astin)and his teacher(didnt look at the credits; too busy typing this). Decent performances helped sell the film a bit, and the heroic music makes this not so much a dark film as an action film.
Bottom line: ***1/2. Might raise it.
-
PixarFan2006
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6166
- Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:44 am
- Location: Michigan
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
Time Bandits
Nice little fantasy about a boy who meets a bunch of dwarfs and tag along with them on their time travelling adventures. The studio really oversold john Cleese and Sean Connery in this, as they only briefly appear. One thing I cant get over is the ending, as it's very bizarre. There's not much character development either, but it's meant to be more of an adventure than anything else.
Nice little fantasy about a boy who meets a bunch of dwarfs and tag along with them on their time travelling adventures. The studio really oversold john Cleese and Sean Connery in this, as they only briefly appear. One thing I cant get over is the ending, as it's very bizarre. There's not much character development either, but it's meant to be more of an adventure than anything else.
-
dvdjunkie
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5613
- Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:05 am
- Location: Wichita, Kansas
It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963) Blu-ray
Here is the perfect movie, with all it's flaws, and imperfections, and very poor editing, still maintains its audience to this day.
Directed by Stanley Kramer and filled with a who's who of Hollywood actors, it manages to keep a cohesive story together to an all too-abrupt-ending. Starring Spencer Tracy, this is the zany story of eight people who witness a speeding car careen off a cliff and what happens from there. Jimmy Durante is the ill-fated driver of the speeding vehicle, and the witnesses include Ethel Merman, Sid Caesar, Milton Berle, Mickey Rooney, Buddy Hackett, Jonathan Winters, Edie Adams and Dorothy Provine. When the men manage to crawl down the cliffside they find a mortally-hurt Durante who tells them about this treasure that is hidden under a "big W" before he literally kicks the bucket.
These people all decide that they are going to be the first Santa Rosarita and find this treasure under the "big W". But, what is the 'Big W' is the big question. After agreeing to disagree on the split of the treasure, they each take off on their own journey to get to Santa Rosarita.
This film features a treasure chest of comedians from Jerry Lewis, The Three Stooges, Jim Backus, Joe E. Brown, Phil Silvers, Norman Fell, Don Knotts and Buster Keaton to other stars of the stage and screen, including Peter Falk, Andy Devine, Stan Freberg, Sterling Holloway, Zasu Pitts, Carl Reiner, and another boatload of surprise cameo appearances.
Nominated for six Academy Awards, this movie is, at last, shown in its original road show engagement, featuring an overture, intermission and exit music, and looks brilliant in its superb Hi-Definition presentation. The DTS 5.1 soundtrack is immaculate and the disc comes with some nice extras including the documentary Something A Little Less Serious: A Tribute to It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, some great extended and deleted scenes and the original trailer and the re-issue trailer from 1970.
Here is the perfect movie, with all it's flaws, and imperfections, and very poor editing, still maintains its audience to this day.
Directed by Stanley Kramer and filled with a who's who of Hollywood actors, it manages to keep a cohesive story together to an all too-abrupt-ending. Starring Spencer Tracy, this is the zany story of eight people who witness a speeding car careen off a cliff and what happens from there. Jimmy Durante is the ill-fated driver of the speeding vehicle, and the witnesses include Ethel Merman, Sid Caesar, Milton Berle, Mickey Rooney, Buddy Hackett, Jonathan Winters, Edie Adams and Dorothy Provine. When the men manage to crawl down the cliffside they find a mortally-hurt Durante who tells them about this treasure that is hidden under a "big W" before he literally kicks the bucket.
These people all decide that they are going to be the first Santa Rosarita and find this treasure under the "big W". But, what is the 'Big W' is the big question. After agreeing to disagree on the split of the treasure, they each take off on their own journey to get to Santa Rosarita.
This film features a treasure chest of comedians from Jerry Lewis, The Three Stooges, Jim Backus, Joe E. Brown, Phil Silvers, Norman Fell, Don Knotts and Buster Keaton to other stars of the stage and screen, including Peter Falk, Andy Devine, Stan Freberg, Sterling Holloway, Zasu Pitts, Carl Reiner, and another boatload of surprise cameo appearances.
Nominated for six Academy Awards, this movie is, at last, shown in its original road show engagement, featuring an overture, intermission and exit music, and looks brilliant in its superb Hi-Definition presentation. The DTS 5.1 soundtrack is immaculate and the disc comes with some nice extras including the documentary Something A Little Less Serious: A Tribute to It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, some great extended and deleted scenes and the original trailer and the re-issue trailer from 1970.
The only way to watch movies - Original Aspect Ratio!!!!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
-
Dr Frankenollie
- In The Vaults
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am
Nosferatu (1922)
What really strikes me about Nosferatu is that it holds up surprisingly well for a movie released 90 years ago and being in black-and-white and lacking sound. The film was directed by silent movie king F.W. Murnau, who after being unable to secure the rights to Bram Stoker’s fantastic 1897 horror novel Dracula instead chose to deliver a rip-off to German audiences. However, Stoker’s widow Florence sued the Prana Film Studio (which produced Nosferatu) for copyright infringement and won, leaving the studio bankrupt and subsequently all official copies of the film were burned. Thankfully, the still much-hated illegal pirate copying system saved the film and it is now in the public domain; so next time you watch an unoriginal movie, remember that the amateurish criminal using his mobile to get shoddy footage of the movie may be the only person who has a copy of the movie. Sometimes, piracy can come in handy.
Nosferatu, or Nosferatu: A Symphony of Terror, or Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror, is a fascinating piece of the hugely influential German Expressionistic Cinema era of the 1920’s that also gave us now somewhat forgotten classics like Fritz Lang’s Metropolis and The Cabinet of Dr Caligari. It is about the monstrous vampire Count Orlok (Max Shreck), who after giving solicitor Thomas Hutter (Gustav von Wangenheim) the fright of his life leaves his suitably creepy Transylvanian abodes to wreak havoc in the non-existent German town of ‘Wisborg’. This vampire doesn’t make other vampires; he simply kills, but by draining the blood of his victims of course. His arrival in Wisborg via a ship that arrives with its captain and crew dead leads to the locals believing that the plague is upon them, although Hutter and his loving wife Ellen (Greta Schroeder) know better; Orlok preys on the latter, but she learns about his kind by reading the seemingly superstitious ‘Book of Vampires’ her husband picked up in a Transylvanian inn. The film culminates rather gruesomely, but its climax is overall satisfying.
Nosferatu’s performances could be cited as occasionally melodramatic, but it’s silent; the actors and actresses can’t use words, they use their bodies to display their motives, feelings and personalities. Fortunately, the cast in this film is very skilled, with Wangenheim portraying this version of the novel’s character Jonathan Harker better than Keanu Reeves in Bram Stoker’s Dracula in 1992, even though the latter could speak. Wangenheim uses his body and his expressions to show his character develop, and the early scenes in Transylvania are from a physical drama viewpoint simply excellent. When the landlord of the inn he visits warns him about Orlok, Hutter simply laughs and finds the townsfolk’s superstitions amusing, but light-heartedly flips through the aforementioned ‘Book of Vampires’ anyway. However, his suspicions are raised by the mysterious figure of Orlok and slowly he suspects that something is wrong. This gradual development is great to watch and well-crafted, and makes the character both believable and relatable.
