Change Your Image
james-m-donohue
Reviews
Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
Great movie that changed how people saw crime movies.
Bonnie and Clyde is a true story about the famous criminal couple. The cinematography uses specific shots to create a mise-en-scene with a great use of establishing shots that give a sense of place and surrounding. It is easy to feel like you are with them watching this in an open field on a crowded street. The lighting isn't extraordinary because it tries to create a fairly realistic sense of lighting, which benefits the movie by making it feel very real. The acting is great. All performances by the main characters make the characters interesting. Even the actors who play stand in roles are entertaining.
The lack of music and dependence on diagetic sound makes the movie feel very real as well. Probably the times when music is used is during chase scenes where fast bluegrass acoustic music is being played to make the scene feel fun as a sort of distraction while building up a brief climax until the scene is over.
The character development in the story is also very good and fast moving making a bathroom break impossible without the ability to pause. The narrative combined with this makes it easy to understand the storyline while feeling complex.
The scenes where innocent people die or are robbed feel very dark while feeling quick to add to the dread that comes from what isn't really a simple crime.
This movie is also very quotable, which is a plus. If you are looking for a great movie from the late 60's that sets up people's acceptance of The Godfather then this is it.
The Naked Kiss (1964)
One of the better B-movies out there.
The Naked Kiss is one of those movies that could've been better with a slightly better ensemble cast, but the directing well makes up for it. The movie feels like its one lone style of movie because of its build up and classic use of the introduction/climax/resolution storyline. Though at the same time, there are scenes that fit in which feel completely different from the movie no matter how much they fit in. They feel almost surreal like a combination of Akira and A Christmas Story. There is one scene that makes good use of light and sound by showing light shining from windows in a prison cell to make the character feel isolated and closed in within the darkness while music and sound builds up that almost feels completely diagetic. The end result is the character looking like she is distraught and borderline crazy almost immediately, but her memories are being shown as hallucinations resulting in good substitute for realism. The movie is surprisingly racy for the sixties. It addresses issues that would be thought of as taboo for the time. Characters are well written and the dialogue is very believable with a few exceptions. The acting is pretty decent in the leading actress and the actor who plays the man she's romantically involved with. Other than that, the acting is mediocre with a few happy accidents. The director definitely did a good job of working with his budget. The Naked Kiss is a good movie regardless of setbacks and is a reminder of old movies in the 1930's when directing and technical teams surpassed every other part of movie making to overshadow any possible flaws.
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
Great farce plus dramatic thriller
Dr. Strangelove or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb
phew
is one of those movies that gets so serious, it overloads and becomes funny because the script can't handle it. Like the Graduate and Full Metal Alchemist, it constantly switches between serious moments and funny moments and the two often overlap making this movie a farce. It is a farce on our government and our society and sometimes makes fun of men's use of women as objects rather than human beings. The acting is good, it is silly when necessary to be funny and is serious when necessary to be funny. Peter Sellers is very good in his three parts. He is able to act calmly or over the top depending on the character. Slim Pickins was pretty decent as the leader of the plane drew who had questionable intelligence, as did almost everyone else in the movie. The dark and bright lighting in certain scenes makes the movie feel like a political thriller that contradicts its comedy to make it even funnier like Shawn of the Dead and Darkwing Duck. The sound was well edited and used. This is a great movie overall; it's a good cold war thriller as it is a good farce on the nuclear war scenario.
The Graduate (1967)
One of the best movies of the 60's.
The Graduate is one of those movies that uses sound with video to make an almost perfect sequence of combined clips. Long takes and montages combined with Simon and Garfunkel music make for mellow scenes that result in an unnerving feeling, which compliments the scenes mood. It immerses the viewer into the protagonist's life as it races by him with little control. The generation gap between Dustin Hoffman's age group and the adults is clearly displayed by how artificial their dialogue sounds like everything they do is some sort of typical human ritual. The movie gives the viewer the idea that Dustin Hoffman's character is being pushed around all of the time by people who have as good of an idea of what he wants to do as he does.
