DVDizzy Forum

Yes I remember that "cameo" appearance! He basically inspired Ed Wood to create one of the worst films ever made! Talk about irony!

But seriously now, Ed Wood is one of my favorite Tim Burton films. Has so many great lines and scenes, and Johnny Depp does a great job as Ed. My favorite scene is the "Bride of the Monster" premiere that caused a riot (a few days later I saw the MST3K version of the movie, and the final scene had me in stitches!). The Orson Welles scene was a sweet tribute and yes a great impersonation. The fact that Ed was in drag made it even better.

As for Tracy and Hepburn, I love the pairing and had no idea about their real life relationship until I read about it. The only Tracy/Hepburn movie I haven't cared for so far is Desk Set. It's not bad, I thought it was fun, but the romance aspect was a bit iffy in my opinion. In contrast, I think they had better chemistry in Adam's Rib and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (I have Woman of the Year waiting to be watched so I can't say much about that).

Speaking of Sidney Poitier (sp?), I've seen two of his pictures: Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (loved it) and Lilies of the Field (It was good). What other Sidney pictures would you guys recommend?

pap64 wrote:Speaking of Sidney Poitier (sp?), I've seen two of his pictures: Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (loved it) and Lilies of the Field (It was good). What other Sidney pictures would you guys recommend?

I just did recommend one in my last post, The Defiant Ones. That is my second favorite of his but my ALL-TIME favorite is In the Heat of the Night, literally the only Norman Jewison film I like. It's a must see. No Way Out, a Joseph L. Mankiewicz film, was also enjoyable (brutal look at racism from both sides). We watched A Raisin in the Sun in school, so if you like the play, this is probably the best screen adaption out there. My mom loved To Sir, with Love as a little girl, which it was probably original at the time but the story has since become a cliché.

As for Ed Wood, I love that film too. It is definitely one of Tim Burton's best and even though Danny Elfman didn't compose, it has a fantastic score by Howard Shore that is an amazing tribute to the crap Ed Wood had in his films. I actually think this is one of Johnny Depp's greatest performances (defiantly one of his most recognizable characters outside of Jack Sparrow). Very impressive. I actually saw Plan 9 from Outer Space on TCM after they hailed it as the worst movie of all time and in that regard, it didn't disappoint. It comes really close to being the worst thing I've ever seen and it's soo bad that it almost seems deliberate.

The funny thing is that James Rolfe (aka The Angry Videogame) did an Ed Wood retrospective (which included a review of Ed Wood), and spoke warmly of Plan 9, saying its a "so bad its great" kind of film, and gave it a great rating.

Just by watching Bride of the Monster in MST3K convinced me that all of Ed Wood films are bad.

Here's the update I promised everybody!

Tonight's classic film reference looks at Hello Dolly in Wall-E:
http://filmstripmemories.blogspot.com/2 ... nd_14.html

Frankly, many people know about this reference since the movie is still fresh in people's minds. But the reason I chose is it because unlike the stuff I featured in past columns this goes beyond referencing the play/movie and uses it to enhance the character development in the film. In other words, Hello, Dolly is a tool that helps us understand the feelings of a lonely robot, and tie it to the fate of humanity.

It also playfully show how a movie can be so tied to our lives that we begin to learn from it.

It's also peculiar that the movie version was pretty much forgotten until Pixar dug it back up. So I thought it made for an interesting column this week.

Once again, I apologize for the lack of updates. With an earthquake, the last week of school and a malfunctioning laptop I've been behind in a lot of things, this blog included. I did manage to post a review last Saturday, Arsenic and Old Lace:
http://filmstripmemories.blogspot.com/2 ... -1944.html

Also, in the weekend I saw King Kong (the classic movie) and it was so good that I wanted to do a column called "Old vs. New" and try and compare both versions. I liked the Peter Jackson version, a lot more than I imagined, but there are some major differences between versions that its almost like they are different movies.

