Saturday, December 12, 2009

No Country For Old Men

Origin: U.S. (Paramount Vantage, Mirimax Films, Scott Rudin Productions, Mike Zoss Productions) 2007
Length: 122 minutes
Format: Color
Director:
Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
Producer: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen, Scott Rudin
Screenplay: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
Photography: Roger Deakins
Music: Carter Burwell
Cast: Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Kelly MacDonald, Woody Harrelson.
Oscars: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen, Scott Rudin(best picture), Ethan Coen, Joel Coen(best director), Javier Bardem(best supporting actor), Ethan Coen, Joel Coen(best adapted screenplay)
Oscar Nominations: Ethan and Joel Coen as "Roderick Jaynes"(best film editing), Roger Deakins(best cinematography), Skip Lievsay, Craig Berkey, Greg Orloff, Peter F. Kurland(best sound mixing), Skip Lievsay(best sound editing).
BAFTA: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen(best director), Javier Bardem(best supporting actor), Roger Deakins(best cinematography)
Links: No Country For Old Men Trailer, No Country For Old Men Wiki, No Country For Old Men Novel Wiki, BAFTA Wiki

Cormac McCarthy's novel No Country For Old Men begins with a reminiscence about the hazard of confronting incomprehensible evil. So, too, begins Joel and Ethan Coen's movie adaptation of the book, which is a western set in Southwestern Texas in 1980.

Opening to careful shots of daybreak, orchestrated to magnificent effect by cinematographer Roger Deakins, a voice-over by Tommy Lee Jones sets the scene: "The crime you see now, it's hard to even take its measure. It's not that I'm afraid of it. I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job. Not to be glorious. But I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don't understand".

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Easy Rider(John)

This movie is definitely of its time. Watching this movie today, you really have to get into the mindset of the culture of the "hippie" in order to enjoy this film. But, I believe I succeeded in doing just that, and I think this movie has a lot of positives.

First and foremost, the acting in this film is top notch. We are treated to the acting chops of three powerhouse actors: Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper and Jack Nicholson. Peter Fonda plays the silent, brooding character. Dennis Hopper is the drug addicted wise cracker. And Jack Nicholson plays the alcoholic lawyer who tags along for part of the movie. This was literally Nicholson's first role and he did not disappoint. Honestly, I was not enjoying the movie until he shows up.

The story is just so-so. Two hippies trying to get to Mardi-Gras. That's the basic premise. Where the movie gets interesting are the events that happen during their travels and the people they meet. I will remember portions of this movie probably for the rest of my life. The reason for this film was to make people aware of some of the hate-crimes that took place against people that wanted total freedom. Jack Nicholson put it perfectly in the film: "Those people like to think about freedom. But, you guys really have it. And that's what scares them".

The music was awesome. Being made in the 70s, this film has a lot of classic rock songs that get you into the spirit of the cross country, freedom fighting hippie. I don't think there was any other music other than the rock songs during the biking scenes. But, there really was no need for anything else.

I would have to say this movie is a must watch. I would advise everyone to try and think about being a hippie while watching this movie. Otherwise, it may actually be a disappointing movie. The plot is minimal, there are no huge special effects and other than the rock music insertions, there is no score. But I think everyone who watches will remember two specific scenes that will solidify the reason for the entire film.

I have to give the film a 8 out of 10. Probably if it wasn't so influential, the score would be lower.

- John Murphy

Easy Rider (Matt)

This movie I went into more or less blind. I knew it was about a trip on motorcycles, and I knew it had Dennis Hopper, Peter Fonda, and Jack Nicholson in it. That's about it. I was surprised by what I found in the film, both in positive and negative ways. There were aspects of the film that I really liked, and likewise, aspects that I did not.

Let's start with what I didn't like. First and probably the largest issue that I have with this movie is the plot, or lack thereof. I have thought about this film for a while now, and I'm still not completely sure what the story was. Two nomad friends make a cocaine deal, get a lot of cash, then go on a trip to New Orleans. That is the entire plot. They have various encounters with different groups of people along the way, but really, that's it. This annoyed me as I wanted more of an explanation as to why the characters are doing what they are doing. There are also some scenes that seem to be missing that I would consider important. A prime example of this is the two men obtaining their motorcycles. In the opening scene they are riding what appear to be cheap, off-road, motocross type motorcycles. Soon after they are riding the choppers that are considered iconic to the film. We never see them buy the bikes, I never even noticed them mentioning buying the bikes. I read that almost an hour and a half was cut from the film, but I feel that maybe some of the cut scenes should have remained.

Another part of the movie that bothered me is the extremes of the characters moods. All of the characters seem to be in the same mood for the entire movie. Peter Fonda is always sort of staring into space and thinking. Dennis Hopper is always loud and animated. Jack Nicholson is always being friendly and naive. Even when faced with serious events such as the death of their friends they retain these moods. They change once or twice, but usually they just all stay the same. I had a hard time connecting to the characters because of this.

Lastly, the directing of the move was a little... strange. There were several transitions between scenes that involved flashing back and forth between the current scene and the next one. These flashes back and forth were disorienting, and I would often be confused about what was going on for a little bit until I was able to get my bearings. Also along these same lines there were several other scene transitions that were abrupt and blunt and in some cases downright startling. We might be taken from a quiet dark scene instantly to a bright loud scene with no warning. I suppose I could understand these transitions if they were trying to simulate the experience of being drugged like the main characters were, but I just found it off-putting.

Alright, so like I mentioned earlier, I like the movie too. So now here are some things I liked about it.

I first want to mention here the music. It was great. Apparently when this film was made it was unusual to use songs that are already created/popular for the soundtrack. At the time it was a fairly groundbreaking move and I have to say for this movie it was brilliant. My favorite parts of the movie usually contained a great song that I recognized from that time period.

Next up would be the way they portrayed the spirit of freedom that the characters were representing. The scenes featuring the characters riding through beautiful landscapes on their motorcycles were wonderful. I enjoyed seeing the characters interact at night when they were usually camping out. I've been on several camping trips and the feeling of the nights when the work is done and the fires are lit was spot on. I felt like I was right there, sitting on the ground and talking with these characters under the open sky.

Lastly I want to mention the ending. It's a shocker, and after some thought I've decided that I liked it. They took on the issue of hate crime head on, and it was brutal and real. Just like in real life. It was pointless, as in reality hate crime often is, and I thought it fit fairly well. I will mention this however, if this movie had a more involved plot and I were better connected to the characters I might have felt differently. As it was I had a lesser attachment to these guys, and so the ending didn't effect me too much other than to cause a "man, that sucks" reaction. Regardless of the reasons though, I felt the ending was bold and a good move.

So there you go, I both like and didn't like this movie. That's a pretty horrible stance for a review I realize, but it is what it is. I give this movie 6 golden football helmets out of 10.

