This movie I have cherished for many years. I believe I first watched it when it came on TNT. It was edited for television but I still enjoyed the film. To see that it made our list makes me very happy. This movie is a classic horror film.
The acting was okay. This movie was made for very little money and one of the reasons is many of the actors were no-names at the time. One of the most annoying actors in the whole film was Nancy's mother. She had crazy, crazy eyes and creeped me out during the entirety of the film. This would have been okay if she was involved in the horror pieces. I think Johnny Depp did a good job for it being his first film ever. And Heather Langenkamp was also good and although she was 20 at the time, made me believe that she was younger. It bears mentioning, however, that there was one actor who stole the show. And that actor was Robert Englund. He didn't have much dialogue at all. But he made Freddy Krueger the scary, intimidating, and yes charismatic character that everyone knows and loves. In other hands, Freddy could have been a minor footnote in the history of horror.
The story was a very intriguing one for its time. Imagine a man who can haunt your dreams. And whatever happens in your dreams translates to real life. If you get cut in your dream, the cut is still there when you wake up. If you die in your dream, you die in real life. Add on top of this the fact that the man who haunts your dreams is a sadistic, finger-knife wielding, trash talking mad man and this becomes a dangerous combination. The movie has the typical horror tropes, but it manages to scare and entertain even to this day. There is a little bit of humor in the film. But, this one has nowhere near the laughs that the sequels have.
The music is another classic piece of this film. To me, the music during the dreams sounds like a haunting version of a lullaby. It is amazing. This really got me when I was younger. It made me anticipate even more finding out how Freddy was going to jump out and claim his victims.
This movie is a classic. If you haven't seen it 1) Shame on you and 2) Go rent it now! This movie is an excellent representative of horror films done well. It's scary, has a solid story and the acting is good enough. It stands the test of time which is always rough for horror flicks.
I'm giving it a 9.5 out of 10.
- John Murphy
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
A Nightmare On Elm Street
Origin: U.S(Media Home Entertainment, New Line, Smart Egg) 1984Length: 91 minutes
Format: Color
Director: Wes Craven
Producer: Robert Shaye
Screenplay: Wes Craven
Photography: Jacques Haitkin
Music: Charles Bernstein, Steve Karshner, Martin Kent, Michael Schurig
Cast: John Saxon, Ronee Blakley, Heather Langenkamp, Amanda Wyss, Jsu Garcia, Johnny Depp, Charles Fleischer, Joseph Whipp, Robert Englund, Lin Shaye, Joe Unger, Mimi Craven, Jack Shea, Ed Call, Sandy Lipton
Links: A Nightmare On Elm Street Wiki
Wes Craven's signature film, A Nightmare On Elm Street was at once a critical and commercial success that managed to creatively combine horror and humor, Gothic literary motifs and slasher movie conventions, gory special effects and subtle social commentary. And it let loose a new monster in America's pop culture consciousness: That wisecracking, fedora-wearing teen killer, Freddy Krueger.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
12 Angry Men (Matt)
12 Angry Men is a movie that is pretty unique. It is about a group of men on a jury having to decide the verdict of a 18 year old kid that is being tried for killing his father. If they convict him then he will be given the death penalty. The entire movie (excepting I think 2 or 3 scenes) takes place in a single room. There isn't any action really, no clear antagonist, just a group of men debating the innocence of a man on trial.
This movie addresses a lot of major social issues including prejudice and apathy. It makes a very clear point that when it comes to issues people tend to generally accept what they "feel" on first glance instead of actually thinking it through and reaching an educated decision.
I'm going to start this off by saying I honestly feel like this movie should be required viewing for American citizens. The point that is makes so matter-of-factly is very important. The life of this man hangs in the balance of the jury's decision, and in the beginning they almost all are ready to send him to his death. He was from a bad part of town, he must have done it. He had a bad childhood, I'm sure he killed his father. When the facts were analyzed these assumptions were disproven and the men learned a bit about themselves as well.
The acting I think speaks for itself. The entire movie is nothing but acting. In fact, this could have just as easily been a play. The movie is all dialogue, and the emotions portrayed by the men are easily readable yet still they reside on the edge of complexity. You can relate to every character in there and you likely know several people just like them, which is a big kudos to the writing as well.
I can't say much for the cinematography, as there was only one room to shoot, however I will say that the cameras working with the set made the entire movie feel claustrophobic, which I've read was the intent of the director. So that is worth mentioning.