Problem is... the Nostalgia Critic already did it. Not only did he name it "Old vs. New" his layout is very similar to what I had in mind (he analyzes the movies element by element, from characters to overall plot). So me doing it would be unoriginal.

Instead, once I am done with school and things slow down a bit I will hunt down info so I can tie together two of my favorite things: movies and gaming.

Also, there's something I wanted your opinion on...

As of late, I want to do a bad review. Up until now all movies have been great, scoring 4 and 5. However, I really want to mix it up and create a different review. I want to review a movie I didn't like at all and offer my two cents regardless of its legacy.

Problem is, considering that the blog is called "The GREATEST movies ever made" I think it would be conflicting to talk about a not so great movie in a site dedicated to great movies.

Granted, I already did it with Pete's Dragon (which I gave a 3.5 out of five). But the one movie I want to review I really, really, REALLY didn't like at all. Like I would give it a 2 or a 3.

So what do you guys think? Should I go ahead and review the movie or would I be defeating the purpose of the site?

Any honest opinion I will appreciate.

pap64 wrote:Once again, I apologize for the lack of updates. With an earthquake, the last week of school and a malfunctioning laptop I've been behind in a lot of things, this blog included. I did manage to post a review last Saturday, Arsenic and Old Lace:
http://filmstripmemories.blogspot.com/2 ... -1944.html

I was talking to my grandma about Cary Grant right before she died of cancer a few months ago and the thing she remembered most about him was how funny he was in these screwball comedies. I really love Arsenic and Old Lace. Its not the most ambitious or moving story ever told but it's really fun. We all know I love the serious Cary Grant in North by Northwest but I have to agree with my grandma, he's funny in screwball comedies like Topper, The Awful Truth (my favorite of his), Bringing Up Baby, Holiday, His Girl Friday, The Talk of the Town, and to a certain extent, The Philadelphia Story (not really a screwball comedy but still funny).

You also need to stop apologizing for the lack of updates; as having an earthquake, schooling, broken laptop, and taking care of your family, you just shouldn't concern yourself with something like this. It's just a fun hobby to do in your spare time, so don't let it consume you and take president over what's most important.

pap64 wrote:Also, in the weekend I saw King Kong (the classic movie) and it was so good that I wanted to do a column called "Old vs. New" and try and compare both versions. I liked the Peter Jackson version, a lot more than I imagined, but there are some major differences between versions that its almost like they are different movies.

You finally saw my ALL-TIME favorite film...and you enjoyed it!!!!



I'm happy. Anyways, the Peter Jackson remake is good but he over did it. He improved relationship between Ann and Kong, taking a clue from the 76' version, but then he also added too much (the amazing pacing of the original is gone, he added too many characters, and there is gratuitous scenes like the Bronto stampede). Still, some things he did absolutely perfect and better then the original (the entire Empire States bi-plane sequence is both thrilling and heartbreaking). He loved the original film, as do I, but I think that added to the whole self-indulgent nature of the remake. BTW, I really don't recommend the 76' Kong.

pap64 wrote:Also, there's something I wanted your opinion on...

As of late, I want to do a bad review. Up until now all movies have been great, scoring 4 and 5. However, I really want to mix it up and create a different review. I want to review a movie I didn't like at all and offer my two cents regardless of its legacy.

Problem is, considering that the blog is called "The GREATEST movies ever made" I think it would be conflicting to talk about a not so great movie in a site dedicated to great movies.

Granted, I already did it with Pete's Dragon (which I gave a 3.5 out of five). But the one movie I want to review I really, really, REALLY didn't like at all. Like I would give it a 2 or a 3.

So what do you guys think? Should I go ahead and review the movie or would I be defeating the purpose of the site?

Any honest opinion I will appreciate.

I think you can give a bad review to what's generally considered one of "The GREATEST movies ever made." Seriously watch every movie on the AFI top 100, if you don't find a movie on there that you hate, I'll be surprised. I don't have enough fingers to list all the ones that are considered great but in reality, are far from it.