The Graduate also feels like a revival of classic techniques brought from decades prior. Basic sound techniques were used like an unrealistic bubbling water sound effect, which acted in place of background music. Parts of the story involving relationships almost resemble screwball comedies back when they were created to show love without being at all romantic only the themes are more adult and wrongful than screwball comedies. Dustin Hoffman does a great job at acting like the dysfunctional graduate who almost can't deal with his life in a functional way. The rest of the cast keeps up with him well and give believable performances. It's a good example of how a basic story can be elevated to greatness because of beautiful narrative.
On the Waterfront (1954)
One of the best crime dramas I have ever seen.
This movie combines good performances with a very powerful mise-en-scene. Some scenes contain a certain amount of fog to give the viewer more of a sense that there is more area there than just what is in the framing. The sound is very quiet when needed and it is loud where it needs to be loud. The first half of the movie has almost no non diagetic sound, but the second half gradually increases the dramatic music as the situation gets more crazy. Sound effects are used to help tell very small parts of the story that happen off screen like someone throwing a piece of paper.
The movie tells the story of a forbidden romance that is birthed from tragedy because of the protagonist's guilt concerning a crime that he helped commit unknowingly while working with organized crime. A good amount of characters in the movie are easy to empathize with and the people who can't be empathized with are interesting and well rounded to make up for it. The protagonist is a very realistic character with a lot of flaws, but not enough to annoy the viewer away from caring. Like Stallone in Rocky, Brando creates a simpleton character who isn't the brightest but knows what is right and tries to get past obstacles to make a good life for himself, but Brando's character is working towards a good life that is good because he doesn't have to worry about doing bad acts.
Camera angles like one showing two people through what is clearly a window make the viewer feel like they are looking into someone else's life more than they would without the outside window view.
The movie is very compelling and it should appeal to many adults. The end might draw tears. It's a good movie for anyone who like crime dramas or Marlon Brando's cute and manly looks.
East of Eden (1955)
Great movie that shows gradually increasing consequences
This movie has shows beautiful landscapes. Often there will be a wide shot with mountains in the background or a crowd of people enjoying themselves. The framing goes along with the scenery and shapes of rooms to create leading lines like in paintings or photographs to attract the viewers eyes more. One notable part of the cinematography was the use of dutch camera angles which got under my skin at the right moments by showing the scene as being slightly tilted to make the scenario seem more crazy; it acts as a good means to make the viewer feel more like the characters.
The parts are all very well played, especially by James Dean. He looks creepy at first, but that is only to help introduce his character in a way that most characters see him as being. You slowly get the sense that there is a sensitive person inside of him who becomes his greatest enemy and ally.
The characters are very well written and the character development makes the entire movie interesting. The slow deterioration of the brother is very easy to see, but isn't overdone by leaving the comforts of only being subtle in storytelling. You begin to feel sorry most of the main characters.
The lighting is good. It feels a little too realistic at first with the sun being bright for a good majority of the first 15 minutes, but as the story develops. It constantly switches between dark and bright lighting to create a mood. It does this in a special way to only show lights and darks in certain parts of the screen to exaggerate feelings that are already in the viewer. There is one scene where James Deans's character does a shameful act and as he leaves, it switches to the next shot where you only see his shadow upside down and pans upward to show the person like the camera is telling the viewer that the person is dark and wicked.
The story is very emotional which makes it interesting even if it may seem predictable in a couple of parts. It can be very hard to predict many of the events, especially those events that happen in the last 40 minutes. It's a good movie to watch for anyone who wants something to think about for a day.
Sunset Blvd. (1950)
A good homage to every important film genre before 1950.
Story wise, it's good. It starts off with a film noir style introduction that feels slightly forced, but the movie has a self-awareness about it that doesn't try to make fun of movies as much as it pokes fun at how silent films had become extinct and how movie making had changed. The movie quickly switches genres like Zombieland. One scene is straight out of film noir; another scene is out of a screwball comedy. It is easy to see how the movie comes together after seeing the first scene, but it gets increasingly interesting and unpredictable until the final moment when you really can see how everything happens. The final scene feels like a glorious send off with lighting present everywhere showing how much technology is necessary for a glossy scene of glamor. Parts of the movie felt like watching someone else in the movie watching a movie. Also I was eating a blueberry muffin while watching it and that made it better for me.