Schroder is also good as Ellen Hutter, who is visited by a doctor when she senses her husband is in danger and despite her gender and the sexism of the early 20th Century, Ellen turns out to be the hero of the film. Alexander Granach is darkly entertaining as Orlok’s snivelling slave who is incarcerated partway through the movie, Hutter’s employer Knock (obviously based upon the iconic Renfield), with his devilish toothy grin and gleaming eyes in my opinion just as memorable as Dwight Fyre’s over-the-top, wide-eyed portrayal as Renfield ten years later in the Universal version of Dracula with Bela Lugosi.
But undeniably the greatest performance as well as the greatest part of this movie is Max Shreck as Count Orlok. Words cannot describe how incredible his performance is; back then, people actually suspected that Shreck was just as weird and creepy in reality, believing that he couldn’t have acted in such a way deliberately. Such a performance couldn’t be done, they probably said. Some said that Shreck was in fact a vampire himself, which ended up being the basis for the black comedy Shadow of a Vampire with Willem Dafoe portraying Shreck as an actual vampire.
Without a doubt, even though Orlok does not resemble the description of an elderly, moustachioed Dracula like in the novel, or the iconic cape-wearing style Dracula popularised by Bela Lugosi, he is in my opinion the scariest and the most effective Dracula or vampire ever put to film. His haunting, soulless eyes; his abnormally long nose; his razor sharp teeth; his heartless, unforgettable stare; his spidery claws for hands; his archaic dress ware. The make-up, the direction, the editing and the performance by Shreck all make up one of the most breathtaking antagonists in all of cinematic history. This Dracula is unlike any other; he is unabashedly a monster, and would stick out from the crowd like a sore thumb. His presence can be felt through the entirety of the movie, due to how memorable he is and how strong and powerful the movie’s atmosphere is.
The movie is incredibly atmospheric, mostly due to the marvellous marriage of superb camerawork and fitting (but unmemorable) music. The cinematography is impressive even by today’s standards, and is elegant, spooky and complimented by the darkly-lit sets as well as the frequent and rather famous use of shadows (notably, there is scene near in the end of the film where Orlok’s shadow can be seen on the wall as he goes up the stairs off-screen, and is much more frightening than if Orlok was simply shown as it gives him even more of a supernatural, otherworldly feel and edge).
The music composed by Hans Erdmann which was to be performed by an orchestra during projection has mostly been lost, and composers such as James Bernard (the man responsible for the music of many Hammer-Horror productions released in the mid-20th century) and Alexis Savelief have written their own soundtracks for the film. Unfortunately, I don’t know who wrote the music for the version I watched with altered captions giving the original names of characters (thus, replacing ‘Orlok’ with ‘Dracula’ and ‘Hutter’ with ‘Harker’, etc.), but I still want to praise it mildly: whilst it doesn’t always fit the action on-screen, it fits most of the time, and although it’s unmemorable as I’ve already said, it still suits the movie’s style and varies between being ominous and oddly quirky, and adds to the atmosphere.
The only criticism I’d give to this movie is something that I’m not sure it really deserves: it’s slow-paced at times, and coupled with the fact that no dialogue is heard, it can be sometimes a little dull and even boring. That’s not to say I don’t like silent movies, but sometimes when the background music is a little inactive and not much is happening on-screen, I can’t help but yawn figuratively.
Nevertheless, it holds up extremely well as I’ve already said; soon it will be a whole century old and no doubt still watchable. Because of this, coupled with the complete impressiveness of the entirety of this production, I deem it a terrific near-masterpiece which is required viewing.
9/10.
Dracula (1931)
If you haven’t watched one of the most iconic adaptations of Bram Stoker’s classic novel of the same name, 1931’s Dracula, but plan on doing so, then before you do bear a number of facts in mind. Firstly, this movie made Universal Studios (which distributed Dracula) synonymous with the horror genre in the 1930’s and 1940’s, as far as American audiences were concerned. Its popularity resulted in a flurry of other horrors based on beloved works of literature, like Frankenstein (1931) with Boris Karloff and directed by James Whale, The Invisible Man (1933) with Claude Rains (also directed by James Whale) as well as horrors based on more contemporary pieces of literature, like Tod Browning’s (who directed Dracula) Freaks (1932).
It’s also responsible for some of the most resilient clichés of horror: spooky castles, vampire bats, graveyards, cobwebs, the undead, etc. As well as all this, it is also responsible for the common design of vampires and Count Dracula himself (immortalised here by his portrayer, Bela Lugosi), the still alive pop cultural craze for vampires and unfortunately indirectly responsible for the creation of Edward Cullen from Twilight, as Lugosi’s portrayal of Dracula was the first ‘sexy’ vampire.
In other words, Dracula is one of the most groundbreaking and influential movies of all time, and made many of its 1931 viewers scream in fright constantly. But is it a timeless film? Can it still be enjoyed even today like Nosferatu, another Dracula movie which was released in Germany nearly ten years earlier or the bright-coloured musicals and swashbuckling adventures that dominated the latter part of the 1930’s decade?
Renfield (Dwight Frye in undeniably his most famous role) is a solicitor who goes to Transylvania to oversee his new client Count Dracula’s (Bela Lugosi) leasing of Carfax Abbey in London, who stubbornly ignores the superstitions of the local villagers. However, he soon learns that Dracula is a monstrous, blood-sucking vampire, but before he can even attempt to escape is brainwashed into becoming Dracula’s slave. Dracula subsequently arrives in London and meets Dr Seward (Herbert Bunston), Seward’s daughter Mina (Helen Chandler), Mina’s husband Jonathan (David Manners) and family friend Lucy (Frances Dade), who becomes attracted to the mysterious foreign count; in the meantime, Renfield is taken to Dr Seward’s asylum and to the irritation of asylum attendant Martin (Charles K Gerrard) starts consuming flies and spiders.
Firstly, the style and quality of the film’s performances is mixed; some overact, whilst others under-act. Dwight Frye is good at the beginning when his character is naive and ignorant of the local Transylvanian legends, but when his character’s sanity cracks, so does the believability of his performance. The insane, giggling and fly-eating lunatic is portrayed in a way that could only be described as melodramatic. “Rats! Rats! Thousand! Millions of them!” Renfield rasps at one point, spreading his arms wide and his wide, mad eyes grow even wider. Browning, a director who has been said to have been comfortable directing silent films, struggled to make a film with dialogue if Dracula is anything to go by; the melodrama of the superior Nosferatu (which inspired Dracula) was suitable as it lacked sound, and it would be understandable if Dracula was just a little melodramatic as in 1931 sound pictures were relatively new and the directors and producers were teaching themselves, but Frye’s performance is more funny than scary.
The other actors like Helen Chandler and David Manners are sometimes cringe-worthy, but Edward Van Sloan (who portrays the elderly archenemy of Dracula, Van Helsing) is often stiff. One of the few performances that seemed real to me was Frances Dade’s, as she fortunately found a middle ground between the varying melodrama and stiffness of her cohorts. Also good, however, was Charles K Gerrard, who provides ample comic relief and delivers the movie’s best and most memorable line to the Seward’s nurse(eat your heart out, “I never drink...wine”): “They're all crazy. They're all crazy except you and me. Sometimes I have my doubts about you.” Martin the asylum attendant in my opinion makes the movie worth watching, with his matter-of-fact comments (when an incredulous Renfield roars: “Who wants to eat flies?” Martin replies in undisguised confusion: “You do, you loony!”)