Yeah, I know I tend to be very apologetic (my best friend constantly tell me to stop being so apologetic). It's a silly quirk of mine. But considering that I've gotten so much great feedback and support from friends and family (and even random strangers!) I want to keep the site up to date.

Regarding Cary Grant, I believe that he is one of the few actors who could handle comedy and drama effortlessly. There are few actors and actresses like that today. The only one I can think of is George Clooney, but his problem is that he always bring his smugness and ego to all his parts. I swear there's very little difference between Fantastic Mr. Fox and Up in the Air. Both have Clooney being Clooney.

Cary Grant, on the other hand, transformed himself into the role. He was classy and a gentleman but handled the roles differently. For example, in Philadelphia Story he was the bitter ex hoping to bash the ex wife in the worst way possible. In Bringing up Baby he is absent minded and trying to deal with a ditz and a wild animal. Finally, in Arsenic and Old Lace he goes from mild mannered to nearly insane.

All of those roles were very different and Grant made them unique. You simply don't see that anymore. They look like they are trying too, too hard or not enough.

About Kong, happy to know that you are happy about me watching the movie!

The Peter Jackson version, I believe, did many things right while it had a lot of flaws which keep it from being the best remake ever. I personally loved how he handled Jack and Ann. In the original they were very bland characters. I am sure Fay's script read like this...

*First 10 or so pages dialogue

*See Kong, scream and look terrified

*Scream some more

*Scream even more

*Faint

*Wake up, scream then faint again.

In the Jackson version I liked how they gave her a real story, that she was a struggling actress looking for job. They deepened her character while keeping the needy woman angle from the original.

Same deal with Jack. In the original he only has a few lines, then becomes the action hero that falls in love. In the Jackson version he is given character and we get to see the relationship grow.

Carl, however, was a much better character in the original version. In fact, I see him as the villain of the movie rather than Kong. Think about it... He takes advantage of a poor, hungry woman and put her in danger for the sake of a movie. He then puts the lives of many men in danger and all of them are killed. He disrupts a savage village, kidnaps the beast, brings it to New York and puts the lives of EVERYONE in the city at risk. ALL because he wanted to make a movie and make money. For the sake of "entertainment". He was also very misogynistic and rude towards Ann. He was an unlikable, selfish man.

In the Jackson version Jack Black did a decent job, but his character was underplayed. It's true that he still has the same questionable morals as in the original movie, but it seems like Jackson wanted to create a more likable character. I say Carl is a much better character in the original version.

As for Kong himself, both versions play him very differently, so much so that its a matter of preference. In the original, Kong is basically an uncontrollable monster. Violent, on a rampage and dangerous. You understand why people run away when he appears, he WILL kill you if you don't. In the Jackson version he is basically a giant gorilla. Still dangerous, but his behavior is more of a gorilla than a monster. He attacks only when provoked, is very protective of his territory and expresses general curiosity and silliness common in apes.

I honestly believe that they did this because had they gone with the realistic gorilla look and portray him as a monster animal rights activists and experts would have complained. Still, they did a great job with the character.

I agree with you about the pacing. The original has great pacing. It doesn't waste any time showing us the big events. I believe that this is done at the cost of character development, but it still works. Jackson, however, made the mistake of handling the movie like it was Lord of the Rings. In that franchise the length was a requirement because of how expansive the story was.

King Kong is very straightforward, no need to expand so much on it. I say at two hours the movie would have been perfect. It would help them expand on the three main roles (Jack, Ann and Carl) while still keeping a nice pace. Instead, we get a lot of development out of characters that didn't need it.

So in short, King Kong is the great film, but Jackson's King Kong is a solid effort.

I agree with you on both of your assessments pertaining to Cary Grant and King Kong

Cary Grant could defiantly handle being both a romantic lead in dramas (or suspense films, as he was Hitchcock's favorite leading man, alongside Jimmy Stewart) or the comedic lead in a screwball comedy. Sometime he could do both in the same movie. One of my other favorite roles of his was as the angel Dudley in The Bishop's Wife (one of the best Christmas movies ever). No other actor could've pulled that off. Clooney does come close but his smug-cocky attitude always seems to come through any role he plays. He just doesn't have the talent that Grant had.