~Matt

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Easy Rider

Origin: U.S. (BBS, Columbia, Pando, Raybert) 1969
Length: 94 minutes
Format: Technicolor
Director:
Dennis Hopper
Producer: Peter Fonda, William Hayward, Bert Schneider
Screenplay: Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, Terry Southern
Photography: Laszlo Kovacs
Music: Hoyt Axton, Mars Bonfire, Roger McGuinn, Jimi Hendrix
Cast: Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, Antonio Mendoza, Jack Nicholson, Phil Spector, Mac Mashourian, Warren Finnerty, Tita Colorado, Luke Askew, Luana Anders, Sabrina Scharf, Robert Walker Jr., Sandy Wyeth, Robert Ball, Carmen Phillips, Ellie Wood Walker
Oscar Nomination: Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, Terry Southern(screenplay), Jack Nicholson(actor in support role)
Cannes Film Festival: Dennis Hopper(best first work, Golden Palm nomination)
Links: Easy Rider Trailer, Easy Rider Wiki, Cannes Film Festival Wiki


Easy Rider is one of those movies whose importance goes far beyond its status as a work of art. The story is slight. Two young men, nicknamed Captain America(Peter Fonda) and Billy(Dennis Hopper), make a lot of money on some drugs that they buy South of the Border. Feeling rich, they decide to realize a long-standing ambition to visit New Orleans during Mardi Gras. They buy a couple of motorbikes and set off across country. On the way, they pass by some celebrated icons of the American West, including Monument Valley and Taos Pueblo. They drop in on a commune, run into an engaging small town lawyer who helps them get out of jail, go on a drug trip with a couple of hookers in a New Orleans graveyard - all of which leads to the shock ending.

Monday, November 9, 2009

The Royal Tenenbaums(Matt)

I went into this movie expecting to not like it. I tried to watch this movie some years ago when I was quite a bit younger and I turned it off. I was bored and not interested and I quickly dispatched it to go watch Terminator 2 or something else a bit more exciting.

This time around was different however. Once the story started I found myself immersed into the lives of this strange family and their friends. I began to care for the characters, regardless of their quirks, and in some degree I was even able to relate to them and understand them.

The acting was great. The cast is made up of many famous actors. This tends to be a negative in my mind usually, as I can be taken out of the story by the pull of these huge actors. I'll start thinking of past roles that I've seen them in and such. That never happened here outside of the first appearance of each of the characters. That's quite a statement for acting.

Despite the great acting, I think that strength of the story is the movie's biggest selling point. I can say that with confidence despite my first paragraph up there. I was pulled into the story, I found myself cheering for characters and hoping for everything to work out. I was interested from the very beginning of the story and I stayed there until the end.

This movie was a complete suprise for me. I had heard others talk about how much they liked this movie but I had dismissed it as just them being sort of elitist about their movie watching. I now can say honestly that this movie is a good one, and that I was being judgmental. I was wrong.

7 masked dudes on four-wheelers out of 10.

Sunday, November 8, 2009

The Royal Tenenbaums(John)

I've owned this movie for quite a few years. I've seen it maybe 3 times in the years that I've owned it. And all those times, I never really connected with the film. I thought some parts were funny, but I don't think I grasped the underlying story. Until now.

The characters in this film are some of the most unique I've ever seen. The Tenenbaum family is so dysfunctional and disconnected from each other that the children were basically able to become adults at a very early age. Each one has their own room and each room, to me, seemed like their own little house. For example, you have Chas Tenenbaum, who is a financial whiz kid and health nut. Then across the way, is Ritchie Tenenbaum, who is a master tennis player and likes to spend time with his bird, Mordechai. The movie is never boring because of the wide array of personalities that we are shown. The movie is also filled with an ensemble cast of actors: Bill Murray, Alec Baldwin, Gwyneth Paltrow, Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Luke Wilson and much more. They made me believe that the Tenenbaums were, albeit problematic, a family. Speaking of Alec Baldwin, he did an excellent job narrating the film. The inflection(or lack of) in his voice fit perfectly for the movie.

The mixture of humor and sadness in this movie is very interesting. I think first and foremost, this is a comedy. There is a lot of subtle, smart jokes in this movie. And, if you pay attention, you will be rewarded by laughing. However, in the end, this film is able to tell a very heartwarming tale as well. I found myself laughing through most of the movie, but it did almost bring tears at the end with any scene focusing on Ben Stiller and Gene Hackman. Stiller's character has been an opposing force against his father throughout the whole movie and he finally breaks down near the end. This was a very touching part of the movie and I enjoyed it very much.

I really enjoyed this movie. Much more than I ever have from my previous viewings. It's not a movie I could recommend to anyone I don't think. But if what I've said above peaked your interest, please go get this movie.

I'm giving it a 9 out of 10.

- John Murphy

Thursday, November 5, 2009

The Royal Tenenbaums

Origin: U.S. (American Empirical, Touchstone) 2001
Length: 109 minutes
Format: Technicolor
Director:
Wes Anderson
Producer: Wes Anderson, Barry Mendel, Scott Rudin
Screenplay: Wes Anderson, Owen Wilson
Photography: Robert D. Yeoman
Music: Mark Mothersbaugh
Cast: Alec Baldwin, Seymour Cassel, Danny Glover, Gene Hackman, Anjelica Houston, Gwyneth Paltrow, Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Bill Murray, Kumar Pallana, Luke Wilson, Grant Rosenmeyer, Jonah Meyerson, Aram Aslanian-Persico, Irene Gorovaia
Oscar Nomination: Wes Anderson, Owen Wilson(screenplay)
Berlin International Film Festival: Wes Anderson(Golden Bear nomination)
Links: Royal Tenenbaums Trailer, Royal Tenenbaums Wiki, Berlin Film Festival Wiki

Clearly inspired by back issues of The New Yorker magazine, with a streak of arch whimsy running through it, Wes Anderson's ensemble piece The Royal Tenenbaums did not disappoint fans of his two previous films, Bottle Rocket(1996) and Rushmore(1998). Decorated with Edward Gorey-like drawings and narrated by a deadpan Alec Baldwin, this oddball fantasy hangs on the mannered performances of a stellar cast. With a script that's laden with visual gags(characters are outfitted in adult versions of the clothes they wore as children, guns go off comically, and a droll stabbing takes place) and nifty, oblique quips, the straightforward emotional content is virtually nil. Despite its flaws, Anderson has yet again come up with a fresh take on the dysfunctional-family-as-comedy genre. Based on a nonexistent book, the script earned Academy Award nominations for Anderson and his co-writer Owen Wilson. Wilson also costars, but not as one of the Tenenbaum brothers, even though his real-life brother Luke plays a Tenenbaum, yet another askew aspect of an elliptical movie.

Monday, October 26, 2009

Nosferatu(Matt)

I've heard that this film is responsible for modern horror as we know it today. I'll give this film a lot of credit towards that end, as I can certainly see it setting a very dark and beautiful example for it's horrific descendants, however I think that we cannot give it so high a title. To do so is to discredit many other genre defining titles that also deserve that honor. I will admit however, that this wonder piece of cinema is a great thing.

Lets begin with the mood that this movie creates. It was made back in 1922, which makes this very old as far as movies go. It's a silent film so you have no sound effects or voices, all you are given is a musical overlay that simulates the piano or organ that would have been playing had we seen this in a theater all those years ago. The film is grainy and faded and dark, being broken occasionally to show us short blocks of text used to convey dialog or to explain certain things that might not be made clear by the film itself. All these elements contribute to a very creepy experience. I felt like I was seeing actual footage of the past in some cases, and it was quite the treat to see. I haven't seen many silent movies sadly, and this makes me want to go add a few to my Netflix queue. Seeing a movie in this format, especially an old horror film like this one, was a lot of fun.

The vampire of the film, Nosferatu himself, is amazingly creepy. He's scary even today. That evil face with the pointed ears and his long arms and even longer fingers just get under your skin. He looks human, but not quite. This creates a monster which to me is much scarier than many of the vampires you see in modern movies.

The movie does suffer from a few bouts of silliness. The protagonist, Hutter, is a bit ridiculous. Perhaps his behavior was a bit more understandable in the twenties, but now he just is laughable, and it's hard to feel any sympathy towards him at all. The old real estate agent, Knock, is also a little over the top. He manages to give us some creepy scenes, but usually he's just acting silly.