Undoubtedly the most famous, the most iconic and the most praised performance in the movie is Bela Lugosi’s portrayal of the titular role. And despite my criticisms of some of the other performances, Lugosi’s performance is quite good; perhaps because I had high expectations, but I don’t think he’s brilliant, and I think Max Shreck and Gary Oldman’s portrayals of Dracula (in 1922 and 1992, respectively) are both superior, especially Shreck’s. But nevertheless, Lugosi is a powerful and memorable presence on-screen, and exudes the feeling of a manipulator. At many points in the film, it feels like Dracula is in total control of everyone around him, and although his eventual comeuppance is anticlimactic and off-screen, he is still a notably powerful figure. Lugosi makes the role his own, and the costume (like a magician’s costume but without the top hat and rabbit) is just as iconic as his unusual way of speaking English.
His best scenes are with Renfield at the start, when he ignores all of Renfield’s voiced concerns and bewilderment with a mere ‘Welcome’; later, he fixes a stare still rather creepy on Renfield when the latter is gathering papers together in the crumbling Castle Dracula. On the other hand, sometimes even Lugosi can’t pull off some plainly awful lines (“Now that you have learned what you have learned,” springs to mind), and his often used stare grows tiresome.
The movie’s special effects are of course bad by today’s standards, with the bat version of Dracula being laughable; however, there are some great shots and some of the visual imagery (like when Dracula and his three brides first emerge from their coffins) is superb. Like many early sound films, this film lacks background music, with the only piece of music (besides ringing church bells at the end, which really doesn’t count) being a sublime rendition of Tchaikovsky’s main theme from Swan Lake during the opening credits, which fits the movie well: its initial notes could be interpreted as either wistful and sorrowful or suitably ghostly and eerie, and the truly grand part of the piece has a rather triumphant feeling (perhaps the piece is used to oversimplify the plot, with it being first rather spooky, then sad, then triumphant due to the happy ending).
Overall, it is dated and slow-paced at times, but in answer to my own question, it is still very slightly creepy at times (like when Mina implies that Dracula forced her to drink his blood off-screen), and for all of its flaws, it should be still be seen due to how groundbreaking it was, and because of Lugosi’s unforgettable (but slightly overrated) performance.
7/10.
What really strikes me about Nosferatu is that it holds up surprisingly well for a movie released 90 years ago and being in black-and-white and lacking sound. The film was directed by silent movie king F.W. Murnau, who after being unable to secure the rights to Bram Stoker’s fantastic 1897 horror novel Dracula instead chose to deliver a rip-off to German audiences. However, Stoker’s widow Florence sued the Prana Film Studio (which produced Nosferatu) for copyright infringement and won, leaving the studio bankrupt and subsequently all official copies of the film were burned. Thankfully, the still much-hated illegal pirate copying system saved the film and it is now in the public domain; so next time you watch an unoriginal movie, remember that the amateurish criminal using his mobile to get shoddy footage of the movie may be the only person who has a copy of the movie. Sometimes, piracy can come in handy.
Nosferatu, or Nosferatu: A Symphony of Terror, or Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror, is a fascinating piece of the hugely influential German Expressionistic Cinema era of the 1920’s that also gave us now somewhat forgotten classics like Fritz Lang’s Metropolis and The Cabinet of Dr Caligari. It is about the monstrous vampire Count Orlok (Max Shreck), who after giving solicitor Thomas Hutter (Gustav von Wangenheim) the fright of his life leaves his suitably creepy Transylvanian abodes to wreak havoc in the non-existent German town of ‘Wisborg’. This vampire doesn’t make other vampires; he simply kills, but by draining the blood of his victims of course. His arrival in Wisborg via a ship that arrives with its captain and crew dead leads to the locals believing that the plague is upon them, although Hutter and his loving wife Ellen (Greta Schroeder) know better; Orlok preys on the latter, but she learns about his kind by reading the seemingly superstitious ‘Book of Vampires’ her husband picked up in a Transylvanian inn. The film culminates rather gruesomely, but its climax is overall satisfying.
Nosferatu’s performances could be cited as occasionally melodramatic, but it’s silent; the actors and actresses can’t use words, they use their bodies to display their motives, feelings and personalities. Fortunately, the cast in this film is very skilled, with Wangenheim portraying this version of the novel’s character Jonathan Harker better than Keanu Reeves in Bram Stoker’s Dracula in 1992, even though the latter could speak. Wangenheim uses his body and his expressions to show his character develop, and the early scenes in Transylvania are from a physical drama viewpoint simply excellent. When the landlord of the inn he visits warns him about Orlok, Hutter simply laughs and finds the townsfolk’s superstitions amusing, but light-heartedly flips through the aforementioned ‘Book of Vampires’ anyway. However, his suspicions are raised by the mysterious figure of Orlok and slowly he suspects that something is wrong. This gradual development is great to watch and well-crafted, and makes the character both believable and relatable.
Schroder is also good as Ellen Hutter, who is visited by a doctor when she senses her husband is in danger and despite her gender and the sexism of the early 20th Century, Ellen turns out to be the hero of the film. Alexander Granach is darkly entertaining as Orlok’s snivelling slave who is incarcerated partway through the movie, Hutter’s employer Knock (obviously based upon the iconic Renfield), with his devilish toothy grin and gleaming eyes in my opinion just as memorable as Dwight Fyre’s over-the-top, wide-eyed portrayal as Renfield ten years later in the Universal version of Dracula with Bela Lugosi.
But undeniably the greatest performance as well as the greatest part of this movie is Max Shreck as Count Orlok. Words cannot describe how incredible his performance is; back then, people actually suspected that Shreck was just as weird and creepy in reality, believing that he couldn’t have acted in such a way deliberately. Such a performance couldn’t be done, they probably said. Some said that Shreck was in fact a vampire himself, which ended up being the basis for the black comedy Shadow of a Vampire with Willem Dafoe portraying Shreck as an actual vampire.
Without a doubt, even though Orlok does not resemble the description of an elderly, moustachioed Dracula like in the novel, or the iconic cape-wearing style Dracula popularised by Bela Lugosi, he is in my opinion the scariest and the most effective Dracula or vampire ever put to film. His haunting, soulless eyes; his abnormally long nose; his razor sharp teeth; his heartless, unforgettable stare; his spidery claws for hands; his archaic dress ware. The make-up, the direction, the editing and the performance by Shreck all make up one of the most breathtaking antagonists in all of cinematic history. This Dracula is unlike any other; he is unabashedly a monster, and would stick out from the crowd like a sore thumb. His presence can be felt through the entirety of the movie, due to how memorable he is and how strong and powerful the movie’s atmosphere is.
The movie is incredibly atmospheric, mostly due to the marvellous marriage of superb camerawork and fitting (but unmemorable) music. The cinematography is impressive even by today’s standards, and is elegant, spooky and complimented by the darkly-lit sets as well as the frequent and rather famous use of shadows (notably, there is scene near in the end of the film where Orlok’s shadow can be seen on the wall as he goes up the stairs off-screen, and is much more frightening than if Orlok was simply shown as it gives him even more of a supernatural, otherworldly feel and edge).
The music composed by Hans Erdmann which was to be performed by an orchestra during projection has mostly been lost, and composers such as James Bernard (the man responsible for the music of many Hammer-Horror productions released in the mid-20th century) and Alexis Savelief have written their own soundtracks for the film. Unfortunately, I don’t know who wrote the music for the version I watched with altered captions giving the original names of characters (thus, replacing ‘Orlok’ with ‘Dracula’ and ‘Hutter’ with ‘Harker’, etc.), but I still want to praise it mildly: whilst it doesn’t always fit the action on-screen, it fits most of the time, and although it’s unmemorable as I’ve already said, it still suits the movie’s style and varies between being ominous and oddly quirky, and adds to the atmosphere.