Your right on the money with King Kong. Peter Jackson tried to make it an epic like Lord of the Rings, by adding unnecessary characters and events. I thought the addition of Hayes and Jimmy was pointless (Jackson took the time to develop them and everything), Lumpy and Choy were also pointless, hell, so was the actor of Bruce Baxter and the addition of Manny at the very beginning. This is part of the problem, he made unnecessary changes to roles which made the addition of new character necessary. If Jack would've remained the first mate instead of making him a writer, then they wouldn't of had to create the first mate Hayes and the orphan Jimmy to replace him. Charlie (my favorite character) was the cook in the original, here they rename him Choy and make him assistant to the cook Lumpy (another unnecessary addition). If Jack and Englehorn were Denham's friends, instead of hating him in the remake, then the addition of Herb and Preston wouldn't have been necessary. Bruce Baxter and Manny really had no reason at all for being there. I just think in an effort to make it epic, he unnecessarily complicated the plot. As you said, without all the additions, it should've clocked in around two hours and have plenty of time for character development.

I also hated the change they made in Denham's character. While both versions try to just paint him as an overly enthusiastic man who made bad decisions, the remake makes him manipulative and unsympathetic. In the sequel, Son of Kong, we see just how bad Denham feels about everything but I doubt we'd get that from the remakes' Denham.

I also agree with you on the relationships. As I said, the relationship between Kong and Ann is perfectly developed in the remake while it's non-existent in the original. In the original, Kong was a wild beast but in the remake he is far more sympathetic (I didn't really care when he was shot down in the original, while I'm moved in the remake). Ann just screamed and fainted in the original, there was no connection. I also like that Ann and Jack have a relationship in the remake. It's a love triangle. It makes Jack running off into the jungle to save her more believable. The original gets a pass from me on the nearly non-existent character development between Jack and Ann, simply because the dialog and goofiness of the moments are soo bad they're good. I find Jack's awkwardness hilarious, all his 1930's sexist viewpoints and goofy realization that he's in love. It's funny that it's based on the director's, Ernest B. Schoedsack, actual personality since Jack was based on him (the movie's writer, Ruth Rose, is his wife and used actual moments between them as inspiration). The other director and main man behind the movie, Merian C. Cooper, was the real life Carl Denham.

I would also be lying if I didn't admit that I'm upset that Jackson didn't have a scene with Kong destroying an elevated train. Both the original and the original remake had that scene but not Jackson's. He replaced it with the street trolly getting smashed up but that's a poor substitute.

When I bought the original Kong's DVD and watched the two documentaries on in, I was absolutely fascinated. I suggest you rent it or borrow it and they are absolutely worth your time. The main documentary: RKO Production 601: The Making of Kong, Eighth Wonder of the World will literally tell you everything you ever wanted to know about the movie (it was co-produced by Peter Jackson). It shows you how the amazing special effects were done (there was way more to it then I thought) and it has Peter Jackson's stop-mo remake of the lost Spider Pit sequence. The second documentary: I'm Kong: The Exploits of Merian C. Cooper is all about King Kong's creator, Merian C. Cooper, and his amazing life. He had such an exciting life that I'm surprised a movie hasn't been made about him. Two amazing documentaries that any fan of the film should see at least once.

The other interesting thing about the remake is the quiet moments. The original runs non-stop. Its all action, action, suspense, destruction, death and mayhem. The remake, however, gives us a chance to relax, breathe and take in the scenery. This benefits the Ann/Kong relationship.

My two favorite scenes in the remake are actually the quiet moments. The first is the one where Kong brings Ann to his lair and starts to play with her. But rather than being sexually awkward like in the original she starts to juggle, he makes some goofy reactions (Oooh woman juggling), which then leads him to start a temper tantrum, then he gets hit by a boulder (the audience I saw the movie with were in hysterics at this scene). Kong was so complex in that one scene, expressing anger, curiosity, intimidation, happiness and frustration.