The movie was very well cast. All parts were played very well. It was almost creepy because Gloria Swanson's character almost felt like the real her if she were instead insane and experiencing delusions of grandeur. Cameos by famous actors and Cecil B. DeMille as themselves made it feel even more surreal like it was a documentary, but it was far from it.
Lighting and sound was good. It matched the scenes very well. I wish I could talk more about it, but I think I have went over this movie enough and there wasn't much I can remember that was revolutionary for the time.
Mildred Pierce (1945)
Veda is a bitch!
This movie is WAY ahead of its time. It's hard to believe that anyone would make a movie that was so supportive of women and mothers in 1945. The way the woman protagonist is portrayed and viewed in the story would make me believe this was a modern movie. It features Joan Crawford as woman who tries her best as a mother to survive while being independent. Meanwhile she sees her daughter slowly become a tragedy as her spoiled nature consumes her. The character development of every character is very clear and helps the story drag out without being too boring.
Joan Crawford gives a really good performance that brings a lot of charisma. The whole cast is very interesting and you can see a natural reaction in almost every second of the movie.
The movie ties up details very smoothly considering how confusing the first few scenes can be. The film noir contrast of brightness in different scenes sets the mood very nicely and use innovative camera techniques to intrigue the viewer. The camera makes very good use of it's framing by often setting itself just over and behind the back of the shoulder to give an almost first perspective while making sure that the viewer knows who they are supposed to feel like. It also at the same time brings more attention to the person who we are supposed to be focused on. This camera technique is used in a few movies like Romero's Night of the Living Dead, but it's switched with other camera shots to break monotony and make good use of other cinematic techniques.
The lighting is perfect. The use of background lights is very good, but the movie also uses shadows with that lighting to create subtle symbolism during scenes of resolution and conflict. The sound is also really good and doesn't sound cliché except for maybe in a few scenes where it still works. The sound effects are also effective.
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
Decent movie made great by Humphrey Bogart
It's hard to call this movie film noir because it was released in 1941, but it has many characteristics that are typical in mid 40's crime dramas. The lighting had strong contrast between scenes varying greatly upon time of day. Darker events happen more at night, which fits with the mood set by lighting. The cinematography makes good use of the lighting, but the framing tries more to coordinate the positions of characters with the background depending on which way the walls and furniture are turned.
Acting is mostly good. Peter Lorre does better than usual and is able to appear pathetic yet powerful and power is almost never associated with Peter Lorre. Humphrey Bogart steals the show and makes his character very interesting by adding subtle characteristics which make him seem more real. Mary Astor is mediocre. Acting standards were slightly lower than they are now, but even so she looks bad next to the other main characters when she is so important to the story.
The story is great. It has a really good introduction and afterwards creates a build up that is slow yet exciting. The dialog is really good. It sounds fairly real, yet it feels as though there is a purpose to every scene which each one being connected to the other. It feels like a 5 act play. The last phrase Humphrey Bogart says perfectly summarizes the whole situation that occurs up until the very end.
Suspicion (1941)
How could cute and lovable Cary Grant ever be creepy?
Alfred Hitchcock uses his style of directing to make a story completely psychological in more than one way. The movie is mostly told from the perspective of Joan Fontaine's character Lina while she studies her husband and let's distrust get the better of her. Most of the story looks pretty innocent if you look at it the right way, but the music and cinematic tricks make you believe everything that Joan Fonataine believes. This is told from her perspective so well that you feel like you are her. Camera views occasionally look at the world like it is from her point of view like in one shot when she is scared that she will die and you literally see what she sees as you imagine her in danger. Cary Grant gives a good performance as an innocent guy who is more round than most of his bubbly characters that he plays. Other characters give good performances, but Hitchcock overshadows everyone and everything by working around his actors rather than working with them entirely with the actors fulfilling their roles in making a believable story and then Hitchcock would make his own way of telling the story and warp it. I liked the ending especially. It felt like a bit of an anticlimax, but it was a great conclusion that made the rest of the movie better in an instant. I guess I have gotten used to 30s and 40s endings sort of falling on themselves because of how time periods have an effect on story telling, but the end still felt graceful somehow.