The way that this story is told is very interesting. We see absolutely none of the trial take place. All the details of the trial are given to us via the men discussing the verdict. As they talk to each other and debate the young man's fate, slowly a picture of the crime scene begins to form in the viewer's minds. We first have only what the juror's mention to form the crime in our minds, and as a result it's easy to fall into league with the men and assume that the verdict should be guilty. As we hear the men debate though, new things come to light and we are brought around just like any of the men could be. This was amazing. Whoever wrote this deserves major accolades.
You should see this movie. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, watch it and pay attention to it. What it has to say is very important and is worth an hour or so of your life.
9 broken fans out of 10
~Matt
This movie addresses a lot of major social issues including prejudice and apathy. It makes a very clear point that when it comes to issues people tend to generally accept what they "feel" on first glance instead of actually thinking it through and reaching an educated decision.
I'm going to start this off by saying I honestly feel like this movie should be required viewing for American citizens. The point that is makes so matter-of-factly is very important. The life of this man hangs in the balance of the jury's decision, and in the beginning they almost all are ready to send him to his death. He was from a bad part of town, he must have done it. He had a bad childhood, I'm sure he killed his father. When the facts were analyzed these assumptions were disproven and the men learned a bit about themselves as well.
The acting I think speaks for itself. The entire movie is nothing but acting. In fact, this could have just as easily been a play. The movie is all dialogue, and the emotions portrayed by the men are easily readable yet still they reside on the edge of complexity. You can relate to every character in there and you likely know several people just like them, which is a big kudos to the writing as well.
I can't say much for the cinematography, as there was only one room to shoot, however I will say that the cameras working with the set made the entire movie feel claustrophobic, which I've read was the intent of the director. So that is worth mentioning.
The way that this story is told is very interesting. We see absolutely none of the trial take place. All the details of the trial are given to us via the men discussing the verdict. As they talk to each other and debate the young man's fate, slowly a picture of the crime scene begins to form in the viewer's minds. We first have only what the juror's mention to form the crime in our minds, and as a result it's easy to fall into league with the men and assume that the verdict should be guilty. As we hear the men debate though, new things come to light and we are brought around just like any of the men could be. This was amazing. Whoever wrote this deserves major accolades.
You should see this movie. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, watch it and pay attention to it. What it has to say is very important and is worth an hour or so of your life.
9 broken fans out of 10
~Matt
Thursday, April 15, 2010
12 Angry Men(John)
When we think of movies, we generally think of actors portraying a specific role. They act out these roles in many locales. It may be from a train station to an apartment building, but these setting are there to push the story forward and give the audience some kind of perspective. In 12 Angry Men, the film manages to do this with only one setting: a jury room.
Ok, acting. There was an all-star cast in this film. Henry Fonda, Ed Begley and John Fiedler are just a few of the stars in the film. The performance that shined the most to me had to be either Lee Cobb or Ed Begley's character. Cobb played this very hard man with unshakable resolve and Begley played a very loud-mouthed prejudiced man. Both of these performances I thought were great. Cobb's character was diverse. He was a tough man who yelled a lot but at the same time, he was a loving father who had shunned his son. Because he hadn't spoken to his son in some time, he subconsciously was taking his anger out on the jurors and the boy who was on trial. Begley's character was interesting simply because he was openly prejudiced against the boy. I thought the scene where he was trying to make his case and no one was listening was a very powerful scene and had a lot of truth to it. Every character in the film had their own personalities and it was interesting to see them co-exist for a short time in the jury room.
The story was quite simplistic. A jury of 12 is tasked with determining if a boy killed his father. The way the story was told was the amazing part. The entire trial is told in the third person by the jurors as they try to determine if the boy is guilty or not. As the movie played out, I started to imagine the crime scene and the boy on the witness stand. Since we the audience were not shown the trial, it is up to us to imagine what it was like through these men talking about it. I think it is really amazing that this movie was able to pull this off so flawlessly. I loved the little side-stories that we were told about some of the characters. For instance, the information we learn about Lee Cobb's character was particularly interesting and very important to the plot.
The camera work was sufficient. There were a few scenes where the camera kept zooming in on the old man and I found this very odd. I didn't understand why they felt the need to zoom in on his face but not others. To add to this, the man kept making creepy faces. This is a small complaint but I could not help but laugh during these scenes and I'm pretty sure they were not meant to be funny.
This is probably the best black and white movie I've ever seen. It's not my favorite but it definitely is the best. The achievement of telling a compelling story within only one setting is enough for me to recommend it to anyone. Add good acting, well developed characters and excellent dialogue and it becomes a must watch.
I'll give it a 9 out of 10.