The other scene is where they get back to the lair and see the sunset. It was a very beautiful and subtle moment between Kong and Ann, and would later resurface at the end when they see the sunrise at the top of the Empire State Building.

I think Jackson took out the train scene because he felt it was too much. That's one thing I felt the remake lacks: edginess. In favor of developing Kong as a likable character they took out many of the things that made the original so threatening. I mean in the original, he saw someone and BAM! He or she is dead. He has no remorse and no regret, he was a monster through and through, which is what made the classic so amazing: you were glued to the screen the whole time and didn't back away. Kong was fascinating.

Finally, one other thing the classic Kong has over the new one is the Beauty and the Beast connection. Carl mentions it throughout the picture, especially at Kong's presentation. When he is killed, the scene resonates when he says "Beauty killed the Beast" because the connection was established.

In the remake, no connection was made (as far as I remember), so when the final line is said it doesn't quite have the same effect. It's unfortunate because the remake makes an even deeper connection with the story than the original.

...And I just realized, we just wrote PARAGRAPHS on just one movie. Isn't that great?

FUN FACT: A few years ago on my best friend's birthday I made him a Kong card (the in-joke is that we all call him the big, hairy ape). It was the picture of Kong looking at Ann after he escapes the theater. I wrote in "Sorry, no cute little blondes for you.. HAPPY BIRTHDAY, THOUGH!".

Years later, he is engaged to marry a... cute little blonde (which is the girl I dedicate the Arsenic and Old Lace review it and the inspiration behind this whole project).

It WAS beauty killed the beast! HAHA!

This is the Nostalgia Critic video I was talking about:
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videol ... -king-kong

He mentions a lot of points I agree with, especially about Ann being better in Jackson's Kong and that the overall better movie is the classic version. My one disagreement though is with his thoughts on both Kongs.

While I agree that in both versions Kong is a victim I disagree in that Kong is more of an animal than in the Jackson version. Yes, while animals tend to act on instinct gorilla only attack when provoke and are generally calm creatures. The Kong in the classic is more or less a violent monster.

I also agree than the Kong in Jackson's version is more human than animal, but to me that's what makes the character so good. Considering that both versions are trying to do a love story the Jackson version is more effective on that regard. You actually feel sadder for him when he is finally shot down.

But we both agree that Jackson tried to do too much with the Kong story and thus ends up lacking in many areas. If you could combine the briefness of the original with some of the characterizations in the Jackson version you would probably have the perfect story of Kong.

Here's the actual King Kong review:
http://filmstripmemories.blogspot.com/2 ... -1933.html

I am working on another King Kong related entry, but I want to tie that entry with my other work on Nintendo World Report so it has a connection between film and gaming.

Aww, gee, you're embarrassing me

Thanks for the dedication. Anyways, I thought it was an excellent review, very fair. As I've said before, my bias links back to King Kong being the first B&W/classic cinema I had ever seen. It made me the fan of cinema I am today.

I also enjoyed the Nostalgia Critic's comparison. I tend to really enjoy his videos and find I agree with most, not all, of what he says. He's entertaining while still putting thought into what he says.

OK guys... I decided to risk it all and give a classic movie A BAD REVIEW!

And just what movie gained this dubious honor?

... West Side Story!



In seriousness, I was very disappointed with the movie. Considering how popular and highly celebrated it I was expecting at the very least something decent. God was I wrong. My review is actually half of what I truly think of it.

I think its one of the most overrated musicals ever. The characters are unlikable and the plot is nearly unwatchable. Just how did the movie get such prestige?

Anyways, here's my review:
http://filmstripmemories.blogspot.com/2 ... -1961.html

SUPER MEGA BUUUUUUUUUUUUMP!

Man, I haven't updated the blog in nearly a month! I will try to change this next month, I explain it all here:
http://filmstripmemories.blogspot.com/2 ... -form.html

Will do the same for Christmas as well.

