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.

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.

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 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.

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)

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

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...

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.

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.