This movie holds up well when it comes to the actual scary parts, they are dark, creepy, and can get right under your skin. When it comes to any other part however, it falls short now. It's just too dated to hold my interest at any other time. I guess because of this you could say I both loved and hated this movie at the same time.

I'd give it 5 rat swarms out of 10. (+5 for love, -5 for hate)

Friday, October 23, 2009

Nosferatu(John)

This movie was just OK to me. I understand the significance of it, and there were things to like about the movie, but it was by no means the best movie I've ever seen.

The characters overall were great. Mike Shreck, who played Nosferatu, may be the creepiest Dracula I have ever seen on film. His demeanor was so different from other Draculas. Most Dracula characters are regal charlatans. This Dracula, from the beginning, had no problems showing his true colors. The character of Knock was truly insane. He played the part excellently. The only character I think I had a problem with was Hutter. This guy was ridiculous. His exaggerated facial expressions and wishy-washy emotions were humorous to me at a time when I was looking for something creepy or scary.

The music was completely out of place in this movie. I think the version I watched had restored music. And, it was terrible. Just when I thought I was getting into the film, the music would start this light-hearted flute or something and then that's all I could think about. If there was more appropriate music or no music at all, I think I would've liked this movie a lot more.

I've seen very few silent films but this one surprised me. For a while at the beginning, I thought this was a remake of the film. I was expecting to barely make out faces and experience a more grainy picture quality. But the picture was quite clear. I also enjoyed the "special effects", such as the fast moving horse and buggy and Dracula packing up all by himself to go to London. Overall the cinematography was great and it was probably revolutionary for its time.

As I said, this movie was just ok. I couldn't get into the film because of the annoying music and the lead character, Hutter. Every other aspect was pretty good. I would recommend everyone see this movie, just to experience the scariest Dracula ever put to film, but don't be surprised if this movie under performs. A 6 out of 10.

- John Murphy

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Nosferatu, Eine Symphonie Des Grauens(A Symphony of Terror)

Origin: Germany (Jofa-Atelier Berlin-Johannisthal, Prana-Film) 1922
Length: 94 minutes (Silent)
Format: Black & White
Director:
F.W. Murnau
Screenplay: Henrik Galeen
Photography: Gunther Krampf, Fritz Arno Wagner
Music: James Bernard (restored version)
Cast: Max Schreck, Alexander Granach, Gustav von Wangenheim, Greta Schroder, Georg H. Schnell, Ruth Landshoff, John Gottowt, Gustav Botz, Max Nemetz, Wolfgang Heinz, Guido Herzfeld, Albert Venohr, Hardy von Francois
Links: Nosferatu Trailer, Nosferatu Wiki

Bram Stoker's Dracula inspired one of the most impressive of all silent features. The source material and the medium seem almost eerily meant for each other. Stoker's novel, largely written in the form of a series of letters, is light on traditional dialogue and heavy on description, perfect for the primary visual storytelling of silent films. It is fitting that a story of the eternal conflict between light and darkness should be matched to a format consisting almost entirely of the interplay of light and darkness.

Review coming soon...

Monday, October 19, 2009

Blazing Saddles (Matt)

I've seen this movie a great many times over the course of my life and now that I sit down to try and write a review for it I find myself struggling for the words necessary to describe how I feel about it. I mean, it's Blazing Saddles for goodness sakes. One of Mel Brook's finest movies, and that is saying something. I guess I'll just take it in pieces.

Lets start with the story. It's creative and entertaining to say the least. The town of Rock Ridge is being attacked by outlaws, and they have to either fight back or run away. They decide to fight back and ask the governor for a sheriff. The governor's aid, who really is running things, decides to send them a black sheriff, which to that town was offensive. Hilarity ensues. Every time I watch this film I am blown away at how brave Mel Brooks had to be to make this movie. White people are on screen calling black people niggers. That is about as offensive as it gets folks, and not only does Mel pull it off, he makes it funny and totally non-offensive. In a way he turns the tables on the citizens of Rock Ridge, as they wind up looking like idots while Bart, the sheriff, comes out smelling like a rose. This is pure genius writing in my opinion. The movie makes a very strong statement against racism and it did it at a time when racial tension was high. This movie truly is a work of art.

How about the comedy. I've seen this move over twenty times and I still laugh every time I watch it. That's fairly outstanding if you think about it. I still laugh at the same jokes. The comedy stands up as well today as it did when it was created.

The acting is over the top, but that's what I would expect from a movie like this. The characters are large. Cleavon Little and Gene Wilder compliment each other perfectly. They have a good chemistry on screen and it really shines as you watch the two acting together. Mel has his many cameos as per the norm, and they are always a delight to see.

This movie is, in my opinion, one of the greatest films ever made. It takes a very tense subject and presents it in a manner that is both hilarious and thought provoking. It still blows my mind that Mel Brooks had the balls to create this movie when he did. He is a man to be admired and praised.

I give this movie 10 whimsical hangmen out of 10.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Blazing Saddles(John)

What a classic movie this is. Mel Brooks hit this one out of the park. I find myself always laughing through this entire movie.

The actors in this film are some of the funniest people ever. Gene Wilder can do no wrong. He plays Jim(or the Waco Kid), a drunk gunfighter who befriends Bart(Cleavon Little), the new sheriff of Rock Ridge. Wilder's performance is pretty mild compared to his other roles, but I found that subtlety to be just as funny as his more bombastic roles. Cleavon Little hasn't been in many other films, but he was excellent in this movie. This may sound weird, but I think his character may have been modeled after Bugs Bunny a little bit. Bart is the smart, modern man who is trying to combat these mean, "of the times" people. I feel that this is an almost exact comparison to Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam or Elmer Fudd. But, I may be wrong :P. Mel Brooks is, of course, amazing. And the dynamic between Harvey Korman and Slim Pickens was a treat to watch.

The music was good. The one thing that stands out is the song "Blazing Saddles". I know that song as soon as it starts. I think it's been ingrained into my DNA. And, I'm glad that it got an Oscar nomination for best song back in 1974. Too bad it didn't win though.

One thing that has to be known about this movie is that it is a parody movie. It doesn't take itself seriously. Characters know things that they shouldn't know(i.e. Bart had to invent the candygram decades before it was supposed to be invented so he could defeat Mongo). Honestly, I don't think the story even matters. The point of this movie is to be vulgar and have fun I think. And it succeeds there in spades.

It's getting a 10 out of 10.

-John Murphy

Blazing Saddles

Origin: U.S. (Crossbow, Warner Bros.) 1974
Length: 93 minutes
Format: Technicolor
Director:
Mel Brooks
Producer: Michael Hertzberg
Screenplay: Andrew Bergman, Mel Brooks, Richard Pryor, Norman Steinberg, Alan Uger
Photography: Joseph F. Biroc
Music: Mel Brooks, Vernon Duke, John Morris
Cast: Cleavon Little, Gene Wilder, Slim Pickens, David Huddleston, Liam Dunn, Alex Karras, John Hillerman, George Furth, Jack Starrett, Mel Brooks, Harvey Korman, Carol DeLuise, Richard Collier, Charles McGregor
Oscar nominations: Madeline Kahn(actress in supporting role), John C. Howard, Danford B. Greene(editing), John Morris, Mel Brooks(song)
Links: Blazing Saddles Trailer, Blazing Saddles Wiki


Though it may not be the peak of Mel Brooks's cinematic output - The Producers is still more shocking and pointed - with its mixture of surrealism, slapstick, and (then ground-breaking) vulgarity, Blazing Saddles is certainly his most influential film. Despite both its hackneyed setting - the old West - and its 1970s veneer - hip gags about race and sex - it stands as one of the more brilliant works in the career of a great 1950s comedy writer.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Annie Hall (Matt)

This is another movie that I've heard nothing but praise for. Most of the people who know the name of this movie are big fans of it, and because of this I had the bar set high going into it. I was expecting movie gold and would settle for nothing less.