- John Murphy
Ok, acting. There was an all-star cast in this film. Henry Fonda, Ed Begley and John Fiedler are just a few of the stars in the film. The performance that shined the most to me had to be either Lee Cobb or Ed Begley's character. Cobb played this very hard man with unshakable resolve and Begley played a very loud-mouthed prejudiced man. Both of these performances I thought were great. Cobb's character was diverse. He was a tough man who yelled a lot but at the same time, he was a loving father who had shunned his son. Because he hadn't spoken to his son in some time, he subconsciously was taking his anger out on the jurors and the boy who was on trial. Begley's character was interesting simply because he was openly prejudiced against the boy. I thought the scene where he was trying to make his case and no one was listening was a very powerful scene and had a lot of truth to it. Every character in the film had their own personalities and it was interesting to see them co-exist for a short time in the jury room.
The story was quite simplistic. A jury of 12 is tasked with determining if a boy killed his father. The way the story was told was the amazing part. The entire trial is told in the third person by the jurors as they try to determine if the boy is guilty or not. As the movie played out, I started to imagine the crime scene and the boy on the witness stand. Since we the audience were not shown the trial, it is up to us to imagine what it was like through these men talking about it. I think it is really amazing that this movie was able to pull this off so flawlessly. I loved the little side-stories that we were told about some of the characters. For instance, the information we learn about Lee Cobb's character was particularly interesting and very important to the plot.
The camera work was sufficient. There were a few scenes where the camera kept zooming in on the old man and I found this very odd. I didn't understand why they felt the need to zoom in on his face but not others. To add to this, the man kept making creepy faces. This is a small complaint but I could not help but laugh during these scenes and I'm pretty sure they were not meant to be funny.
This is probably the best black and white movie I've ever seen. It's not my favorite but it definitely is the best. The achievement of telling a compelling story within only one setting is enough for me to recommend it to anyone. Add good acting, well developed characters and excellent dialogue and it becomes a must watch.
I'll give it a 9 out of 10.
- John Murphy
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
12 Angry Men
Origin: U.S(Orion-Nova) 1957Length: 96 minutes
Format: Black & White
Director: Sidney Lumet
Producer: Henry Fonda, Reginald Rose
Screenplay: Reginald Rose
Photography: Boris Kaufman
Music: Kenyon Hopkins
Cast: Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Jack Klugman, Ed Binns, Joseph Sweeney, George Voskovec, Robert Webber
Oscar Nominations: Henry Fonda, Reginald Rose(best picture), Sidney Lumet(director), Reginald Rose(screenplay)
Berlin International Film Festival: Sidney Lumet(Golden Bear, OCIC Award)
Links: 12 Angry Men Wiki
Sidney Lumet's courtroom drama enjoys enduring popularity because it is a hothouse for smart performances, sudden twists, and impassioned monologues. Uniquely, the brilliantly economical and riveting drama of 12 Angry Men does not actually take place in the courtroom- except for a brief prologue as the jury is sent out with the judge's instructions - but during a single, sweltering afternoon in the jury room.
Lumet's much loved, engrossing debut film makes no apologies for its theatricality but makes a virtue of its claustrophobic, sweaty intensity. And each actor makes his mark in this showcase of superb characterizations and ensemble dynamics, from Martin Balsam's insecure foreman to a leonine Lee J. Cobb's belligerent, embittered Juror #3. Class and ethnic prejudices, private assumptions, and personalities all come out in a colossal struggle for unclouded judgment. The film won the Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival but its greatest accolade is that after seeing this picture no one ever enters into jury duty without fantasizing about becoming a dogged champion of justice a la Fonda, whatever the case at hand.
Review coming soon...
Monday, April 5, 2010
Amadeus (Matt)
I watched the following trailer before I saw this movie.
http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi498467097/
After seeing it I ended up having no idea what to expect from it. I thought it was a biopic about Mozart until I watched the trailer, and afterward I was lost. I tell you this so you can know that I went into this movie with a blank slate, at least for the most part. Several of my friends like this movie quite a bit, so there was a little bit of bias in that aspect, but that seems to be the case with any movie that we watch here that anyone I know has seen beforehand.
Lets start off with the acting, because it was great. Tom Hulce, who played Amadeus, won the Oscar for best actor for this film, and it was very well deserved. I do feel, however, that F. Murray Abraham, who was also nominated for best actor, deserved it more. His acting was amazing. We get to watch the court composer, Salieri, succumb to his own jealousy. The transformation is fascinating to watch. I have zero experience as an actor, and my knowledge of the art is limited to the movies and plays and such that I have watched. That said, it seems that playing an eccentric character would be easier than playing a normal one. The audience is more forgiving with inconsistencies with eccentric characters. They don't have to be believable. A normal character seems to me much hard to play convincingly. This is one of the main reason that I feel Abraham got stiffed.