The only criticism I’d give to this movie is something that I’m not sure it really deserves: it’s slow-paced at times, and coupled with the fact that no dialogue is heard, it can be sometimes a little dull and even boring. That’s not to say I don’t like silent movies, but sometimes when the background music is a little inactive and not much is happening on-screen, I can’t help but yawn figuratively.
Nevertheless, it holds up extremely well as I’ve already said; soon it will be a whole century old and no doubt still watchable. Because of this, coupled with the complete impressiveness of the entirety of this production, I deem it a terrific near-masterpiece which is required viewing.
9/10.
Dracula (1931)
If you haven’t watched one of the most iconic adaptations of Bram Stoker’s classic novel of the same name, 1931’s Dracula, but plan on doing so, then before you do bear a number of facts in mind. Firstly, this movie made Universal Studios (which distributed Dracula) synonymous with the horror genre in the 1930’s and 1940’s, as far as American audiences were concerned. Its popularity resulted in a flurry of other horrors based on beloved works of literature, like Frankenstein (1931) with Boris Karloff and directed by James Whale, The Invisible Man (1933) with Claude Rains (also directed by James Whale) as well as horrors based on more contemporary pieces of literature, like Tod Browning’s (who directed Dracula) Freaks (1932).
It’s also responsible for some of the most resilient clichés of horror: spooky castles, vampire bats, graveyards, cobwebs, the undead, etc. As well as all this, it is also responsible for the common design of vampires and Count Dracula himself (immortalised here by his portrayer, Bela Lugosi), the still alive pop cultural craze for vampires and unfortunately indirectly responsible for the creation of Edward Cullen from Twilight, as Lugosi’s portrayal of Dracula was the first ‘sexy’ vampire.
In other words, Dracula is one of the most groundbreaking and influential movies of all time, and made many of its 1931 viewers scream in fright constantly. But is it a timeless film? Can it still be enjoyed even today like Nosferatu, another Dracula movie which was released in Germany nearly ten years earlier or the bright-coloured musicals and swashbuckling adventures that dominated the latter part of the 1930’s decade?
Renfield (Dwight Frye in undeniably his most famous role) is a solicitor who goes to Transylvania to oversee his new client Count Dracula’s (Bela Lugosi) leasing of Carfax Abbey in London, who stubbornly ignores the superstitions of the local villagers. However, he soon learns that Dracula is a monstrous, blood-sucking vampire, but before he can even attempt to escape is brainwashed into becoming Dracula’s slave. Dracula subsequently arrives in London and meets Dr Seward (Herbert Bunston), Seward’s daughter Mina (Helen Chandler), Mina’s husband Jonathan (David Manners) and family friend Lucy (Frances Dade), who becomes attracted to the mysterious foreign count; in the meantime, Renfield is taken to Dr Seward’s asylum and to the irritation of asylum attendant Martin (Charles K Gerrard) starts consuming flies and spiders.
Firstly, the style and quality of the film’s performances is mixed; some overact, whilst others under-act. Dwight Frye is good at the beginning when his character is naive and ignorant of the local Transylvanian legends, but when his character’s sanity cracks, so does the believability of his performance. The insane, giggling and fly-eating lunatic is portrayed in a way that could only be described as melodramatic. “Rats! Rats! Thousand! Millions of them!” Renfield rasps at one point, spreading his arms wide and his wide, mad eyes grow even wider. Browning, a director who has been said to have been comfortable directing silent films, struggled to make a film with dialogue if Dracula is anything to go by; the melodrama of the superior Nosferatu (which inspired Dracula) was suitable as it lacked sound, and it would be understandable if Dracula was just a little melodramatic as in 1931 sound pictures were relatively new and the directors and producers were teaching themselves, but Frye’s performance is more funny than scary.
The other actors like Helen Chandler and David Manners are sometimes cringe-worthy, but Edward Van Sloan (who portrays the elderly archenemy of Dracula, Van Helsing) is often stiff. One of the few performances that seemed real to me was Frances Dade’s, as she fortunately found a middle ground between the varying melodrama and stiffness of her cohorts. Also good, however, was Charles K Gerrard, who provides ample comic relief and delivers the movie’s best and most memorable line to the Seward’s nurse(eat your heart out, “I never drink...wine”): “They're all crazy. They're all crazy except you and me. Sometimes I have my doubts about you.” Martin the asylum attendant in my opinion makes the movie worth watching, with his matter-of-fact comments (when an incredulous Renfield roars: “Who wants to eat flies?” Martin replies in undisguised confusion: “You do, you loony!”)
Undoubtedly the most famous, the most iconic and the most praised performance in the movie is Bela Lugosi’s portrayal of the titular role. And despite my criticisms of some of the other performances, Lugosi’s performance is quite good; perhaps because I had high expectations, but I don’t think he’s brilliant, and I think Max Shreck and Gary Oldman’s portrayals of Dracula (in 1922 and 1992, respectively) are both superior, especially Shreck’s. But nevertheless, Lugosi is a powerful and memorable presence on-screen, and exudes the feeling of a manipulator. At many points in the film, it feels like Dracula is in total control of everyone around him, and although his eventual comeuppance is anticlimactic and off-screen, he is still a notably powerful figure. Lugosi makes the role his own, and the costume (like a magician’s costume but without the top hat and rabbit) is just as iconic as his unusual way of speaking English.
His best scenes are with Renfield at the start, when he ignores all of Renfield’s voiced concerns and bewilderment with a mere ‘Welcome’; later, he fixes a stare still rather creepy on Renfield when the latter is gathering papers together in the crumbling Castle Dracula. On the other hand, sometimes even Lugosi can’t pull off some plainly awful lines (“Now that you have learned what you have learned,” springs to mind), and his often used stare grows tiresome.
The movie’s special effects are of course bad by today’s standards, with the bat version of Dracula being laughable; however, there are some great shots and some of the visual imagery (like when Dracula and his three brides first emerge from their coffins) is superb. Like many early sound films, this film lacks background music, with the only piece of music (besides ringing church bells at the end, which really doesn’t count) being a sublime rendition of Tchaikovsky’s main theme from Swan Lake during the opening credits, which fits the movie well: its initial notes could be interpreted as either wistful and sorrowful or suitably ghostly and eerie, and the truly grand part of the piece has a rather triumphant feeling (perhaps the piece is used to oversimplify the plot, with it being first rather spooky, then sad, then triumphant due to the happy ending).
Overall, it is dated and slow-paced at times, but in answer to my own question, it is still very slightly creepy at times (like when Mina implies that Dracula forced her to drink his blood off-screen), and for all of its flaws, it should be still be seen due to how groundbreaking it was, and because of Lugosi’s unforgettable (but slightly overrated) performance.
7/10.
Léon (1994)
I believe this is my fouth viewing and while the emotional impact of the first viewing can never be surpassed, I still love it to pieces. One of my all-time favorites, it deals with little Mathilda (superbely played by a pre-teen Natalie Portman) who sees her white trash family murdered by a corrupt DEA officer (a manic Gary Oldman) and seeks shelter with her solitary neighbor (sympathetic role by Jean Reno). He turns out to be a professional hitman and, by her request, he starts to take care of her, while teaching her his trade. The simple-minded 'big child' Léon and the too-mature-for-her-age Mathilda slowly develop a beautiful friendship and a deep emotional bonding. She's in need of someone who loves her for who she really is and he needs a purpose in life.
