Keyser Corleone's Movie Memoirs
 

The Godfather (1972) - Directed by Francis Ford Coppola

"You come into my house on the day my daughter is to be married and you ask me to do murder."

https://www.ulyn.net/gal/859578_1.jpeg

For my first review on this site, I'll take on what I believe is the greatest movie ever made: The Godfather. Yes, I'm aware it's a very cliche choice. It's pretty much the same thing as saying The Empire Strikes Back, Blade Runner, Pulp Fiction, 2001 or The Shawshank Redemption is the top-slot choice. And while I haven't seen every movie on earth, The Godfather is unique.

For a long time, I was very nit-picky about perfection. I would get annoyed at tiny things like, "Mufasa's eyes were white for a frame" or "You can see the camera rail in Citizen Kane." Although I don't feel that way anymore and believe those tiny mistakes can be made up for, I didn't notice any tiny mistakes in this one. Not only that, it has a level of character and realism that I have a hard time finding in most movies. This isn't a movie about a guy doing the impossible, it's about a bunch of people working together to do the improbable.

The film centers around two notable characters: Vito Corleone, Don of one of New Yorks Five Families of gangsters, and his youngest son, Michael, a returned soldier. As they both get involved in plots against them for Vito's refusal to share in the narcotics business, events that put the whole family in danger change lives for the family forever, and change Michael from a family man who wants nothing to do with the family "business" to a man bent on revenge for the tiniest things.

Watching Don Corleone show his keen sense of honor despite his position is pretty eye-gripping alone, mostly for Marlon Brando's performance. But the real socket-stealer is Michael's transformation throughout the movie. And his relationships with most of his family are changing as well (if you look). But my favorite thing about the movie is not the cinematography, not the horsehead that became a meme, and not even Al Pacino's performance. It's the twists the movie takes throughout all three hours, and are perfectly paced at Francis Ford Coppola's direction. For example, the movie begins with Michael's sister's wedding, and ends in her... um, anolement. That's an unexpected way to plan a beginning and ending for a couple of characters who are only in the movie as much as is necessary.

It's strange. A part of me wishes I'll never find a movie as good as The Godfather due to it having a special place in my heart. But I know I'd be a fool to act that way, so I'll keep this special place in my heart for as long as I can until some lucky movie off the streets beats it. I'm still a bit inexperienced in terms of quantity of films. But I can recognize a masterpiece when I see one, and I'm glad Francis Ford Coppola was the one to make a movie out of Mario Puzo's novel. Incredible cinematography, excellent pacing, and perfect casting choices are only a small part of what makes this movie so good.

In the end, The Godfather is a reminder of the stresses that those responsible for crime go through, and takes a straight shot into their hearts and souls to find that there's something their fighting for, even if it's through the wrong deeds. And it's something that people can take examples from, for better or for worse. I choose not to live like Michael Corleone, and remember what hell he went through to get to the hell he willingly put himself into near the end of the movie, and the sequels.

Re: The Godfather
 

You should probably make your own thread dedicated to just your reviews.

"KeyserCorleone's Movie Reviews" or whatever title you want to give it. Create it in this subforum.

Re: The Godfather
 

I thought about that after posting, thinking, "Ah, crap Shoulda done that. I wanted to change the title to, "The Godfather, and other cinematic tales." But I don't think I can change the title. But I'll still post other reviews here. I'm working on one for Batman: Under the Red Hood.

Re: The Godfather
 

Platoon (1986) - Directed by Oliver Stone

"It was once said hell is the impossibility of reason. That's what this place feels like. Hell."

https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1vL3pN...pg_640x640.jpg

The first war movie I can remember seeing is Pearl Harbor when I was around 11. And while I "harbor" no special feelings for it (I am not apologizing), I can say it helped me enjoy the idea of a war movie. There are things I love about war movies, and things I hate about them. And I think this review will easily cover them with the best war movie to user for the topic: Platoon.

Platoon takes both the things I love and things I hate about war movies, and uses them at extremes. Directed by war veteran Oliver Stone, Platoon reminds the world of the attitudes of the soldiers we support, and how we as Americans can succumb to pride as much as the next country that wants to blow someone's ass off. It's a reminder that soldiers, even when in the face of the enemy, should act like a hero. That's something I hate about war movies: the attitudes people have towards each other. It's part of the reason I couldn't watch The Human Condition.

But what I love about war movies is the sense of completion, destiny, and heroism that drives people to become something, like a soldier for example. Young people are always looking for a way to make their mark in the world, and warzones test the emotional limits of each and every soldier out there. Platoon capitalized on that in certain plot points, as soldiers were pitted against the enemy (and occasionally each other) in the stressful and bloody battles of the Vietnam War. That's what I love about movies.

But these weren't the only things that made this film so special. it is a movie, after all. Platoon was occasionally even paced, and occasionally faster-paced, depending on the situations. And the action itself was incredible. I can remember being quite shaken after some of the war scenes. It takes a special kind of movie to get me shaken. The last time was with Seven, but I'll cover that elsewhere. Not to mention, Platoon's realism came mostly from the characters. Their attitudes about the many situations and surroundings felt so realistic, and even stressful to the point where I either shared the characters' pains or wished some of them to get their asses blown.

