This was a very interesting movie to watch. The first time I watched it, I wasn't sure it was going to do it for me. I have liked every other Coen Brother's movie I've seen but this one seemed different. Long story short, I was pleasantly surprised.
The performances in this film are phenomenal. Almost every actor in this film makes you think that the stuff that happens is really happening. Tommy Lee Jones is extraordinary. He truly made me believe that he was an aging Texas lawman. And I can now not see Javier Bardem as anyone other than Anton Sugar, a psychopathic killer. Even Woody Harrelson's small role was excellent.
This movie could have been made in the 80s. From the hairstyles to the clothing, from the buildings to the newspapers, this movie is steeped in 80s culture. Making a film with the myriad of details this one had in it can only be a good thing. I didn't notice the music much. I'm not sure if there was much, if any. I think not having music during dramatic scenes increases the realism of the film. Music tends to take me out of a movie, especially if it is bad or not warranted.
There isn't much to the story really. A man finds some money and gets hunted down by people. But, the way the story is told kept me engrossed in the film the entire two hours and thirty minutes. There is so much tension between the characters throughout the whole film that, even though there isn't that much action, I felt like I had just watched a movie with a whole lot of action. I seriously felt exhausted after watching it. The story does come with a message, albeit a very subtle one. I interpreted the message to be this: Times are changing, but not as much as we would like to think. People are not good or evil. There is always a gray area. And even the toughest hombre can be taken out in a split second.
This is one of the best Coen Brother's films I've seen. I would have to say it's probably 3rd behind Fargo and Raising Arizona. This movie makes me want to read the book and see how much was taken from it. If you like Coen Brother's movies, go see this one. If you like tension throughout the movie and then a very very weird ending, go see this one.
I'll give it an 8.8 out of 10.
- John Murphy
Monday, January 4, 2010
Saturday, December 12, 2009
No Country For Old Men
Origin: U.S. (Paramount Vantage, Mirimax Films, Scott Rudin Productions, Mike Zoss Productions) 2007Length: 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
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
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) 1969Length: 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.
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
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) 2001Length: 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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