It's a pretty violent film and it's also shocking at times, considering what 12 year old Mathilda gets to see and do while she is with Léon. But it's not the violence or the action scenes that count (although they are all very well written and acted out), it's the character development which is the main attraction here, especially Mathilda, who continues to try to seduce Léon into being her lover, simply because she has never had a proper role model. She acts out what she thinks men want from her, but she really hasn't got any clue (though she's by no means a naieve girl). Luckily, Léon doesn't take the easy route and doesn't let himself get tempted. Instead, he's playing the father figure Mathilda needs and obviously wants, even though she might not know it herself.
Natalie Portman is amazing. So young, yet so convincing, so real and authentic. That power she had in Black Swan, you could already see it in her first role here. Gary Oldman is also excellent as always. His character is a bit over-the-top, but he manages to portray him a certain way, so that he's still a believable villain and a real threat to Léon. Luc Besson did a terrific job in his first Hollywood production. He found the right balance between the action and the character development and between the many dark moments and the light-hearted, funny parts. All in all, the movie certainly is a bit disturbing and it does have its awkward and controversial moments, but that's part of why I love it.
I believe this is my fouth viewing and while the emotional impact of the first viewing can never be surpassed, I still love it to pieces. One of my all-time favorites, it deals with little Mathilda (superbely played by a pre-teen Natalie Portman) who sees her white trash family murdered by a corrupt DEA officer (a manic Gary Oldman) and seeks shelter with her solitary neighbor (sympathetic role by Jean Reno). He turns out to be a professional hitman and, by her request, he starts to take care of her, while teaching her his trade. The simple-minded 'big child' Léon and the too-mature-for-her-age Mathilda slowly develop a beautiful friendship and a deep emotional bonding. She's in need of someone who loves her for who she really is and he needs a purpose in life.
It's a pretty violent film and it's also shocking at times, considering what 12 year old Mathilda gets to see and do while she is with Léon. But it's not the violence or the action scenes that count (although they are all very well written and acted out), it's the character development which is the main attraction here, especially Mathilda, who continues to try to seduce Léon into being her lover, simply because she has never had a proper role model. She acts out what she thinks men want from her, but she really hasn't got any clue (though she's by no means a naieve girl). Luckily, Léon doesn't take the easy route and doesn't let himself get tempted. Instead, he's playing the father figure Mathilda needs and obviously wants, even though she might not know it herself.
Natalie Portman is amazing. So young, yet so convincing, so real and authentic. That power she had in Black Swan, you could already see it in her first role here. Gary Oldman is also excellent as always. His character is a bit over-the-top, but he manages to portray him a certain way, so that he's still a believable villain and a real threat to Léon. Luc Besson did a terrific job in his first Hollywood production. He found the right balance between the action and the character development and between the many dark moments and the light-hearted, funny parts. All in all, the movie certainly is a bit disturbing and it does have its awkward and controversial moments, but that's part of why I love it.
-
carolinakid
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:58 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: New Jersey but soon to be Florida!
I Think I Do (1998)
The film was so-so but the Partridge Family soundtrack ROCKED!
The songs chosen really fit what was going on on screen.
I just thought the story could have been a little better.
Marni Nixon was a hoot, though....her first film appearance since Sister Sophia in The Sound of Music (1965)!!!!
The film was so-so but the Partridge Family soundtrack ROCKED!
The songs chosen really fit what was going on on screen.
I just thought the story could have been a little better.
Marni Nixon was a hoot, though....her first film appearance since Sister Sophia in The Sound of Music (1965)!!!!
Fatal Attraction (1987)
First viewing. I already knew about the 'double ending' in the badthub, so the climax wasn't really that exciting. The rest wasn't all that special, either. Fairly standars thriller stuff. Also, I don't understand why the Douglas-character would be attracted to the Glenn Close-character. I mean, the firs scene I saw with her, she looked like a 70 year old! She reminded me of Snow White's peddler woman. And then that dead poodle on her head that had to pass for a hair-cut...?! Douglas, what were you thinking?
First viewing. I already knew about the 'double ending' in the badthub, so the climax wasn't really that exciting. The rest wasn't all that special, either. Fairly standars thriller stuff. Also, I don't understand why the Douglas-character would be attracted to the Glenn Close-character. I mean, the firs scene I saw with her, she looked like a 70 year old! She reminded me of Snow White's peddler woman. And then that dead poodle on her head that had to pass for a hair-cut...?! Douglas, what were you thinking?
-
Flower's Friend
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:39 pm
- Contact:
-
SillySymphony
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 454
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:28 pm
- Location: Alaska
Latest (Disney) movies watched:
(Rating scale 1-5 ✰s)
Walt & El Grupo ✰✰✰
Saludos Amigos ✰✰✰
Toby Tyler, or Ten Weeks with a Circus ✰✰✰1/2
The Crimson Wing: Mystery of the Flamingos ✰✰✰1/2
Mickey's The Prince and the Pauper ✰✰✰
(Rating scale 1-5 ✰s)
Walt & El Grupo ✰✰✰
Saludos Amigos ✰✰✰
Toby Tyler, or Ten Weeks with a Circus ✰✰✰1/2
The Crimson Wing: Mystery of the Flamingos ✰✰✰1/2
Mickey's The Prince and the Pauper ✰✰✰
theCat'sOut/Flowers&Trees/theFlyingMouse/theSkeletonDance/theThreeLittlePigs
-
dvdjunkie
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5613
- Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:05 am
- Location: Wichita, Kansas
Animal House (1978) Blu-ray 9/10 stars
There never has nor will there ever be a movie as funny as "Animal House", Directed by John Landis. This film has been copied but never as well as the original and that's what makes this movie so unique. It takes college to another level, and fraternities and sororities are given a bad name, but all is done with love and misunderstanding.
John Belushi leads an all-star cast which features Tom Hulce, Stephen Furst, Mary Louise Weller, Karen Allen, Mark Metcalf, Kevin Bacon, Donald Sutherland, Tim Matheson, Peter Reigert and John Vernon, as Dean Vernon Wormer, who is trying to find a way to throw the Delta franternity off the campus. One thing leads to another and the laughs come at you at a rapid pace, and then there is the Toga party and ill-fated Homecoming Parade and through it all, our Delta's come through. If you have never seen this film, put it at the top of your queue and watch it at least twice, so you get all the jokes and innuendos. This is must viewing for all who enjoy a good comedy!!!
There never has nor will there ever be a movie as funny as "Animal House", Directed by John Landis. This film has been copied but never as well as the original and that's what makes this movie so unique. It takes college to another level, and fraternities and sororities are given a bad name, but all is done with love and misunderstanding.
John Belushi leads an all-star cast which features Tom Hulce, Stephen Furst, Mary Louise Weller, Karen Allen, Mark Metcalf, Kevin Bacon, Donald Sutherland, Tim Matheson, Peter Reigert and John Vernon, as Dean Vernon Wormer, who is trying to find a way to throw the Delta franternity off the campus. One thing leads to another and the laughs come at you at a rapid pace, and then there is the Toga party and ill-fated Homecoming Parade and through it all, our Delta's come through. If you have never seen this film, put it at the top of your queue and watch it at least twice, so you get all the jokes and innuendos. This is must viewing for all who enjoy a good comedy!!!