The movie started strong. I enjoyed the characters, I enjoyed the story, I like the comedy, and I loved the directing. I was interested and entertained as I watched the two main characters meet and begin their relationship. About 45 minutes into the movie however, I began to lose a bit of interest. We watched this on a rainy night, so that might contribute to it, but I got a bit bored and that lead to sleepiness. I didn't fall asleep, but I did come close. This didn't last for long however, as I was quickly brought back by the films constant sense of humor mixed with reality. I managed to fight off being sleepy and stay interested until the end, with that one exception.

Up until the end of the film I considered this movie to be about a 6, maybe a 7. It was a nice view of a relationship between two somewhat eccentric people. As I mentioned before, the humor and the brilliant directing kept me interested. I loved it when Alvy Singer (the main character), would talk to the audience. Those were my favorite scenes by far. I laughed and I was entertained. It was a very decent movie.

Then, then end happened. We were presented with a montage of scenes featuring the highlights of the relationship between Alvy and Annie. When I watched this montage I was blown away. I realized then that I felt connected to this couple and to their relationship. I had lived through these highs and lows with them and I felt so connected to them that I was terribly sad that the relationship had ended. I had connected with them on a level that it almost unheard of via a movie and I had no idea that this connection had been made until that ending montage. It was an emotional and moving experience that I wasn't ready for.

After seeing that last bit of the movie my opinion of the movie changed. I went from that 6 or 7 straight up to a 9 or 10. This movie I think will stay with me for a long time. It was so easy to see relationships my own past injected into scenes of this film.

The acting was amazing. In particular is the way that Woody Allen and Diane Keaton portrayed that awkward friendliness that often follows ended relationships. It was spot on.

The direction was unique and very entertaining. As I mentioned when Alvy would break the story and come communicate with the audience it was always a treat. I like the short animated scene in the film and also quite enjoyed the subtitles for what the two characters were thinking while they had their first real conversation.

This movie was great. 9 expensive sneezes out of 10.

Annie Hall(John)

I'm very confused about this film. I went into the movie thinking I was going to be laughing constantly and instead I was just intrigued by the story. There were some funny moments but I would say this is more of a Drama-Comedy than a Comedic-Drama.

The acting was amazing. I was able to relate to almost every character. A lot of the ideas about relationships that were discussed in the film, I have gone through. Woody Allen plays this neurotic, funny, caring person who falls in love with Annie Hall, a woman who is very introverted. As they fall in love, their personalities change. And if you've ever been in a relationship, that's exactly how it happens. Faults are found within your significant other that you didn't see at first. I think that's the biggest compliment to this film: they nailed the relationship angle perfectly. Woody Allen's brand of comedy is very smart. There is very little slapstick so I found myself thinking about every word he was saying: which is a good thing. But as I said before, I didn't find myself laughing as much as I thought I would.

Normally I would discuss the setting and the music, but I found both to be so insignificant against the story that I will just say both were good enough. I do want to talk about the way the movie was shot. There were some interesting things going on in this department. As an example, there is a scene where Alvie and Annie are having dinner with Annie's parents. At a certain point, Alvie turns to the audience, breaking the 4th wall, and starts comparing Annie's family to his. And what we see is a split screen of the two families. But it doesn't stop there. Annie's mother starts interacting with Alvie's family, actually talking to them. I thought this was very interesting and although it was very odd, it didn't remove me from the movie. This type of camera work was injected throughout the movie, and I enjoyed it immensely.

This was not a movie I expected to like, but I would have to say it definitely surprised me. If it hadn't connected with me in the way it did, I probably would give this one a fairly low score. But, I understood almost everything Woody Allen's character went through, so I will give this movie a 7 out of 10.

- John Murphy

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Annie Hall

Origin: U.S. (Rollins-Joffe) 1977
Length: 93 minutes
Format: Color
Director:
Woody Allen
Producer: Charles H. Joffe, Jack Rollins
Screenplay: Woody Allen, Marshall Brickman
Photography: Gordon Willis
Cast: Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, Tony Roberts, Carol Kane, Paul Simon, Shelley Duvall, Janet Margolin, Colleen Dewhurst, Christopher Walken, Donald Symington, Helen Ludlam, Mordecal Lawner, Joan Neuman, Jonathan Munk, Ruth Volner
Oscars: Charles H. Joffe(best picture), Woody Allen(director), Woody Allen, Markshall Brickman(screenplay), Diane Keaton(actress)
Oscar nominations: Woody Allen(actor)
Links: Annie Hall Trailer, Annie Hall Wiki

The most celebrated film of 1977 was originally designed as a modern take on the sophisticated 1930s comedies of Spencer Tracy and Kathryn Hepburn. Then Woody Allen and his cowriter Marshall Brickman instead embarked on a comedy set in Allen's mind, with flashbacks to the main male character's previous marriages and childhood crushes, and the addition of a murder mystery. Shortened and reshaped by editor Ralph Rosenbaum, alterations to the film included cuts to the opening monologue and the removal of scenes featuring a 13-year-old Brooke Shields. It was this streamlined version, now focused on the romance between Alvy, a neurotic, over-sexed comedian (played, inevitably, by Allen) and the eponymous Annie Hall(Diane Keaton, a one-time lover of Allen's), that captured the filmmaker's original intention - a modern screwball comedy colored with doubt, indecision, and not a little pop psychology.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Check us out on gc4

Well, obviously Matt and I had very differing opinions on the most recent movie we watched, Brazil. I have a feeling we will be battling it sometime on the podcast that we co-host called gc4. You can get it on iTunes or head on over to our blog.

- John Murphy

Brazil (Matt)

This is a movie that I very much wanted to enjoy. All the cool kids love this movie, and I want to be a cool kid badly, oh yes I do. Sadly, however, it just isn't meant to be. I tried to like this move from every angle, and while there definitely are some aspects of it to like, overall it fell short of the glory it seems to have achieved from its viewing public.

Lets start with what I liked. I LOVED the world that the movie takes place in. It was dull and filled to the brim with greys, blacks, and whites. Just watching the sets will put you into a mood of claustrophobia and paranoia. There are ducts exposed in every public place, and this just adds to the sense of crowding that prevails throughout the movie.

I also enjoyed the sequences that took part I am assuming in the dreams of the main character. In these sequences he looks as though he is a warrior angel, and he is trying to rescue the love of his life from numerous obstacles such as a teleporting samurai or weird baby things that look like they came straight from The Dark Crystal. These always felt like a breath of fresh air when I saw them, and I was grateful every time that one appeared.

The acting I was not a fan of. I don't think this is the fault of the actors themselves as I am sure they were asked to portray these exaggerated personalities, and to their credit they did it quite well. I can see why the actors did this but all that it did was put me off of the movie. Every character save one (Robert De Niro playing Mr. Tuttle) grated on my nerves. The characters acted in ways that I did not understand, and as a result of this I was unable to relate to any of them. I spent the majority of the film trying to get into the film or at least to care about the characters to no avail. The only characters I really enjoyed were the angel manifestation of the main character and Mr. Tuttle.

