Change Your Image
dla_one
Stanley Kubrick
Paul Thomas Anderson
Sidney Lumet
Wes Anderson
Jim Jarmusch
Noah Baumbach
Denis Villeneuve
Sofia Coppola
Miranda July
Michel Gondry
Francois Truffaut
Louis Malle
Federico Fellini
Paul Verhoeven
Coen Brothers
I've been somewhat interested in film noir recently. I like the real pulp fiction stuff with some grit and danger to it. Some of my favorites are Out of The Past, Where the Sidewalk Ends, The Glass Key, Raw Deal, He Walked By Night.
I'm also very interested in Hitchcock and Orson Welles output. I'm not one of these people that worships everything they did but I do find all of their work pretty interesting. Vertigo and Magnificent Ambersons are probably the two most overrated movies in existence however. Welles directed three fantastic film noirs (Touch of Evil, Lady from Shanghai, The Stranger). Hitchcock directed at least two (Strangers on a Train, Shadow of a Doubt). Also Rope and Rear Window are very interesting technical achievements.
I also like pre-code Horror (White Zombie, Frankenstein, etc.) and 70s-80s Horror (Dawn of The Dead, Fright Night, etc.). And just about everything else 70s-80s. I'm a big fan of Sci-Fi adventure stuff from that era.
My Ratings Philosophy:
8-10: is a great movie.
6-7: ranging from OK to good.
5: neither bad nor good. basically "meh"
3-4: just a bad movie.
1-2: truly awful. offensively bad.
The difference between an 8 or 10 really just comes down to personal opinion. The reason I don't give out a whole lot of extremely low ratings isn't so much because there aren't plenty of movies that deserve it but because I don't spend a lot of time watching those movies. Like most people, I generally know the kind of movies I like and with a limited amount of time on this earth I rather spend my time watching something that I'll enjoy.
Some notes on how I watch movies: I have cable TV and watch a lot of movies on TCM. Sometimes I'll watch stuff on regular commercial TV (if its not too long. I'm not watching a 3 1/2 hour movie with commercial breaks). I also stream movies on Hulu and FilmStruck. And I also will sometimes buy DVDs or VHS tapes from thrift stores. Oh and also the copyright on a lot of older movies has expired and you can find them on youtube or other sites. This is the case with almost all silent movies.
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Leng xue shi san ying (1978)
Middle-Tier Shaw Brothers
I can see why people like this, because it has a different artful and dramatic approach than your usual Shaw Brothers film. It is different, I'll give you that, but I didn't really like any of the characters, the villains aren't that good, except for the head honcho who is great, and the final boss battle was super cool I'm not gonna lie. The main drawback is the fight choreography which is mostly pretty clunky, until the last 10 minutes where it picks up considerably. The band of villains all have unique weapons but they rarely do anything cool with them (except the final boss who is very cool). Some much better examples of this high art approach to wuxia/kung fu filmmaking are the films of King Hu: A Touch of Zen, Come Drink with Me, and Dragon Inn.
Zhantai (2000)
Mildly interesting but probably over-praised
I watched this because of its status as one of the most critically acclaimed works of the 21st century. I can now see that it's one of these situations where the criticism has taken on a life of its own or is for reasons quite divorced from the film itself. It's naturalistic in style, showing this generation in China that came of age right as they started loosening market controls and the changes that took place as a result. It's so naturalistic it can barely even be called a narrative feature film. If you have no knowledge, context, or interest in the subject you will probably have no idea what the point of the movie is. Some have interpreted it as showing some kind of suffering or desperation but there's absolutely nothing to suggest that. It's just some people living their lives. They have very limited opportunities but they live in a rural small town in China. Even in the US your opportunities would be extremely limited in a small town like this (look at Louis Malle's doc 'God's Country' if you don't believe me).
I wanted to add this review because there doesn't seem to be any on here that aren't one extreme or the other, when really I think it's a pretty middle of the road movie. It's very well made, especially considering the circumstances of its creation but it never really amounts to much more than a very dry observation of people living out their lives. Possibly of interest to fans of arthouse and world cinema, outside of that I would not recommend it and I think it's overrated. It should be about 6.5/10.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)
Gem of Early Horror Film - One of Barrymore's Best
Fairly incredible achievement in filmmaking for this early date carried largely by the excellent performance by John Barrymore. Like many silent films it is not the most literal rendering of time and place, the story takes place in a sort of whimsical fantasy London that doesn't seem to be any particular real life incarnation of the city (note the outfits of the servants and policemen). Barrymore's Mr. Hyde is one of the best to ever darken the screen. He created a timeless nefarious baddie that looks incredibly twisted and cool even today.
Martha Mansfield looks like an Alphonse Mucha drawing come to life as Jekyll's love interest Millicent Carew. Sadly the love story as well as many other plot elements are not as well developed as other feature film adaptations, although this may be a limitation of the silent medium. Specifically the reasoning for Jekyll turning into Hyde didn't really make much sense to me. It simplifies the story into a tale of the corruption of a promising young man, rather than a warning against tampering with the nature of the soul.
With the movie now going on 100 years old it's fairly amazing that it still stands as one of the best and most entertaining movies made of the Robert Louis Stevenson story.