The only way to watch movies - Original Aspect Ratio!!!!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
-
BelleGirl
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:36 am
- Location: The Netherlands, The Hague
The Incredibles
With this movie Pixar shows that you can actually use popular culture in animation in a good way. Not as an annoying reference, but completely worked into the story to make something new! What we see here is a clever, mixture of superhero-comics and James Bond worked into one, with a stab at bureaucracy and claim-culture. The villain Syndrome is memorable and the fashion designer Edna Mode is hilarious! Despite the really incredible content this is actually an intelligent story with good dialogues i.m.o
The Insider 1999
Long, but fascinating true story about an ex-employee of a tobacco company who reveals in an interview with a TV-journalist how his former employer deliberately put chemicals in their cigarettes to make them more addictive, and how this decision messed up his life. Gives insight into the power of tobacco companies and the limitations of a 'free press'. Good to find out in the end that the insider (Russel Crowe) ultimately picked up the pieces of his life and became a succesful teacher.
With this movie Pixar shows that you can actually use popular culture in animation in a good way. Not as an annoying reference, but completely worked into the story to make something new! What we see here is a clever, mixture of superhero-comics and James Bond worked into one, with a stab at bureaucracy and claim-culture. The villain Syndrome is memorable and the fashion designer Edna Mode is hilarious! Despite the really incredible content this is actually an intelligent story with good dialogues i.m.o
The Insider 1999
Long, but fascinating true story about an ex-employee of a tobacco company who reveals in an interview with a TV-journalist how his former employer deliberately put chemicals in their cigarettes to make them more addictive, and how this decision messed up his life. Gives insight into the power of tobacco companies and the limitations of a 'free press'. Good to find out in the end that the insider (Russel Crowe) ultimately picked up the pieces of his life and became a succesful teacher.
See my growing collection of Disney movie-banners at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/78256383@N ... 651337290/
The Night Listener (2006)
Mediocre, predictable thriller-drama that uses every cliché in the book. I could even see the supposed 'suprising twist' at the end coming from a mile. I don't know why Robin Williams wasted any time on doing this gig. I thought he had earned enough not to sell himself out so blatantly. He's an auto-pilot the whole movie through. I have one positive thing to say about it: I like how the main character is a gay man, without this influencing the plot at all. He could have been straight and there would be nothing different about the story. I think we need more of that in Hollywood.
Mediocre, predictable thriller-drama that uses every cliché in the book. I could even see the supposed 'suprising twist' at the end coming from a mile. I don't know why Robin Williams wasted any time on doing this gig. I thought he had earned enough not to sell himself out so blatantly. He's an auto-pilot the whole movie through. I have one positive thing to say about it: I like how the main character is a gay man, without this influencing the plot at all. He could have been straight and there would be nothing different about the story. I think we need more of that in Hollywood.
-
dvdjunkie
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5613
- Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:05 am
- Location: Wichita, Kansas
The Professionals (1966) Blu-ray 8/10
This is one movie that is worth the time watching, even if westerns aren't your cup of tea, The cast alone is worth the 117 minutes of great storytelling and great photography.
Directed by Richard Brooks, with a soundtrack by Maurice Jarre, the film stars Robert Ryan, Burt Lancaster, Lee Marvin, Woody Strode, Claudia Cardinale, and Jack Palance with a good supporting role by Ralph Bellamy, who plays Texas Millionair J.T. Grant, whom he hires Ryan, Lancaster, Marvin and Strode to bring back his wife (Cardinale) who was kidnapped by Mexican revolutionary (Palance).
Bellamy has the plan all drawn out, and handpicks his team to go 100 miles across the Mexican border to rescue his wife. Offering $1,000 to each man in advance, with $9,000 to be given to those who return alive with his wife.
The plan works perfectly except there is a great twist that you don't see coming until it happens. Great story, lots of action, and just a whole lot of fun. Recently re-rated PG-13, down from its "R" rating, when it was released. And it looks great in High-Definition.
Filmed in glorious 2:35.1 and Technicolor this movie was nominated for three Academy Awards, two for writer/Director Richard Brooks. I am proud to have this film in my Blu-ray collection and it will be watched a lot of times.
This is one movie that is worth the time watching, even if westerns aren't your cup of tea, The cast alone is worth the 117 minutes of great storytelling and great photography.
Directed by Richard Brooks, with a soundtrack by Maurice Jarre, the film stars Robert Ryan, Burt Lancaster, Lee Marvin, Woody Strode, Claudia Cardinale, and Jack Palance with a good supporting role by Ralph Bellamy, who plays Texas Millionair J.T. Grant, whom he hires Ryan, Lancaster, Marvin and Strode to bring back his wife (Cardinale) who was kidnapped by Mexican revolutionary (Palance).
Bellamy has the plan all drawn out, and handpicks his team to go 100 miles across the Mexican border to rescue his wife. Offering $1,000 to each man in advance, with $9,000 to be given to those who return alive with his wife.
The plan works perfectly except there is a great twist that you don't see coming until it happens. Great story, lots of action, and just a whole lot of fun. Recently re-rated PG-13, down from its "R" rating, when it was released. And it looks great in High-Definition.
Filmed in glorious 2:35.1 and Technicolor this movie was nominated for three Academy Awards, two for writer/Director Richard Brooks. I am proud to have this film in my Blu-ray collection and it will be watched a lot of times.
The only way to watch movies - Original Aspect Ratio!!!!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
-
Dr Frankenollie
- In The Vaults
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am
Batman Begins (2005)
Christopher Nolan’s 2005 superhero masterpiece Batman Begins rebooted the cinematic Batman franchise after Joel Schumacher wreaked havoc on the earlier movie adaptation series created by Tim Burton, retelling the story of Batman, but giving it great emotional depth. Batman himself never really appears in his costume completely until about an hour in. Instead of giving us a few hours of Batman punching villains and occasionally romanticising, Nolan (who both directs and screen-writes, sharing the latter job with the equally talented David S Goyer) lets us see the man behind the mask, and how he grows into the comic book legend by facing his demons, before saving the city he loves by taking down villains largely connected to his origins. This film is about Bruce Wayne, not Batman.
It begins with a child Bruce Wayne (Guy Lewis) playing with his friend Rachel Dawes (Emma Lockhart) on the grounds of his parents’ manor home, before falling down into a dark cave, where he first encounters his greatest fear: bats. Shortly thereafter, when Bruce is scared by an opera which prompts him to have flashbacks to his aforementioned encounter with the chiropteran beasts; as a result, Bruce and his parents leave the theatre, only for Joe Chill (Richard Brake) to gun them down in cold blood. Fourteen years later, the adult Bruce (Christian Bale) is intent on killing Chill, whose prison sentence is being suspended as he is providing evidence against mob boss Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson), ruler of Gotham’s underworld and main corrupter of the Gotham City Police Department; however, one of Falcone’s assassins beats him to it, and when he reveals his original intentions to the now adult Rachel (Katie Holmes) who works in the DA’s office, she slaps him.
A disillusioned Bruce travels the world, eventually meeting Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), a representative of the League of Shadows, who helps train him to become ‘more than just a man’; however, Bruce destroys the league’s headquarters but saves Ducard’s life when he learns that the League is murderous and plans on destroying his hometown of Gotham City. After returning to Gotham, Bruce decides to use his fear against criminals, and becomes the vigilante anti-hero Batman, assisted by his wise old butler Alfred (Michael Caine) and his father’s innovative inventor friend Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman). After allying himself with one of the few incorruptible cops in the GCPD, James Gordon (Gary Oldham), Batman works against Falcone and the megalomaniacal Dr Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy), who-like Batman-uses fear, but not to help innocents and fight crime, but to manipulate others so as to achieve his own goals.