The Lady from Shanghai (1947)
Great narrative, but you won't see its value until watching it again.
Orson Welles knows how to take a person into a story and make it feel real as possible. The framing is done in a way to attract attention to the right things so that you can figure out bits of what is going on, but you can still get lost. Like Welles' other movie Citizen Kane, it uses lighting to create effects to draw the viewer in and keep them interested. The sound is good for the time. Orson Welles' narration of the story helps fill in gaps that would leave people even more clueless, but the narration seems to take away from the movie a bit which can be a bad thing, even in small doses.
Orson Welles tries to do an Irish accent which is pretty decent. It's not great, but at least he doesn't overdo it like many actors. He slips back to his normal voice a few times, but he makes it mostly sound like the same voice.
The movie's biggest flaw is that it has so many insane plot twists that are hard to prepare for that you have to watch it a second time to get the value you want from it. The first viewing is more like an investment for future entertainment. That isn't a good thing when it comes to movies, but the cinematography is good enough to keep the story interesting. That is probably what makes it worse because I couldn't stop watching it, but I was getting tired of it. It reminds me of M. Night Shyamalan's more insane movies which are full of too many plot twists. It reminds me more of the anime series Code Geass because both it and Lady From Shanghai can be hard to follow sometimes towards the end, but once every plot twist hurdle to crossed, there is only more room for enjoyment. They also both are interesting enough to enjoy, but not fully like one normal would with a story. This is the kind of movie that you love or hate.
Casablanca (1942)
As good as people say it is.
I usually find it hard to watch Bogart movies. It is not because I don't like him. It is because he's such a good actor that he usually makes everyone else look like a horrible actor in comparison. This is especially the case in Maltese Falcon. Luckily, most of the other main characters were good enough to compete. Ingrid Bergman was a great female lead. Peter Lorre was able to break out of his self-made cliché and become more than a simple sidekick though it still seems impossible with his character voice.
The sound was really good as well. A piano would often be played in the background to help create a feeling that there was a lot going on that wasn't being seen which made the world around them feel more rich and alive.
The special effects were good for the time as well. Considering the time period, scenes which would show the characters watching a plane fly looked pretty realistic. The lighting was the true visual gem. The whole movie felt like modern painting. I always had my eye trained on the screen looking for how my attention would be grabbed. There was one shot where Humphrey Bogart was opening his safe. To bring attention more towards Bogart while also showing and establishing the other character's presence, Bogart only had his shadow shown to imply his presence while making him look more highlighted. Every shot in some way was supposed to trick the viewer into seeing what the director wanted to be seen and only that.
It also had a great yet subtle message about honor and what someone or some people should do just because it is the right thing to do like go to war and that sometimes it is selfish to not enter a war rather than not.
I could probably go on and on for 10 pages, but this is the best I can do while being concise and also while not revealing too many spoilers. This should be seen by almost everyone just so that an opinion can be formed. It is that important of a movie.
All This, and Heaven Too (1940)
Some of the best dialog for the time.
How do you give a character charisma? Make her go through a preexisting scandal, but don't reveal anything about it other than it being bad and compare it to gossipers who show no tolerance towards the person because of it. This movie has one of the most emotional introductions I have ever seen in a movie. If there was any scene where Bette Davis shined as an actress, it was in the first 10 minutes. I knew nothing about her by that point and I was ready to cry. You can tell that this is a tragedy because it starts out after something bad apparently happened, but what sets this above tragedies like Grave Of The Fireflies and Romeo And Juliet is that it doesn't say that they die or it doesn't say what happens other than something bad happened. It builds suspense, but once it becomes clear how it happens the viewer waits for it to happen with no more surprises. All This And Heaven Too only says something really really bad happened, which can really mean anything. So it can get to a point where you think it couldn't get any worse and you assume that there is only resolutions left. Then something happens to make things even worse. It's brilliant how the movie creates such great plot twists that are as quick as they are comfortable with good lead-ins which start with a great introduction that makes you love Bette Davis's character almost instantly.