I had a hard time following the story as well. I was able to understand the main plot but there were times where I got completely lost. I didn't understand what was happening, and when I did I did not understand why the characters where motivated to do what they were doing. A classic example of this occurs near the end of the film. The main character, Sam Lowry, is running away from a group of pursuers and stumbles into a funeral. He opens the casket and jumps inside it, causing him to fall into darkness for a while. The scene fades to black and then opens up again to him running outside in an alleyway. I for the life of me can't figure out why, when he was being chased, he would:

1) run into a funeral.
2) pull open the coffin
3) jump into the coffin

It just did not make sense. Later this is somewhat explained, but at the time it was so off-putting to me that it took me out of the film. My confusion caused me to completely lose interest several times in the movie and were I not watching it for this blog's sake, i would have likely turned it off.

In short, while this movie has a few redeeming qualities, I am not a fan. 3 botched plastic surgeries out of 10.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Brazil(John)

This movie floored me. Terry Gilliam is one of the most unique directors of the past 20 years. In this movie, he creates this industrial, materialistic world that could only come from his imagination. However, this movie is quite odd, so I can see where it will not be everyone's "cup of tea".

The acting was amazing. Each character had their own goals and played their parts expertly. Sam Lowry was this man who longed for a place that was not the world he lived in. His friend Jack is a seemingly nice man, who has a very dirty job, but treats it like any other normal job. Archibald Tuttle is this masked hero, who is attempting to bring down the current society. I also thoroughly enjoyed the scenes between Sam Lowry and the M.O.I repairmen. The scenes were this little insignificant piece of the film that was humorous and fit completely within the world. "I'm particular about paperwork".

The world of Brazil, as I mentioned, was awesome. This is a place where ducts are in style. Small computer monitors are common, but in order to see them, a huge mirror has to be placed in front of them. The majority of people relish things and want to have more and more things. Plastic surgery is a norm and terrorist attacks are not uncommon. I think the setting was my favorite part of the movie. It pulled me in and I couldn't wait to see the next scene. I also loved the mixture of 40s era things and more high tech gadgets.

The music was very good. I will have the little ditty that plays through the movie stuck in my head for days. The action scenes had bombastic scores while the more subdued scenes had a bit of a noir feel to them.

I would recommend this movie to any Terry Gilliam fan. Although, if you haven't seen this film, you probably aren't a Terry Gilliam fan. Some people are not going to like it, but this movie was right down my alley. Amazing set pieces, wonderful music and excellent acting. What more can you ask for?

I give it a 9.8 out of 10.

- John Murphy

Friday, September 11, 2009

Brazil

Origin: G.B. (Embassy, Universal) 1985
Length: 131 minutes
Format: Technicolor
Director:
Terry Gilliam
Producer: Arnon Milchan
Screenplay: Terry Gilliam, Charles McKeown, Tom Stoppard
Photography: Roger Pratt
Music: Michael Kamen
Cast: Jonathon Pryce, Robert De Niro, Katherine Helmond, Ian Holm, Bob Hoskins, Michael Palin, Ian Richardson, Peter Vaughan, Kim Greist, Jim Broadbent, Barbara Hicks, Charles McKeown, Derrick O'Connor, Kathryn Pogson, Bryan Pringle
Oscar nomination: Terry Gilliam, Tom Stoppard, Charles McKeown(screenplay), Norman Garwood, Maggie Gray(art direction)
Links: Brazil Trailer, Brazil Wiki


The well-known history of bad feeling between Brazil creator Terry Gilliam and distributor Universal, in which the filmmaker resisted the studio's attempts to put out a severely truncated cut and eventually prevailed in getting his challenging picture released in the United States, has tended to soak up all the interest in this movie, which has its own unique strengths(and weaknesses) quite apart from any status it might retain as a near-political cause. Made significantly in 1984, and in parallel with the Michael Radford film of George Orwell's eponymous novel, Brazil is set "somewhere in the twentieth century," in an imaginary but credible oppressive state that combines the worst features of 1940s British bureaucracy, 1950s American paranoia, Stalinist or fascist totalitarianism, and the ills of the 1980s(e.g., and obsession with plastic surgery). Whereas Orwell's Air Strip One is built on an impossibly and horribly effective system of state surveillance, the worst aspect of Gilliam's invented dystopia is that it doesn't even work: The plot is kicked off by a farcical mistake as a squashed bug falls into a printer so that an arrest warrant intended for terrorist heating engineer Tuttle(Robert De Niro) is applied to an innocent Mr. Buttle(Brian Miller), and the grimly utilitarian city is falling apart even without the possibly state-sponsored terrorist bombs that periodically wreak appalling carnage.

Forbidden Planet - Matt

This past weekend I had the privilege of traveling with three of my friends (one being the other author of this movie blog) to Atlanta, Georgia where I attended a rapidly growing sci-fi/comic convention called Dragoncon. This was my third consecutive year to attend the con and I swear it somehow manages to get better every year.

I mention this because on the second day of the convention the American Science Fiction track had a movie night that was free to all attendees, and as you might have guessed by now, the movie they were showing was Forbidden Planet.

It was with quite a bit of anticipation that I entered the classroom where they were going to screen the movie. It's not every day that one gets to watch a classic sci-fi movie surrounded by fans of that very genre. The screen, sadly, wasn't very large and it was projected onto the screen with a sub-par projector, but that wasn't too big of a problem as we sat on the front row. I wanted to mention this so that you understand the environment that I watched this movie in, just in case it contributed to my views of the film. We have to be fair to the movie after all, and I don't want to mislead you dear readers.

I thought this movie was wonderful. It is the first time that I have seen Leslie Nielsen act at a younger age, and I thought he did a fine job of it. He played Captain J.J. Adams with authority and concern for his men. It was interesting to see him try to protect Altaira from his crew members, and these were some of my favorite moments in the movie. He commanded a natural respect from his men, and he did it in a way that the authority seemed to come straight from his character, it didn't seem forced at all.

Altaira, Anne Francis, was every bit as good as Leslie Nielsen. She really brought her character to life and I believe that without her performance the movie would not be nearly as good as it was. It was fun to watch this naive girl interacting with people other than her father for the first time in her life. She did not know how to behave and I thought that Anne Francis showed this in her character perfectly.

I also want to comment on Robby the Robot, who is actually billed as an actor in the beginning credits of the movie. What a neat concept for a robot. This robot was able to chemically analyze a sample of any material you provided him with, and then using a mixture of chemicals that he stored in his body, could recreate the material at will. I don't think I've ever heard of something like that, even in science fiction, and I loved it. It was interesting to see a true robot in the sense that it was void of much personality interact with the crew who, like me, had never seen anything like it before.

The sets in this movie were very well done. They were able to portray an alien world without going over the top. The spaceship looked both futuristic and believable at the same time, likewise with the Morbius homestead on the planet. I found myself through much of the movie just looking at the devices and inventions in the sets and wondering what they did or what purpose they served.

I do have one negative thing to say about the film. The sound effects, especially in the first 10 minutes of so of the movie, were loud and irritating. One scene in particular when the spaceship enters hyperspace really drove my hands to my ears. I could have done without that.

I could cover other parts of this film that are wonderful, but I've already written more than I originally meant to. The story was original and interesting, the acting was great, the sets were nice, the special effects in the film I feel hold up very well also. This movie was a treat to watch and I liked it quite a bit more than I thought that I would. I'll give it 9 robot made diamond dresses out of 10.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Forbidden Planet(John)

We saw this movie at Dragoncon, on a small projector screen with a room of about 30 - 40 people. The quality wasn't that great, but since the film was made in the 1950s I don't think it was a huge problem. I enjoyed the film and I was surprised at how well it holds up after almost 60 years.