When it comes to performances, the movie is chock full of great, well-known actors. Bale steals the show as the multi-layered hero, and in fact he plays four distinct roles: the disillusioned Bruce who nearly kills Joe Chill and is found in a prison in the Middle East by a seemingly sympathetic Ducard; the vengeful and quick-thinking version of Bruce who comes into being once the heir to Wayne Enterprises returns to Gotham after being missing for years; the version of Bruce who is a lie, acting like a reckless playboy in public; and finally the mysterious and gravelly-voiced guardian angel Batman himself. The combination of great storytelling and Bale’s four roles is fantastic, with Bale being unquestionably the best actor to have ever portrayed the legendary Caped Crusader.
Not only can he believably scare criminals into submission and portray an occasional action hero as good as Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis, but Bale makes us believe that his character can really exist, which is something truly brilliant. Superheroes have always been one of the hardest to accept as possible when it comes to fictional concepts, but Nolan and Goyer’s script takes us through the life-changing journey of Bruce Wayne and gives us a version of Batman that could exist in the real world, and despite being unique is nevertheless immensely faithful to the comic book version. The script breathes new life into the archaic icon of the comic book industry, and Bale gives him humanity.
Liam Neeson’s portrayal of Henri Ducard is also somewhat multi-layered, but I can’t go into details of where the script surprisingly goes with this character without spoiling parts of the third act; in regards to the mentor figure he initially portrays, Neeson displays his usual charisma and whilst not as warm as characters like Oskar Schindler, he dupes both the young Bruce and the audience into believing he’s a wholly trustworthy ally.
The film also has a variety of great and well-experienced actors on the brink of their autumn years, such as Caine, Freeman and Blade Runner’s Rutger Hauer (as the corrupt CEO of Wayne Enterprises, William Earle).
As Alfred, Caine provides the film with both dry wit and emotion, with the butler character varying between a quip-spewing bit of comic relief and a surrogate father figure for the mentally unstable Bruce/Batman. Freeman also provides comic relief, and has bubbling chemistry with Bale-some of the wittiest scenes are with Bruce lying to Lucius about why he needs the Tumbler, this film’s version of the Batmobile, as well as other weapons and gadgets even though he knows that Lucius doesn’t believe him (Lucius in turn often plays along).
Meanwhile, Gary Oldman plays the heroic future GCPD Commissioner James Gordon, which is odd considering Oldman’s favouring of villains in the past. His character’s emotions are subtle but he is one of the most likable characters and is an important ally for Bruce/Batman, with his character’s actions eventually leading to both the police and Gotham City’s acceptance of Batman as a force for good. As usual, Oldman is able to immerse himself in the role, and if anyone is the definitive portrayer of a particular character in this movie, then it’s Oldham; we see glimpses of Gordon’s family and we see Gordon as more compassionate, intelligent and courageous than ever before. Oldham is Gordon.
The writing of the movie has obviously been influenced by great graphic novels like Batman: Year One, but the dialogue is simply fantastic; Batman Begins often uses repetition or self-referential humour just because of the dialogue, which is so rhythmically, wonderfully written that some lines (“Why do we fall, Bruce? So we can learn to pick ourselves back up”; “Didn’t you get the memo?”) and it lacks the usual awkwardness or forgettable edge that most superhero movie scripts unfortunately sport.
Batman Begins’ music by Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard may lack the operatic and unforgettable quality of Danny Elfman’s brilliant score for the 1989 version of Batman, but it nevertheless fits the dark, brooding style of this reboot.
This film, like many other great films by Nolan, has the same magnificent balance between fast-paced, original and truly exciting action sequences with intellectual storytelling and believable characters we can care for. It is bursting at the seams with moments of pure cinematic brilliance: the young Bruce falling down into the bat cave in slow motion; hundreds of bats flapping around the fearless Bruce many years later; Wayne Manor in flames; the Batmobile roaring and jumping from rooftop to rooftop; the unsettling images characters see due to the Scarecrow’s fear toxin; Bruce sliding down a snow-covered mountain slope to save the unconscious Ducard; and countless other marvellous moments.
Batman Begins is the first part of Christopher Nolan’s definitive adaptation of the Batman mythos, and is believable, smartly-written, surprising, thrilling, and mature. Unlike previous versions of the Dark Knight character, the focus is on Batman and what makes him who he is. I recommend this to teenagers and adults, as children might find it too mature and too focused upon characters. It’s undeniably a perfect masterpiece, and not to be missed by film buffs.
10/10.
Christopher Nolan’s 2005 superhero masterpiece Batman Begins rebooted the cinematic Batman franchise after Joel Schumacher wreaked havoc on the earlier movie adaptation series created by Tim Burton, retelling the story of Batman, but giving it great emotional depth. Batman himself never really appears in his costume completely until about an hour in. Instead of giving us a few hours of Batman punching villains and occasionally romanticising, Nolan (who both directs and screen-writes, sharing the latter job with the equally talented David S Goyer) lets us see the man behind the mask, and how he grows into the comic book legend by facing his demons, before saving the city he loves by taking down villains largely connected to his origins. This film is about Bruce Wayne, not Batman.
It begins with a child Bruce Wayne (Guy Lewis) playing with his friend Rachel Dawes (Emma Lockhart) on the grounds of his parents’ manor home, before falling down into a dark cave, where he first encounters his greatest fear: bats. Shortly thereafter, when Bruce is scared by an opera which prompts him to have flashbacks to his aforementioned encounter with the chiropteran beasts; as a result, Bruce and his parents leave the theatre, only for Joe Chill (Richard Brake) to gun them down in cold blood. Fourteen years later, the adult Bruce (Christian Bale) is intent on killing Chill, whose prison sentence is being suspended as he is providing evidence against mob boss Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson), ruler of Gotham’s underworld and main corrupter of the Gotham City Police Department; however, one of Falcone’s assassins beats him to it, and when he reveals his original intentions to the now adult Rachel (Katie Holmes) who works in the DA’s office, she slaps him.
A disillusioned Bruce travels the world, eventually meeting Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), a representative of the League of Shadows, who helps train him to become ‘more than just a man’; however, Bruce destroys the league’s headquarters but saves Ducard’s life when he learns that the League is murderous and plans on destroying his hometown of Gotham City. After returning to Gotham, Bruce decides to use his fear against criminals, and becomes the vigilante anti-hero Batman, assisted by his wise old butler Alfred (Michael Caine) and his father’s innovative inventor friend Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman). After allying himself with one of the few incorruptible cops in the GCPD, James Gordon (Gary Oldham), Batman works against Falcone and the megalomaniacal Dr Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy), who-like Batman-uses fear, but not to help innocents and fight crime, but to manipulate others so as to achieve his own goals.
When it comes to performances, the movie is chock full of great, well-known actors. Bale steals the show as the multi-layered hero, and in fact he plays four distinct roles: the disillusioned Bruce who nearly kills Joe Chill and is found in a prison in the Middle East by a seemingly sympathetic Ducard; the vengeful and quick-thinking version of Bruce who comes into being once the heir to Wayne Enterprises returns to Gotham after being missing for years; the version of Bruce who is a lie, acting like a reckless playboy in public; and finally the mysterious and gravelly-voiced guardian angel Batman himself. The combination of great storytelling and Bale’s four roles is fantastic, with Bale being unquestionably the best actor to have ever portrayed the legendary Caped Crusader.
Not only can he believably scare criminals into submission and portray an occasional action hero as good as Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis, but Bale makes us believe that his character can really exist, which is something truly brilliant. Superheroes have always been one of the hardest to accept as possible when it comes to fictional concepts, but Nolan and Goyer’s script takes us through the life-changing journey of Bruce Wayne and gives us a version of Batman that could exist in the real world, and despite being unique is nevertheless immensely faithful to the comic book version. The script breathes new life into the archaic icon of the comic book industry, and Bale gives him humanity.