One of the best things besides the plot points is the dialog. It's one of the most interesting screenplays I have heard from the 1940's. The dialog feels structured, but not too structured like a free verse poem. It falls somewhere between William Shakespeare and Joss Whedon with its cookie cutter dialog that draws the viewer in by believing that every bit of dialog is as important as the rest. With so many small details in movies, it is nice to feel compelled to focus on them. It also makes anyone look like a good actor, no matter how good or bad that actor truly is.
Another good thing about the movie was great us of fade-ins and fade-outs. It also did a great job of using lighting. There was one specific shot where Bette Davis was trying to help a sick child and the light shined on her brightly in contrast to the background which was completely black making the scene feel like it was her being an angel protecting the child from the bad scenario surrounding them.
The framing also focused on people by zooming in or zooming out to get the viewer ready to feel like they are seeing things from one person's perspective.
There was so much I loved about the movie, there couldn't be anything wrong with it. Right? I didn't give it a 10. It has two flaws I can think about.
1-The movie felt like it was too much. It needed to be 2.5 hours, but I felt like there was so much movie I was experiencing in each minute that I was getting tired by the end. I still loved it, but I would've been very satisfied with 1.5 hours.
2-The biggest flaw in the whole movie was the sound editing. It was bad! I know in 1940, it wasn't easy for people to edit sound exactly to one frame, but there were at least 20 times when dialog was off by 1 second. It was like watching a kung fu movie. I was waiting for Bette Davis to beat up the Duchess with some Chinese Boxing moves. It was disappointing because I found so much to love about the movie, but the sound editing became distracting.
I still would recommend this movie to a lot of people. It's rare I find a movie with this good of a narrative and story as well. The end was good too.
Stagecoach (1939)
Great narrative and cinematography spike interest.
This is the definitive western. Most of the parts are played well by the cast. Even the western cliché characters are given life with good writing and directing. The comic relief character seems feels real because he reacts with other characters like a normal person in troublesome situations and John Wayne's character redefines the cliché of the clicheless protagonist. It sounds like a paradox, but if you have seen westerns then you know what I'm talking about, the everyday hero. The cinematography uses good framing techniques and lighting to make the setting look more beautiful. Everything is made clear and the reactions made by actors are easier for eyes to digest. The action scenes are also really good for the time and use great shots and lighting to distract the viewer from spotting small flaws in the movie. This is one of those movies that has a decent storyline, but its main strength is narrative more than anything.
Freaks (1932)
Great movie because it is unique.
This movie does horror like you would never expect. You forget that it is horror. The movie comes off as very 30's, but it can be watched by anyone if they are open enough. It uses decent acting for the time and good cinematography to bring focus to the circus performers being freaks as they are called while showing how much benevolence they have. You get a good sense of a family bond between the performers. As things become more clear in terms of plot, it gets very interesting. It feels a little boring during the first third, but isn't bad for the time and picks up when the plot becomes more involved. One scene in particular is very chilling where you see many of the deformed characters looking at the mean female protagonist underneath stairs and all around her in nooks among the darkness. It gives a sense of fear that I was waiting for because the "normal" people seemed like they could lose easily if they were attacked by the majority of circus freaks and that narrative is expressed mostly during the scarier and more intense scenes. The end feels like a bit of an anticlimax because it doesn't show all of what happened, but after seeing it I can't imagine them doing the scene any better. I just would've wanted more closure, but sometimes movies are better when you don't see everything and you are able to just assume it. Good camera angles and cinematography for the time as well as good directing and plot make this a movie worth seeing at least once.
My Darling Clementine (1946)
Good western for the time, but most will probably be bored.