The acting was good. It was weird seeing Leslie Nielson play a non-comedic role but he did a good job nonetheless. He played the hard nosed captain well. Anne Francis was very seductive in the movie, wearing short mini-skirts throughout most of the film. Another mention has to be Robby The Robot. Robby was an excellent cast member, injecting a little humor into the film as well as selling the sci-fi theme of the movie even more. The supporting cast didn't really have anything to do other than guard the ship and die horrible deaths. Also, when they were fighting the id monster, they were shooting their guns and standing completely still, with almost no emotion.

The special effects were probably outstanding for their time, which is why it was nominated for an Oscar. And to be honest, they didn't really seem all that outdated. Obviously the id monster was hand drawn animation. But the sets looked futuristic and it was not hard to feel like I was on Altair with the crew.

This was a pretty good film. There was really no campy-ness to the film whatsoever, which I think is rare in older films of this genre. The acting was all around good and the special effects and set design hold up.

I give it an 8.5 out of 10.

-John Murphy

Forbidden Planet

Origin: U.S (MGM) 1956
Length: 98 minutes
Format: Eastmancolor
Director:
Fred M. Wilcox
Producer: Nicholas Nayfack
Screenplay: Irving Block, Allen Adler, Cyril Hume
Photography: George J. Folsey
Music: Bebe Barron, Louis Barron
Cast: Walter Pidgeon, Anne Francis, Leslie Nielson, Robby the Robot, Warren Stevens, Jack Kelly, Richard Anderson, Earl Holliman, George Wallace, Robert Dix, Jimmy Thompson, James Drury, Harry Harvey Jr., Roger McGee, Peter Miller
Oscar nomination: A. Arnold Gillespie, Irving G. Reis, Wesley C. Miller(special effects)
Links: Forbidden Planet Trailer, Forbidden Planet Wiki

This superior 1950s sci-fi gem by director Fred M. Wilcox, ambitiously shot in widescreen CinemaScope, owes nothing to the period's paranoid McCarthyite preoccupation with hostile invaders from outer space but a great deal to the plot of William Shakespeare's The Tempest and the sophisticated psychological premise that the most dangerous monsters are those lurking in the primitive impulses of the subconscious mind.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Hiatus

To all of our blog followers, we apologize for the lack of movie reviews lately(vacations, buying houses, etc...) but we promise we'll be back to form in a couple of weeks. We will actually be viewing a public showing of Forbidden Planet at a convention in Atlanta,GA called DragonCon, so that will be up soon.

I thought this would be a good time to summarize the movies that we've watched from the list and give a rundown of the scores we gave. The scores are out of 10.

Le Voyage Dans La Lune(A Trip To The Moon)
Matt: 7.0
John: 6.5

Papillon
Matt: 8
John: 8

Freaks
Matt: 7.0
John: 6.5

The Wolf Man
Matt: 3.0
John: 4.0

Atonement
Matt: 8.0
John: 8.0

The Outlaw Josey Wales
Matt: 9.0
John: 9.5

Taxi Driver
Matt: 4.0
John: 8.5

Raging Bull
Matt: 7.0
John: 8.7

Jacob's Ladder
Matt: 8.5
John: 9.0

Schindler's List
Matt: 10.0
John: 10.0

Ghostbusters
Matt: 10.0
John: 10.0

The Maltese Falcon
Matt: 4.0
John: 7.0

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Matt: 8.0
John: 7.0

Mad Max
Matt: 8.0
John: 7.5

So far, we've reviewed 14 of the 1,001 movies on the list....only 987 more to go!

Monday, August 10, 2009

Mad Max (Matt)

"I am the Nightrider. I'm a fuel injected suicide machine. I am the rocker, I am the roller, I am the out-of-controller!"

I LOVE that quote. It's spoken by the Nightrider as he evades the police force in post-apocalyptic Australia, and it's delivered perfectly. It's one of the first scenes in the film, and does it ever suck you in. The Nightrider rides in a psychotic joy that is mesmerizing. I was into this movie from that moment right until the end.

I think that the reason I liked this movie was the story. There wasn't anything about the acting, directing, or music that caught my eye. I'm not saying they were bad, and the fact that I did not notice them is a good indication that they were pretty good. After all isn't that the ultimate purpose of a movie, to tell you a story?

I was sucked into this world quite easily, and I could not help but be reminded of the video game Fallout. I'm sure Mad Max had a bit of influence on that.

Talking about influences actually, this movie had a similar feel to The Outlaw Josey Wales.

I don't have a lot to say really. I liked it a lot. I haven't seen the other movies in the trilogy(The Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome), I think I'll go give them a watch.

8 fiery car deaths out of 10

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Mad Max(John)

This is a movie I hate saying i've never seen. I've seen Road Warrior quite a few times as well as Beyond Thunderdome. But I have never sat down and watched Mad Max. I'm glad I did.

The big draw for me about this film was the different take on the revenge movie. Almost all of the revenge films I've seen are structured the same way: something happens in the beginning that warrant revenge, then for the next hour to hour-and-a-half is the resolution. Personally, I get tired during these films. Normally, they peak early on and fail to deliver throughout the rest of the movie. Mad Max was not this way. Most of the movie is setup and the last little bit is the resolution which I think worked awesomely.

Mel Gibson did a good job in the lead role. He played very well the role of bad ass with a heart. The other notable character was Toe Cutter. He played a crazy man very well and I had no problem believing he was insane.

I didn't really believe that the story took place in a post apocalyptic Australia. Some set pieces were done very well and the characters were believable but overall, the setting really looked faux. I know the budget was low on this one, so it didn't bother me too much.

Overall, I'm glad I watched this one. I can now say i've seen the entire trilogy and I would recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it. The structure is different enough that it doesn't feel like your typical revenge movie and you get to see Mel Gibson in one of his first films.

I'd give it a 7.5 out of 10.

- John Murphy

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Mad Max

Origin: Australia (Crossroads, Kennedy Miller) 1979
Length: 93 minutes
Format: Eastmancolor
Director:
George Miller
Producer: Byron Kennedy
Screenplay: James McCausland, George Miller
Photography: David Eggby
Music: Brian May
Cast: Mel Gibson, Joanne Samuel, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Steve Bisley, Tim Burns, Roger Ward, Lisa Aldenhoven, David Bracks, Bertrand Cadart, David Cameron, Robina Chaffey, Stephen Clark, Mathew Constantine, Jerry Day, Reg Evans
Links: Mad Max Trailer, Mad Max Wiki

Although the 1981 film The Road Warrior - the second installment of writer/director George Miller's postapocalyptic "trilogy" (Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome followed, and a fourth film is also in the works)- tends to receive most of the critical acclaim, the jaw-dropping Mad Max, released two years earlie, is where it all started. For it was here that Miller first brought to the screen his hellish vision of a barren, gang ridden Australia, with the aid of a new young actor by the name of Mel Gibson.

Gibson was just 23 years old when he won the role of Max Rockatansky(as legend has it, Gibson auditioned the day after being in a bar fight and his distinctively black-and-blue face stuck in the mind of the casting director), and was such an unknown that when Mad Max was released in America, the preview trailer didn't even feature him but instead focused on the movie's explosions and car crashes. In retrospect, of course, Gibson's portrayal of a leather-jacketed antihero is an essential element of the picture.

Review coming soon...

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Matt)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is truly one of the classics of the horror genre. Most people alive today are familiar with the name of this movie. You can't even go into a haunted house anymore without hearing that infamous chainsaw revving up to come saw you into pieces. It's become a part of our very culture in that regard.

I had never seen the original movie before this viewing. I saw the re-make some months ago, but that's hardly the same movie and it was just ok. I have heard from a multitude of sources that the new one is a piece of crap compared to the original. I went in with high hopes and I have to say that this movie did not disappoint me much.