Liam Neeson’s portrayal of Henri Ducard is also somewhat multi-layered, but I can’t go into details of where the script surprisingly goes with this character without spoiling parts of the third act; in regards to the mentor figure he initially portrays, Neeson displays his usual charisma and whilst not as warm as characters like Oskar Schindler, he dupes both the young Bruce and the audience into believing he’s a wholly trustworthy ally.
The film also has a variety of great and well-experienced actors on the brink of their autumn years, such as Caine, Freeman and Blade Runner’s Rutger Hauer (as the corrupt CEO of Wayne Enterprises, William Earle).
As Alfred, Caine provides the film with both dry wit and emotion, with the butler character varying between a quip-spewing bit of comic relief and a surrogate father figure for the mentally unstable Bruce/Batman. Freeman also provides comic relief, and has bubbling chemistry with Bale-some of the wittiest scenes are with Bruce lying to Lucius about why he needs the Tumbler, this film’s version of the Batmobile, as well as other weapons and gadgets even though he knows that Lucius doesn’t believe him (Lucius in turn often plays along).
Meanwhile, Gary Oldman plays the heroic future GCPD Commissioner James Gordon, which is odd considering Oldman’s favouring of villains in the past. His character’s emotions are subtle but he is one of the most likable characters and is an important ally for Bruce/Batman, with his character’s actions eventually leading to both the police and Gotham City’s acceptance of Batman as a force for good. As usual, Oldman is able to immerse himself in the role, and if anyone is the definitive portrayer of a particular character in this movie, then it’s Oldham; we see glimpses of Gordon’s family and we see Gordon as more compassionate, intelligent and courageous than ever before. Oldham is Gordon.
The writing of the movie has obviously been influenced by great graphic novels like Batman: Year One, but the dialogue is simply fantastic; Batman Begins often uses repetition or self-referential humour just because of the dialogue, which is so rhythmically, wonderfully written that some lines (“Why do we fall, Bruce? So we can learn to pick ourselves back up”; “Didn’t you get the memo?”) and it lacks the usual awkwardness or forgettable edge that most superhero movie scripts unfortunately sport.
Batman Begins’ music by Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard may lack the operatic and unforgettable quality of Danny Elfman’s brilliant score for the 1989 version of Batman, but it nevertheless fits the dark, brooding style of this reboot.
This film, like many other great films by Nolan, has the same magnificent balance between fast-paced, original and truly exciting action sequences with intellectual storytelling and believable characters we can care for. It is bursting at the seams with moments of pure cinematic brilliance: the young Bruce falling down into the bat cave in slow motion; hundreds of bats flapping around the fearless Bruce many years later; Wayne Manor in flames; the Batmobile roaring and jumping from rooftop to rooftop; the unsettling images characters see due to the Scarecrow’s fear toxin; Bruce sliding down a snow-covered mountain slope to save the unconscious Ducard; and countless other marvellous moments.
Batman Begins is the first part of Christopher Nolan’s definitive adaptation of the Batman mythos, and is believable, smartly-written, surprising, thrilling, and mature. Unlike previous versions of the Dark Knight character, the focus is on Batman and what makes him who he is. I recommend this to teenagers and adults, as children might find it too mature and too focused upon characters. It’s undeniably a perfect masterpiece, and not to be missed by film buffs.
10/10.
Last edited by Dr Frankenollie on Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Princess Protection Program (2009)
A Disney Channel made-for-tv chick flick. How did I find this movie? Just flipping the channels and accidentally catching the beginning of it. Why did I watch it through to the end? Selena, of course. Though I must say, after this, I can definitly see why Avaitor likes Demi Lovato so much. She didn't do anything for me before, but now I see where he's coming from. But how he can insist she's cuter than Selena, I'll never know. She looked gorgeous in that blue dress. And then there was Jamie Chung, too... So many aspects I like about this movie.
A Disney Channel made-for-tv chick flick. How did I find this movie? Just flipping the channels and accidentally catching the beginning of it. Why did I watch it through to the end? Selena, of course. Though I must say, after this, I can definitly see why Avaitor likes Demi Lovato so much. She didn't do anything for me before, but now I see where he's coming from. But how he can insist she's cuter than Selena, I'll never know. She looked gorgeous in that blue dress. And then there was Jamie Chung, too... So many aspects I like about this movie.
Last edited by Goliath on Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
dvdjunkie
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5613
- Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:05 am
- Location: Wichita, Kansas
Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) Warren Theaters
My new summer favorite movie is wowing them at the box office. Directed by Rupert Wyatt, this 'sequel' to "Battle For The Planet of the Apes" features a cast headed by James Franco, John Lithgow and everyone's favorite motion-capture actor Andy Serkis.
At just under two hours in length this film tells the story of a scientist who is working on an experimental drug to slow down his father's (Lithgow) Alzheimer's. Dr. William Rodman (Franco) also has custody of Caesar, the son of a smart chipanzee made smarter by this viral serum. When the CEO of the laboratory sees what is happening to the simian population he stamps the experiment a failure and orders all the chimps and gorillas to be "put down" because they are contaminated.
"Rise" is audacious, violent, and very disquieting and is better than it has a right to be. As alarming and sometimes bloody as this film is, there is required "No Apes Were Harmed During Filming Disclaimer" because they are all motion captured in what is a uniquely and believable atmosphere.
The second half of the movie follows the 'imprisonment' of Caesar and his impending takeover of the population with his 'coup de chimp'. This movie makes no pretenses about what it is. It has some of the most cliches involving animals that earlier movies have and may be compared to "Zookeeper" in its portrayal of the evil and mean-spirited prison guards.
Make no bones about it, this movie will make most people forget the original "Apes" film with Charlton Heston and the recent Tim Burton rehash doesn't compare to this one in any way shape or form.
This film rates a big thumbs up and gets the full 5 stars from me, and that is hard to do in these times of incompetent movies that have been released this year.
My new summer favorite movie is wowing them at the box office. Directed by Rupert Wyatt, this 'sequel' to "Battle For The Planet of the Apes" features a cast headed by James Franco, John Lithgow and everyone's favorite motion-capture actor Andy Serkis.
At just under two hours in length this film tells the story of a scientist who is working on an experimental drug to slow down his father's (Lithgow) Alzheimer's. Dr. William Rodman (Franco) also has custody of Caesar, the son of a smart chipanzee made smarter by this viral serum. When the CEO of the laboratory sees what is happening to the simian population he stamps the experiment a failure and orders all the chimps and gorillas to be "put down" because they are contaminated.
"Rise" is audacious, violent, and very disquieting and is better than it has a right to be. As alarming and sometimes bloody as this film is, there is required "No Apes Were Harmed During Filming Disclaimer" because they are all motion captured in what is a uniquely and believable atmosphere.
The second half of the movie follows the 'imprisonment' of Caesar and his impending takeover of the population with his 'coup de chimp'. This movie makes no pretenses about what it is. It has some of the most cliches involving animals that earlier movies have and may be compared to "Zookeeper" in its portrayal of the evil and mean-spirited prison guards.
Make no bones about it, this movie will make most people forget the original "Apes" film with Charlton Heston and the recent Tim Burton rehash doesn't compare to this one in any way shape or form.
This film rates a big thumbs up and gets the full 5 stars from me, and that is hard to do in these times of incompetent movies that have been released this year.
The only way to watch movies - Original Aspect Ratio!!!!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