I want to mention the costuming. Wow. The costumes are amazing throughout the film but I want to mention in particular the masquerade ball around the middle of the film. What an amazing scene that was. Elaborate costumes and masks are swirling around and dancing, lots of laughter and music filling the ears, and the glum black costume of Amadeus' father looming amongst it all. It's quite a scene, and it was easily my favorite part of the film. This movie won an Ocsar for costuming as well, and once again, it's easy to see why.
I should also mention the music. Most of the music in the film was taken directly from Mozart's actual work, so it wasn't anything new. What made it mentionable though, is the way they used it. In scenes where music is being played it completely dominates the scene. All other sounds are blocked out, and all you here is the loud, booming productions that the composers create. It's quite an experience. The music was also used in another way however, that I also thought was amazing. This was portrayed when the composers were reading sheet music. As Salieri reads through the scores created by Mozart, we hear what he reads. He knew music well enough that he can hear the entire piece simply by reading the notes, and the way the movie showed me this was awesome.
Really there isn't much I can say that's bad about the movie. Take a look at the list of Oscars that the movie won:
Best Actor In A Leading Role
Best Art-Direction-Set Direction
Best Costume Role
Best Director
Best Makeup
Best Picture
Best Sound
Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium
Now we aren't done yet, these are the nominations that the movie recieved but didn't win:
Best Actor In A Leading Role
Best Cinematography
Best Film Editing
Seriously! This movie was nominated eleven times, and it won 8 of those nominations. This would have been nine but two of the nominations were in the same category.
My only complaint is that the movie got a bit slow at times. I did find myself a bit bored at moments, wishing for something to happen to move the story forward. I'll give this one 8 annoying laughs out of 10.
http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi498467097/
After seeing it I ended up having no idea what to expect from it. I thought it was a biopic about Mozart until I watched the trailer, and afterward I was lost. I tell you this so you can know that I went into this movie with a blank slate, at least for the most part. Several of my friends like this movie quite a bit, so there was a little bit of bias in that aspect, but that seems to be the case with any movie that we watch here that anyone I know has seen beforehand.
Lets start off with the acting, because it was great. Tom Hulce, who played Amadeus, won the Oscar for best actor for this film, and it was very well deserved. I do feel, however, that F. Murray Abraham, who was also nominated for best actor, deserved it more. His acting was amazing. We get to watch the court composer, Salieri, succumb to his own jealousy. The transformation is fascinating to watch. I have zero experience as an actor, and my knowledge of the art is limited to the movies and plays and such that I have watched. That said, it seems that playing an eccentric character would be easier than playing a normal one. The audience is more forgiving with inconsistencies with eccentric characters. They don't have to be believable. A normal character seems to me much hard to play convincingly. This is one of the main reason that I feel Abraham got stiffed.
I want to mention the costuming. Wow. The costumes are amazing throughout the film but I want to mention in particular the masquerade ball around the middle of the film. What an amazing scene that was. Elaborate costumes and masks are swirling around and dancing, lots of laughter and music filling the ears, and the glum black costume of Amadeus' father looming amongst it all. It's quite a scene, and it was easily my favorite part of the film. This movie won an Ocsar for costuming as well, and once again, it's easy to see why.
I should also mention the music. Most of the music in the film was taken directly from Mozart's actual work, so it wasn't anything new. What made it mentionable though, is the way they used it. In scenes where music is being played it completely dominates the scene. All other sounds are blocked out, and all you here is the loud, booming productions that the composers create. It's quite an experience. The music was also used in another way however, that I also thought was amazing. This was portrayed when the composers were reading sheet music. As Salieri reads through the scores created by Mozart, we hear what he reads. He knew music well enough that he can hear the entire piece simply by reading the notes, and the way the movie showed me this was awesome.
Really there isn't much I can say that's bad about the movie. Take a look at the list of Oscars that the movie won:
Best Actor In A Leading Role
Best Art-Direction-Set Direction
Best Costume Role
Best Director
Best Makeup
Best Picture
Best Sound
Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium
Now we aren't done yet, these are the nominations that the movie recieved but didn't win:
Best Actor In A Leading Role
Best Cinematography
Best Film Editing
Seriously! This movie was nominated eleven times, and it won 8 of those nominations. This would have been nine but two of the nominations were in the same category.