Well, here are two new reviews for your enjoyment:

My Fair Lady:
http://filmstripmemories.blogspot.com/2 ... -1964.html

Bringing Up Baby:
http://filmstripmemories.blogspot.com/2 ... -1938.html

Damn I had a lot of catching up to do. I love Bringing Up Baby, just proves how multi-talented Cary Grant was. I also love Harvey, it's a feel-good film and I watch it whenever it's on (which was all last month on HDNetMovies).

I see you didn't like The Champ, which I feel is one of King Vidor's weaker films. His silent films are great. The Big Parade and The Crowd truly feel ahead of their time with some very natural acting (none of the overacting you normally see in silent films). The other two I've seen (Show People and The Patsy, both Marion Davies comedies) are worth seeing.

I'm excited you saw and liked Psycho. I'm looking forward to more Hitch reviews.

Miracle on 34th Street is one of the greatest Christmas movies of all time (Edmun Gwenn is the definitive Santa), along with The Shop Around the Corner, The Bishop's Wife and It's a Wonderful Life. I'd also label these as feel-good films.

Chaplin was one of the greatest comedians of all time, one who Disney himself looked up to and had his animators study. He also knew empathy was the key to a successful movie. With that said, City Lights is a wonderful film and it's great you saw it. Chaplin could do the 'for every laugh there is a tear' thing better than Disney. As far as recommendations go, ALL of his silents are classic but he made a couple of good talkies too.

I'm hoping you see more Classic Universal Monster movies. They're all pretty campy (like Dracula) but that's the fun of them. If I had to choose, the James Whale directed Frankenstein and The Invisible Man are the best of the bunch.

Man, I suck at keeping this updated! I've been having too much fun to just sit in the dark and write reviews, but hey! I decided to get back on the review bandwagon and decided to try and have as much fun as possible.

In honor of this month's release of Tangled, I've been reviewing classic Disney films.

I started with Sleeping Beauty:
http://filmstripmemories.blogspot.com/2 ... -1959.html

Then wrote about Snow White:
http://filmstripmemories.blogspot.com/2 ... -1959.html

And last night I posted about Beauty and the Beast:
http://filmstripmemories.blogspot.com/2 ... -1991.html

Right now I am working on the Little Mermaid review, and see if I can get one more Friend Highlight.

Oh yes, I have a new segment called Friend Highlight, where I showcase the talents of some of my friends and hope to spread the word about what they do.

Here is one I did on Brent Dodge:
http://filmstripmemories.blogspot.com/2 ... dodge.html

Sorry for not keeping this up to date, but I've been very busy and having as much fun as possible with my life (as in, hey, if life insists on giving me lemons, I might as well make lemonade, lemon pies, lemon drops and even lemon clothes!).

Hey Pap! I finally have taken a look at some more of your reviews! I decided to start with West Side Story because I’ve seen that film, it was your first bad review, and frankly, I didn’t like it very much either! I became very curious as to what you particularly were going to say about this…

The review was not as hateful as I worried it would be, but the fact that you pretty much just listed how most of what makes the movie, it’s plot and characters, were badly balanced and you just didn’t care for them, speaks enough as it is. Except that the music and choreography are great, which may very well truly pinpoint what really makes this film so esteemed in the first place. But I think it’s also deservedly loved for the general idea of how it teaches about love and tolerance and the pointlessness of racial hate and violence, and the need to love those different from us. I would say the general gist of the story is at least powerful, and perhaps powerful enough for so many fans.

I am not sure if I agree that it’s too silly at times and too serious at others. I think it may just have the best of both worlds, then. But I can’t remember. If you think a song like, say, "Gee, Officer Krupke" is too silly, I don’t think so, it’s like a dark, sarcastic silly, it’s the boys making fun of the idea that there are reasons they are bad, while at the same time it is still about such a serious matter. If you ask me, the choreography of the gangs lifting their legs like ballet dancers is what I find to be the most silly. At least, from what I remember. It’s been a while.