Let me start with my favorite part of the movie, its direction. In terms of actual story and characters this movie wasn't all that scary. The acting was actually terrible. It was so bad, in fact, that I found myself laughing a lot at some parts that I believe were intended to be scary. That said however, I found several parts of this film to be pretty intense, and this tension was the direct responsibility of the director's work. One scene that comes to mind as an example is when a character finds herself in a room littered with feathers and bones. The camera takes several minutes and just films closeups of these objects. That's it, just a few minutes of footage of stationary objects with creepy music/sound effects. However the way the camera is positioned, the timing of the music, the gentle swaying of the feathers or the bones hanging from strings. It freaked the heck out of me. Had I been in the right mood it would have been downright terrifying. It had the same effect on me that The Shining did years ago, and it's freaking creepy.

The music, if you can call it that, is another aspect of this movie that I thought was well done. It very dissonant (is that the right word?) and it causes you to be uncomfortable in a lot of situations that would not normally be scary at all. The music is awful, but it fits perfectly into the context of this movie. It's a little insane, just like the characters that are out here to scare you.

I also really like the idea that this family of cannibals regarded human life in the same way that the average human regards livestock. They don't hate people, but they don't mind killing them either. They need to eat, and to do that they have to kill people. It was interesting to me to see this philosophy applied to human life.

The movie isn't all happy times. There is basically no plot at all. We never find out why these teenagers are driving around. There is a lack of motive that makes it harder to feel sorry for these people getting killed. The acting is horrible. As I mentioned above it's so bad that it would pull me out of the movie and actually turn horror into comedy. There is also the general disposition of the characters towards making bad decisions that seems to be so prevalent in horror movies. Going to the creepy house looking for gasoline, running up stairs to get away, staying in the creepy feather and bone room for 5 minutes, etc.

I give this movie 8 chainsaw dances out of 10.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre(John)

This was a pretty freaky movie. I say this even after the movie was basically ruined by a friend of mine who thought it was the funniest thing since Bill Cosby. I can definitely see where basically every horror film since then has borrowed at least one thing from this film. Heck, House of 1000 Corpses could almost be considered a remake of this film.

The acting was subpar. Of course, there was no real need for Oscar winning performances anyway. However, I have to say, the leader of the cannibals definitely made me think he was insane. And Leatherface was pretty terrifying. The teenagers were the stereotypical travelers who you know are going to die before the film is over except maybe one.

The visuals were creepy. Skeletons laying all over the place, Leatherface's human skin mask, grandpa. And the fact that this film was made with only $60,000 makes the visuals and camera work even more impressive.

I wasn't scared watching the film. But, as I said, that portion was ruined for me. However, I don't think I would've been scared anyway. I think the scaryness has faded since the release. If i'd watched this in the 70s, I probably would've crapped my pants and left the theater. Today, however, we as movie watchers have been subjected to much more frightening things. Even so, I would definitely recommend watching this film just to see where some of the greats got their ideas.

I'll give it a 7 out of 10.

- John Murphy

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Origin: U.S (Vortex) 1974
Length: 83 minutes
Format: Color
Director:
Tobe Hooper
Producer: Tobe Hooper, Lou Peraino
Screenplay: Kim Henkel, Tobe Hooper
Photography: Daniel Pearl
Music: Wayne Bell, Tobe Hooper, John Lennon
Cast: Marilyn Burns, Allen Danziger, Paul A. Partain, William Vail, Teri McMinn, Edwin Neal, Jim Siedow, Gunnar Hansen, John Dugan, Robert Courtin, William Creamer, John Henry Faulk, Jerry Green, Ed Guinn, Joe Bill Hogan
Links: Texas Chain Saw Massacre Trailer, Texas Chain Saw Massacre Wiki, Ed Gein Wiki

Loosely inspired by the real-life story of Wisconsin serial killer Ed Gein - as was Psycho(1960) before it and The Silence of The Lambs(1991) after it - Tobe Hooper's ultra-low-budget shock-horror classic The Texas Chain Saw Massacre opened to a firestorm of controversy, and since then has continued to generate heated debate over its aesthetic merits and potentially damaging effects on viewers.

It's been called one of the most frightening movies ever made.
It is one of the most profitable independent films in motion picture history.

The Maltese Falcon (Matt)

I was excited going into this movie. I watched the trailer and it looked mysterious and fun.

I was let down however when we started watching it. The movie started strong, I was into it and really enjoying the mood that the old film created, however by the end I had dozed off several times. This could be due to the fact that I was really full of homemade tamales, but even so if it was interesting enough I would not have been falling asleep.

The characters in the movie were the biggest selling point, and they were the reason for most of the interest that the movie got from me. I loved watching all the characters interact. They all had their own motives, and all of them had somewhat exaggerated personalities.

The story just wasn't interesting enough to keep me entertained. I tried, but I failed. It makes me sad too because I wanted very much to enjoy this movie. Alas I have to face facts though, I just wasn't all that into it. I didn't hate it, but I didn't like it either.

4 fat men out of 10

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

The Maltese Falcon(John)

This movie was surprisingly good. The Maltese Falcon came out in that 1940s so I was expecting a campy tale about a woman in distress and the man who was going to take care of it. Instead, I was treated with a very enjoyable story with little to no campy-ness.

The acting was good overall. Humphrey Bogart was definitely the shining star in this film. He gave a stellar performance as Sam Spade. A lot of the things he did in this film reminds me of Batman. Spade always seemed to be planned for any eventuality. The scene where he seems to get mad at the Fatman and storms out only to walk away smiling was really awesome. Peter Lorre was another memorable character to me. A lot of this was from watching Looney Toons as a kid. Lorre has a very unmistakable face and voice.

There were limited set pieces in this movie. I believe there were only a handful of different settings throughout the entire film. Of course, I understand that this movie was made 70 years ago so I wasn't too bothered by it. The combination of black and white film mixed with the Noir story were very enjoyable.

The music was pretty good. I wasn't moved by it but I also didn't hate it. It fit well with the story that was being told and nothing that I heard took me out of the story.

Overall, I'd have to say I was surprised that I liked this one even though I enjoy most noir films that i've seen. The acting was good and the movie kept me entertained throughout. I'll give it a 7 out of 10.

- John Murphy

Sunday, July 12, 2009

The Maltese Falcon

Origin: U.S (First National, Warner Bros.) 1941
Length: 101 minutes
Format: Black & White
Director: John Huston
Producer: Henry Blanke, Hal B. Wallis
Screenplay: John Huston, from novel by Dashiell Hammett
Photography: Arthur Edeson
Music: Adolph Deutsch
Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Gladys George, Peter Lorre, Barton MacLane, Lee Patrick, Sydney Greenstreet, Ward Bond, Jerome Cowan, Elisha Cook Jr., James Burke, Murray Alper, John Hamilton
Oscar Nominations: Hal B. Wallis(best picture), John Huston(screenplay), Sydney Greenstreet(actor in supporting role)
Links: The Maltese Falcon Trailer, The Maltese Falcon Movie Wiki, The Maltese Falcon Novel Wiki

By 1941, Dashiell Hammett's great private eye novel had been acceptably filmed twice, under its own title in 1931 with Ricardo Cortez as Sam Spade and as Satan Met A Lady in 1935 with Warren William as the Spade character(and the falcon McGuffin turned into the Horn of Roland). John Huston, having served an apprenticeship as a writer, selected the book from Warner Brothers' catalogue of properties and was so confident in the strength of his material that his script consists essentially of a transcription of Hammett's dialogue. He was fortunate enough to have a letter-perfect cast down to the smallest bit parts, and the restraint not to go over the top. This debut feature has little of the razzle-dazzle of the same year's Citizen Kane, announcing the arrival not of an enfant terrible but of a consummate professional.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Ghostbusters (Matt)

Ok well here we go. Ghostbusters. This movie is one of the reasons that I love movies today. In fact, this was the very first movie that I ever saw in a movie theater (is that weird?). My home town at one time had an old movie theater. It was closed before I was born, however one night when I was somewhere between 3 and 5 years old it opened for a single night to show... Ghostbusters. I vaguely remember screaming in terror at the librarian ghost in the opening scene. Ahh the memories...