My only complaint is that the movie got a bit slow at times. I did find myself a bit bored at moments, wishing for something to happen to move the story forward. I'll give this one 8 annoying laughs out of 10.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Amadeus(John)
I first saw this movie when I was in about seventh grade. Mrs. Bull, our band teacher, brought the movie in for band class. I don't remember her reason for having us watch the movie. I guess she thought it would make us appreciate music more. And, I would have to say, it fulfills that role as well as appreciation for many more aspects of the film.
So, the acting in the film is phenomenal. There is an all-star cast in this film and each one of them plays their part to the tee. F. Murray Abraham leads the film with his emotional narrations and his ability to play a man his own age as well as a senile older man. However, while F. Murray Abraham did an excellent job, the most outstanding performance for me would have to go to Tom Hulce, who played Mozart. His interesting portrayal of Mozart really sucked me into the film. Hulce basically had to play two different people. While Mozart was working on his music, he was focused and very devoted and serious. However, when he wasn't working, he was a womanizing alcoholic with childlike tendencies and a grating laugh. It was very interesting to see the shifts in his personality and it was executed perfectly.
The story was great. We are treated to an excellent story about Mozart's life, however inaccurate the story may be. We start all the way back to when Mozart was 5 and playing for Kings and we end as he dies. The interesting part is that the movie is narrated by Salieri, his rival. We see almost as much about his life as we do Mozart's. It was interesting how Salieri kept referring to Mozart as God's instrument and how Salieri has forsaken God because he chose Mozart over him. This theme was used throughout the movie. The last few scenes of the movie are the scenes I remember the most from when I watched it back in seventh grade. I don't know why they stuck with me over others, but they were definitely powerful scenes.
The music was amazing in the film. Almost all of the music were actual pieces that Mozart composed. I loved how the film started with some of his more light-hearted pieces and by the end the bombastic, dark and disturbing music was filling my ears. It was very fitting and set the tone for the scenes in the movie.
The set design was also very good. The costumes looked excellent. I could not believe how much detail was put into the scenes that involved the plays. It was as if there were whole operas and plays inside this one movie.
I tried to think of things that I did not like about the movie. But, really, I can't think of any. One thing that I would've liked to have seen would be a more accurate telling of Mozart's life. Although, I think we would've experienced a much more different(and possibly boring) film. This movie kept me at the edge of my seat the whole time. And there isn't even any action! The action scenes are the moments when Mozart is directing an opera, and this works so well.
I'm giving this movie a 9 out of 10.
- John Murphy
So, the acting in the film is phenomenal. There is an all-star cast in this film and each one of them plays their part to the tee. F. Murray Abraham leads the film with his emotional narrations and his ability to play a man his own age as well as a senile older man. However, while F. Murray Abraham did an excellent job, the most outstanding performance for me would have to go to Tom Hulce, who played Mozart. His interesting portrayal of Mozart really sucked me into the film. Hulce basically had to play two different people. While Mozart was working on his music, he was focused and very devoted and serious. However, when he wasn't working, he was a womanizing alcoholic with childlike tendencies and a grating laugh. It was very interesting to see the shifts in his personality and it was executed perfectly.
The story was great. We are treated to an excellent story about Mozart's life, however inaccurate the story may be. We start all the way back to when Mozart was 5 and playing for Kings and we end as he dies. The interesting part is that the movie is narrated by Salieri, his rival. We see almost as much about his life as we do Mozart's. It was interesting how Salieri kept referring to Mozart as God's instrument and how Salieri has forsaken God because he chose Mozart over him. This theme was used throughout the movie. The last few scenes of the movie are the scenes I remember the most from when I watched it back in seventh grade. I don't know why they stuck with me over others, but they were definitely powerful scenes.
The music was amazing in the film. Almost all of the music were actual pieces that Mozart composed. I loved how the film started with some of his more light-hearted pieces and by the end the bombastic, dark and disturbing music was filling my ears. It was very fitting and set the tone for the scenes in the movie.
The set design was also very good. The costumes looked excellent. I could not believe how much detail was put into the scenes that involved the plays. It was as if there were whole operas and plays inside this one movie.
I tried to think of things that I did not like about the movie. But, really, I can't think of any. One thing that I would've liked to have seen would be a more accurate telling of Mozart's life. Although, I think we would've experienced a much more different(and possibly boring) film. This movie kept me at the edge of my seat the whole time. And there isn't even any action! The action scenes are the moments when Mozart is directing an opera, and this works so well.
I'm giving this movie a 9 out of 10.
- John Murphy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