This will be hard to review because I personally disliked the film, but I will try to do this without bias. If you love westerns, this is for you. The cinematography is fantastic; it is one of the things I truly respected about the film. I often forgot that a lot of this was done on set. Don't get me wrong. There were quite a few "I can tell they're in front of a wall." shots, but in the mid 40's this was common and hard to go around. The shots of horses from down below and up above give the illusion of it being real similar to how James Cameron shot those classic titanic scenes on the front of the ship and moved the camera to give the illusion that the boat was going over water. The acting was good for the time overall. Usually there's 1 or 2 good actors at most and everyone else feels forced. Almost everyone holds up to the standards of the time. The directing overall was good and it influenced the overall flow of the movie. The story and plot was pretty decent for the time and it had some interesting plot twists. It felt very real, which I think was the main flaw if I can call it that. It was very slow like you'd assume life back then would be like, but unless if you are staring at the beautiful painted backgrounds it will get boring after a while. It's nice to get a different pace, but it isn't a different pace for a western which makes me feel like there was little innovation even though they did a pretty decent job overall. The events in the later portion of the movie also felt forced like they were trying to make this more like a history lesson than a movie. It's only 90 minutes long, but still. I also have to mention that it had great sound and sound editing. This is still a very solid western movie, but don't expect one of the best movies ever or something revolutionary.
Arsenic and Old Lace (1944)
Wow. A comedy this messed up is hard to find, even today.
Watch the first 5 minutes, you can clearly see that it's a typical 40s screwball comedy. Watch the first half hour and you have a messed up dark comedy that astounding considering when it was made. Cary Grant was good as always and does a good job of slowly going insane as he sees how crazy his aunts are and tries to hide it all because of how crazy it is and after the first 45 minutes, the movie gets even more dark and becomes more of a thriller than a comedy while Cary Grant's character deals with his deranged brother. It does return to comedy often to keep the target audience interested while giving them more than they would've bargained for. Capra's directing also makes this a good movie. When the movie is serious, the lights go out only showing a little light. Then when the lights go back on, you know that you're going to get a good dose of comic relief. The constant switching feels exhausting, but it is a good feeling. The end is arguably the best part as it ties up loose ends in the funniest way possible.
Bringing Up Baby (1938)
Pretty good screwball comedy, if you're into that sort of thing.
This movie is just crazy. Like the sitcom It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, it keeps surprising the viewer with unimaginable situation after another until you see the plot grow into a crazy situation that is even more unimaginable which in turn brings a lot of laughs because of good acting and directing. Hepburn acts so odd and innocent that she eventually becomes lovable despite having certain blind spots. Cary Grant is good as always and can almost seem as clueless as she is sometimes while still being able to watch out for her. Their "Odd Couple" pairing keeps the comedy going as long as possible which is the only thing making it interesting which isn't a bad thing. Screwball comedies are all about the antics. There is almost no serious story or romance because of taboos. It can cute seeing the two be in love with each other while not being in love with each other because of the falsity of the movie genre. Though that disbelief can almost disappear after seeing everything come together to create an insane comedy. I'd recommend it to a lot of people because it really is so silly that it's hilarious. Even more so when you know what's going to happen before it does.
Scarface (1932)
Decent crime movie for the time, but it has boring writing.
Scarface took the typical crime movie of the time and added an interesting character as the main guy. Paul Muni was good as always, but his character was really hard to like. He was arrogant, overbearing, and full of flaws. The writing was extremely average. It was mostly these guys are selling illegal beer and they have a little competition and some problems. Then Tony experiences problems with his life and tries to form a good life at the same time. It was hard to respect Paul Muni because an actor is only as good as his lines. He did a pretty good job considering, but the flat writing was the main flaw. The major events that occur in the second half of the movie happen too quickly and have almost no narrative except for maybe a couple of scenes which show Tony being way too protective of his sister. I almost suggest watching the 80's scarface first because that one fleshes out the characters much more even though it's a different setting and the names are different. It will give a better understanding. The lack of sound was also a contributing factor to the boring atmosphere. There was even little music to help set the mood when appropriate. This movie is good more Paul Muni fans, but I found it to be not impressive.
I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932)
Intense movie and that's not just considering the time.