So anyway back to the movie. This movie is gold. I love every minute of it. This is one of a very few movies that I never get tired of watching. It's anybody's guess how many times I've seen it and every time I enjoy it. That really says something about the quality of a movie, although to be fair nostalgia most likely has a hand in that.

The comedy/action mix is what keeps me coming back for more. They pace the movie perfectly, giving us plenty of both in ample amounts. Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd and just flawless. The way they carry theirselves on the screen just makes their characters become alive. Try and imagine any other actor as either of these two characters, it just doesn't work. They OWN these characters, and I'm glad they do.

Something else I want to mention is the special effects. These ghost effects still hold up today. That really is amazing. Think about the advancements that the movie industry has had in terms of special effects since that movie was made. The ghosts weren't made with computers, they were done the old fashioned way, and they look spectatular. They still look spectacular. That's pretty neat dang it.

10 scary librarian ghosts out of 10

~Matt

Friday, July 3, 2009

Ghost Busters(John)

I love, love, love this movie. I've seen this movie so many times, I can probably recite the script from beginning to end. Aykroyd and Ramis were geniuses for coming up with the world of the Ghost Busters and I'm hoping for a third film!

The real star of Ghost Busters is Bill Murray. The way he delivers his lines is hilarious. There is one particular scene in the movie when the Ghost Busters first enter the Sedgewick Hotel. Bill Murray gives a certain look to someone of the female persuasion. It's just a look, but it's one of the funniest moments in the movie I think. If Bill Murray hadn't been cast as Peter Venkman, I'm not sure if many people would remember a movie called Ghost Busters. Another big star of the film is New York City. I've said this many times, but Ghost Busters has a charm and a big part of that charm is the movie's references to New York City. We don't just get a movie with small set pieces. We get a movie where the Ghost Busters are on top of an apartment complex watching a giant Mr. Stay Puft trample downtown New York City while the citizens are screaming and running for their lives. The team members of the Ghost Busters love the city and in turn, they are treated with loving respect by the citizens of NY.

Some of the special effects are dated by today's standards. But Mr. Say Puft still looks pretty amazing and the ghosts actually benefit from aged FX in my opinion. The music is awesome. Anybody who hasn't lived under a rock for the past 20 years knows the Ghost Busters theme song. It's an iconic song that I think will be well known for many more years to come.

I can't give this movie any less than a 10 out of 10 simply because I grew up with this movie. But to back it with actual points: the comedy is still fresh, the visuals are not too outdated, Bill Murray is amazing and the story concept(that I know of) hasn't been duplicated by anyone else. Oh, and if you're a big fan, go get Ghost Busters: The Video Game. It's basically the third movie and it's pretty good!

- John Murphy

Ghost Busters

Origin: U.S (Black Rhino, Columbia) 1984
Length: 107 minutes
Format: Metrocolor
Director: Ivan Reitman
Producer: Ivan Reitman
Screenplay: Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis
Photography: Laszlo Kovacs
Music: Tom Bailey, Elmer Bernstein, Alannah Currie, Joe Leeway, Brian O'Neal, Kevin O'Neal, Ray Parker Jr., Diane Warren
Cast: Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Sigourney Weaver, Harold Ramis, Rick Moranis, Annie Potts, William Atherton, Ernie Hudson, David Margulies, Steven Tash, Jennifer Runyon, Slavitza Jovan, Michael Ensign, Alice Drummond, Jordan Charney
Oscar Nominations: Richard Edlund, John Bruno, Mark Vargo, Chuck Gaspar(special visual effects), Ray Parker Jr.(song)
Links: Ghost Busters Trailer, Ghost Busters Wiki

Big budget special effects and comedy are cleverly interwoven in this fantasy adventure written by two of the movie's stars, Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd. With Bill Murray they play a trio of paranormal "experts" - in reality, they are lazy, wisecracking ex-science professors, kicked off campus for their antics - who set up a ghost-busting business from an abandoned New York City firehouse. Their timing couldn't be better as the city is suddenly bursting with paranormal activity causing ghostly apparitions to run riot, terrorizing visitors to the library, ransacking an upscale hotel and even taking up residence in a skeptical Sigourney Weaver's refrigerator.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Schindler's List(Matt)

I first watched this movie in high school as part of a fairly intensive study of the Holocaust. I can still remember seeing this in the theater. In the years between then and now I had forgotten a lot of the movie. I am afraid to admit that a lot of the movie back then was lost on me as I was a snotty teenage kid who cared neither for black and white movies nor for movies that were too serious.

It's because of this that I was excited to approach this movie a second time. The difference was amazing. This movie really was hard to watch. It's not like most of the scary films that you see where some monsters are attacking people in areas of low light. Most of the horrifying things that you see on screen actually happened. I read that to create some of the scenes that Spielberg took accounts from people who saw it happen. People that actually lived through this craziness.

This movie really does a good job of making what happened during the Holocaust become real. It's one thing to hear stories or to read in history books about how the Jews were treated and murdered during this dark period of humanity's history. It's another altogether to actually witness it with your own eyes and ears. To see it happen right there on the screen. It gives me chills just thinking about it. It's much more powerful to me than books or told stories, and I feel like this is most likely the case with most of my generation and those under it. I feel like this movie should be required viewing for every person in the world, once they are old enough to understand it that is.

I was so focused on this movie that I hardly noticed any acting at all. That is a sure sign that it was good. The use of black and white worked really well, as it helped to transport me to that period of time. There is a bit of color in the film, and it is used brilliantly.

I agree with John completely here, I don't have anything bad to say about this movie. Go see it. 10 out of 10.

P.S. Did you know that Spielberg refused to make any money from this movie at all? He donated everything he made.

~Matt

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Schindler's List(John)

This was a powerful film. Any movie that can make me shed a tear is doing a darn good job of being a movie in my opinion. Granted, the movie was about a real tragic moment in history, but the film was still able to bring that sadness and horror across the screen.

Liam Neeson is an underrated actor. I first saw him in Darkman, an old B-movie, and he was awesome in it. But, I never thought he was of the acting caliber that he demonstrated in Schindler's List. I can't help but wonder why he hasn't been cast in more blockbuster films. Ben Kingsley was amazing as usual. These two actors were able to portray the division that was apparent between Nazis and Jews, but also show that everything isn't black and white and that some Nazis had Jewish friends and vice versa. Ralph Fiennes made me hate his character, which is a good thing.

The choice of shooting this film in black and white was a good one I think. It set the scene perfectly. Throughout the whole film, the movie is in black and white, with the exception of a few moments. These moments stand out, I think, because black and white are used to represent despair and tradgedy and the color moments are used to represent hope. It was a unique way of showing pivital moments during the film.

I couldn't find anything I disliked about this film. I was completely moved by it and immersed the entire 197 minutes. Acting was top notch, the unique film style was interesting, the score was amazing and the story gave me an appreciation of what the Jewish people faced during the Holocaust.

I give it a 10 out of 10.

- John Murphy