I alos agree the lead characters are pretty damn bland, I almost can’t take their singing to each other, and I don’t know if I believe they could be in love, but I actually don’t know if the supporting cast are as bland, I kind of like them. Except if they really are such unflattering ethnic stereotypes as you said, that may put a finger on how I felt kind of icky about some of the movie.

Though now that I think about it, by any chance are we not sure if maybe the things we think were unflattering or stereotypical were actually accurate to how those people were back in those times? Or that the movie says that even though these people seem unflattering, they should still be accepted and loved?

But I know we agree that the dancing and singing can go on a bit too long without adding enough or moving anything enough along. I really liked your well-worded “adding nothing of substance and testing the audience’s patience” line, I think that hit it.

I have one question, about the line “but forgets to give us characters to care for and an enjoyable plot regardless of its resolution.” What did you mean by “regardless of its resolution”? Did you mean the story wasn’t good…except the excellent ending? Because I actually feel the ending was pretty powerful. Except I expected Maria to kill herself, too, like Juliet, and I expected more people than just Maria to talk about the lesson they learned from this and how ashamed they should be, like the other people talk about it in Romeo and Juliet after both lovers die. Don’t know if that would have made it any better.

Also, when I found out the film dealt with racism…but just White vs. Spanish, I felt like that wasn’the ultimate racism, so to speak, that it should have covered Black people, or maybe even all races together. But, I understand this was based on what was really going on in the 1950’s and what was most plausible.

Oh, and is it true, people really consider this one of the best romantic movies? I seriously want to know if that’s true, because not only is the romance so bland, but it ends in freaking doom and everyone knows it’s doomed from the get go, too! I guess in a way it’s romantic because there’s so many romantic scenes and songs and the idea of love that is powerful beyond their warring cultural background…but it’s just so bland and doomed, it seems more about the warring and social problems than their love.

Why did you choose the picture at the end? Because it’s hilarious? LOL!

The next review I decided to read was your first one ever because I just thought I should! Also, because this gave me the opportunity to find out for myself what it would be like to read a review from you of a film that I had never seen, and see if it really wouldn’t spoil anything for me, as you said it wouldn’t. However, I’m pretty sure I’m not going to do this often, I’m making a special case just for this time!

First, I got all excited about the film the moment you first started talking about it, and the “near perfect blend” comment really had me going. But then you said “George Peppard as Paul does a good job” and I thought…so…does that mean he just did adequately compared to Audrey and the rest of this thing? Because you just said he did a "good job" when you gave so much praise and more specific words to the rest. But your description of a plot that seems simple and then reveals other elements had me intrigued.

But then you didn’t reveal very much more, and so that had me start wishing your reviews were a little longer with a few more details. Or maybe I shouldn’t wish that in case it reveals too much of the film? It’s just that you mentioned these things like the mob and betrayal and…I expected more descriptions of it.

All in all on your blog, I would check your spelling very thoroughly. Romeo was spelled wrong in one of the West Side Story review sentences. Also, I wish you would try to write more even more of your original words, because I feel like there’s some clichés in there I’ve heard before like “the setting becomes a character itself” or “these characters are non-existant, but the ones that do come in…” which I didn’t even understand (it was about the officers in West Side Story, what did you mean?). However, I may be wrong about that, and that may be what you genuinely feel, that it really must be worded like that. We still get plenty of examples of what I think are your real, original words for the most part.

Also, I don’t think I’ll read reviews of films that I haven’t watched enough to remember well or have my own opinion on, because I already started fearing I would think like you did about the films as I read your reviews. I just am worried your opinion will run through my head as I watch the films if I haven’t already formed my own on them first. I just felt it happening reading the West Side Story review…

The Orson Welles reference page was cool, and your other pages like Reflections and altogether your choice of movies and whole site makes you seem like a knowing of popular and obscure, smart and funny, cool cat.

This isn’t the end of me looking at your blog, just my comments for now. I’m sick and it’s kind of hard to type for a long time. So, till later.