In a time when talkies were new and needed to prove how much sound was necessary, a movie came along and showed how great directing, editing, and acting could come together. This movie wasn't the only movie or the first movie to prove that sound wasn't just another novelty, but it used it to tell a story very well without revealing too much to sensitive viewers. One scene which involves inmates being flogged as punishment doesn't show anything more than the shadows of the people involved and the sounds of the beatings. The scene came off as very dark and showed just how dark the rest of the movie was going to be. Other uses of sound and lighting made the movie more and more immersing. Another good use of sound for story telling was when the main character tried to hide in a creek and it switched between shots of him which were dead silent and shots of the guards looking for him. Moments like this were very suspenseful. It can be easy to forget how old this movie is.
Except for the occasionally optimistic scenes, it is either suspenseful or depressing or both. It is not a movie to watch to feel better. It is a movie to make people think which was innovative for 1932. It was one of the first movies to be this political. Paul Muni's performance as James Allen is extraordinary. It reminds me of Humphrey Bogart, another great actor of the time who stole the show in any movie. He makes you believe in his character and understand everything that is going on with him. One interesting theme in the movie is James' constant need to make a choice about what is a worse way to live. As an inmate slave or in a life that suppresses him just as much? This movie also doesn't forget its silent roots. Like silent movies that have little blurbs narrating a scene, this movie has that but in the form of a paycheck or a newspaper headline to get the viewer more into the story and world. If you want a good political movie brings out many emotions in you, then this is for you. Ignore the year it came out. It's about as exciting as some of today's movies. It also has a very interesting conclusion that will leave most thinking about the movie for a while. I wish I could talk about it more without ruining it.
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)
Great movie, but only considering the year it was made.
This movie blew people away back in the day. I can see why. It contains sound effects which were combined with the background music to enhance realism. It is a useful tool for the day that makes any silent movie better. I didn't say always good, I said always better. It also had decent acting for the time when silent films often had overacting to get certain points across. This combined with the movies impressive story telling make it worth seeing for any film buff who wants to learn more about the silent film era. I got a lot of enjoyment out of it, but only because I can appreciate a silent film. Even so, there were noticeable flaws that can only be called flaws from an outside perspective. A good amount of the movie was filled in with typical silent film banter scenes used for long doses of comic relief. It somehow works, but it gets old after 10 minutes especially when the first half hour is so incredibly interesting. Once the story changes after that, the attention given to the movie feels like a waste because the entire plot shifts moves faster than a plane. It's one of those cases where the story itself isn't necessarily that great, but the way it is told makes it come off well enough to make it a must see. I recommend it to any fans of silent movies, but no one else. They would probably rather watch Die Hard.
Uncle Tom's Cabin (1927)
Pretty good for the time, but an appreciation for silent films is always required.
Most silent films have overacting, story qualities we'd currently consider to be politically incorrect, and or slow story. This is one of those movies that defies most silent film clichés. While there are a couple of silent film flaws like the man who's job it is to catch runaway slaves acts like comic relief and you could consider some of the slave dialogue to portray them as being stupid and illiterate, but there is so much in it that makes it feel real. Slaves hardly had any education anyway because their owners didn't care if they could use good English so it felt realistic in a couple of places. This is the first movie or one of the first to cast black people as slaves and they are well cast for the most part especially considering that these actors didn't have resumes to show if they had the goods to act in a feature film. James B. Lowe's performance as Uncle Tom creates a large amount of charisma because it is made clear that he is a nice man who loves anyone who shows him kindness. The comparison scenes showing how white slave owners have fun and how slaves have fun brought a lot of thought into how the slaves were still in a bad situation, but were happy when they had each other. The romance which is a main focus of the movie only comes into play a lot of the time, but soon shifts to another part of the plot making the movie more entertaining and a little more complex.
This movie shows the love and cruelty of humanity extremely well, not even for the time which makes this a must see for any silent movie fan. The movie even adds addition sound effects and voice overs to enrich the experience, a quality that was not often seen because it could only be done when the silent era came to a close. It is also a great way to know the story of Uncle Tom's Cabin if you don't like reading books. It shows how far movies have come since then, but I highly recommend it because of it's impressive story telling.