Doctor Zhivago (1965)
Spectacular epic is sight to be seen, flawed as it may be
Although perhaps the weakest of David Lean's famous epic's such as Lawrence of Arabia and Bridge on The River Kwai (technically not an epic but clearly a precursor to his later style), it is nevertheless a film that must be seen for it's stunning cinematography and stirring recounting of history. Get your popcorn, you're going to be sitting there for a while, but it is ultimately an entertaining and worthwhile piece of cinema.
Doctor Zhivago is a love story that takes place against the backdrop of the Russian Revolution. As a historical epic it is a grand and majestic depiction of events full of beautiful imagery and roiling drama. Unfortunately, as romance it's less successful. The problem is that we are never shown just WHY these two are in love. After spending some time together, all of a sudden they profess their love for each other and without any evidence to the contrary we just have to take their word for it. The romantic leads don't display much in the way of tender moments or anything that might be called chemistry. This being the heart of the film, it makes the proceedings overall fall a bit flat.
It is well known that Doctor Zhivago is a very long movie. While everything in the movie seems to be fairly worthwhile viewing, the time is not used to imbue the film with an emotional resonance appropriate to the time we are asked to invest. So fair warning, don't hold out for some "big payoff", it's not coming. Just sit back and enjoy the view.
Make no mistake there's nothing mediocre about this movie, it's just that in it's breadth and scope it clearly aspires to be one of the greatest movies but is only merely good. It's strength is clearly in the smaller historical vignettes that serve to provide the setting in which the movie takes place: the violent suppression of a political demonstration, a mob of deserters leaving the eastern front to join the revolution, a train of exiles being sent to the Urals. This is the real reason I would recommend this movie. It's billing as a great romance doesn't ever truly pay off.
Mommie Dearest (1981)
Dunaway Turns In Cringe-Worthy Performance. All You Can Do Is Laugh.
Based on Christina Crawford's tell-all memoir of the same name dealing with her abusive relationship with her mother: Joan Crawford. Faye Dunaway as Joan, gives one of the most dreadfully over-acted performances in history. Instead of trying to give an accurate portrayal of child abuse, or making any attempt at giving a screen legend a fair and balanced portrait, showing her accomplishments along with her faults, what we get is this controversy baiting picture with very little resemblance to the actual subject. People familiar with Crawford's movies won't find much to recognize of the iconic actress here. Dunaway's Crawford is a grotesque cartoon more similar to Cruella de Vil than any real person. Her over-acting is so absurd it succeeds in making a joke of something that should be no laughing matter, the serious subject of child abuse. The validity of the claims of the memoir become irrelevant in the face of such an unbelievably over the top performance. I defy you not to bust out laughing at some of the scenes of this movie. Not surprisingly this has rendered the movie a significant cult hit because like a train-wreck it can be difficult to look away.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941)
All-star cast and director could not save this one
What we have here is a very poor rendition of the famous R.L. Stevenson story. The first hour is incredibly dull with absolutely no character to it or dark, scary quality at all. Spencer Tracy's Mr. Hyde is merely a sort of creepy manipulative jerk, nothing particularly frightening about him until maybe the climactic last 20 minutes or so. Things do heat up pretty well in the final scene. If only the rest of the movie had even a pinch of that energy.
The one outstanding element of the film is the stunning beauty of Lana Turner in the role of Jekyll's fiancé. Just, wow. The second female role is played by Ingrid Bergman. She does a fine job as usual but her character's situation is somewhat muddled. Other reviews have referred to her character as a prostitute which if true would make a lot more sense but thats never in any way really defined in the movie. She just seems to be a bar maid. I don't know if this was just a Hays Code era obfuscation or what, but it leaves some questions in the plot.
UPDATE: Now having seen the other two major film versions (Fredric March version and John Barrymore version) I can safely say this is by far the worst version. This movie is nothing but a stale lifeless remake of the 1932 Fredric March version. Many of the scenes are nearly identical except with all the life sucked out of them. The 1932 version easily stands among other pre-code horror as a classic of the genre where this ill-conceived remake is an all around dud.
One of the problems is that Jekyll is supposed to be this bright, talented, honorable young man with a promising future. It's part of what creates the contrast between Jekyll and Hyde and creates the tragic arc of the plot. Unlike Barrymore and March who fit that part very well, Tracy is not particularly young or bright in this role. Also, March's Mr. Hyde was a purely terrifying monster and Barrymore's was a nefarious skulking villain, but Tracy fails to make any significant impact with his comparatively tame attempt at bad behavior.
Æon Flux (1991)
Animation pushed passed all boundaries.
Peter Chung is definitely one of the most creative minds in animation today. This is his groundbreaking work he is best known for.
Originally a recurring short for MTV's Liquid Television, Aeon Flux combined the flash of the sexy heroine and action movie violence with extremely surreal and bizarre scenarios. MTV later commissioned 10 half-hour episodes. Obviously the more high profile placement of a scheduled program lead to more network restrictions. Not quite the same surreal vision as the original shorts but definitely interesting in themselves.
A lot of people saw it as some kind of anime rip off. It's nothing of the sort. While without a doubt drawing influence from Japanese animation the more apparent influences are European fantasy illustrators like moebius.
I bought the TV episodes and shorts on a VHS several years ago. I'm not sure if it has made it to DVD. There's a live action movie based on the characters of the animation series coming out this winter. It's extremely doubtful they'll be able to pull off any of the weird stuff. It will probably be just another boringly ordinary Hollywood sci-fi/action movie. One of Peter Chung's ideas with his animation is to create something you can't do in live action.