Platoon isn't a movie I can watch without getting pissed off. But I love the movie nonetheless. This is what I meant by it being a movie that took all of the things I loved and hated about war movies, and took them to extremes. And as a side note, I'll point out it's my favorite Willem DaFoe movie.

Re: The Godfather
 

Can I ask the mods to change the title to the one ion the aformentioned post?

Re: The Godfather, and Other Cinematic Tales
 

You got it.

Re: The Godfather, and Other Cinematic Tales
 

Thanks. Join me tomorrow when I review Cats and Dogs.

Re: The Godfather, and Other Cinematic Tales
 

My first approved review! Platoon. I hope my Godfather review gets approved soon (by the way, the opening paragraph is a part of the review).

Cats & Dogs (2001) - Directed by Lawrence Guterman

"It appears that once again we find ourselves threatened by the great Cat Menace."

https://www.movieposter.com/posters/.../150/MPW-75167

I used to watch this with my grandmother as a child, and I remember liking it a little. But years apart from views carry drastic opinions sometimes. I'm part of the "not very good" crowd when it comes to this movie.

Cats & Dogs, a movie with a similar dog-agency-versus-cat-criminals plotline to The Secret Files of the Spy Dogs, does not add anything new to children's movies. Sure, it has it's strong points. I suppose there's a cute charm to take from an early-2000's live-action/CGi hybrid film that focuses on the man and dog relationship much of humanity can relate to. But Cats & Dogs also mixes its so-called CGi "spectacle" with a Mattel-level cat vs. dog origin story and campy animal humor that wasn't funny in the action scenes, or Nick Jr. for that matter.

The casting also seems a bit underwhelming. From a movie with Tobey MaGuire, Jeff Goldblum, Elizabeth Perkins, Sean Hayes and Alec Baldwin, you'd expect more than an "I'm here because I'm payed" acting job. I guess Tobey MaGuire got the dog attitude down, but none of the actors put their heart into it. In fact, Goldblum only put his nose into it.

I won't bother criticizing the special effects. It was early-2000's CGi in an era where X-Men was still kicking off as a movie series. It was the hip thing at the time, and it wasn't bad for the 2000's.

Cats & Dogs might make for a decent movie to spend time with your kids and watch them go crazy over animals acting human in a live-action movie. But honestly, next time just buy Spy Kids.

The Emoji Movie (2017) - Directed by Tony Leondis.

"Maybe I'm meant to have more than just one emotion!"

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....iL._SY550_.jpg

Unlike most people, I was impressed with 2017. We had Blade Runner 2049, a rare movie almost as good as its predeccesor and well worth the 35 year wait for a sequel, Baby Driver which was an unexpected thrill ride jam-packed with jams, and It which scared the snot out of me. And then 2017 becomes the year an animated movie not only gets nominated for the Razzie for Worst Picture, but wins. That movie is The Emoji Movie, a movie I watched on a night I felt like putting myself through an atrocity.

The Emoji Movie was an attempt at anthropomorphizing the modern world (again). Following the same vein (and Spotify stream) as Wreck-It Ralph, The Emoji Movie centers around a world inside a phone for all emojis, and focuses on the efforts of a "meh" emoji who can't keep his emotions under control, and the chaos surrounding him because of it.

Now I admit I was a little impressed with the world that they built around it. It was pretty cool to see Spotify as its own world and the personifications of spammers and trolls, especially when skillful animation and decent kids-movie direction back it up. In a way, that's something relatable about the movie. But the "Let's make a world out of phone apps" bit was already attempted by Digimon. And frankly, I'd rather see marking an enemy Digimon as "read" to defeat it rather than Shakespearean veteran Patrich Stewart be brought down below the devil's feet to play a poop emoticon, and do nearly nothing with the role.

This brings me to my next point. There was little to do originality in the dialogue. Almost none of the remarks were funny at all and felt more like simple sarcastic cracks you've heard many times over that pass themselves off as "original" because they've never been used in reference to emoticons and phone apps. Any and all character development was not made interesting in any possible way (possibly due to the movie being highly predictable), and the lead human character had almost no development.

As a finisher, The Emoji Movie occasionally brought a smile to my face thanks to decent casting, a decent setting, and good CGi animation to boast. But jokes beyond "meh" and a story worth poop waste the decent cast and good setting on a thumbs-down worthy movie that not even the devil emoticon would go :heart: over.

Tomb Raider

The original film based on the classic Tomb Raider video game franchise was really just two excuses to show off Angelina Jolie in short shorts, similarly to Catwoman being an excuse to show herself off in a scanty cat suit. But in a day and age when video game movies no longer have a good excuse to be bad, Alicia Vikander's Tomb Raider is a step-up from much of what we had in the past.

The first ever video game movie was Super Mario Bros, a cult classic so bad that Mario actor Bob Hoskins himself disowned the movie. Then we had other known atrocities like Double Dragon, Street Fighter, and Mortal Kombat, directed by Paul W.S Anderson who is famous for the Resident Evil films and Alien Vs Predator. I remember when Warcraft was coming out. The director was Duncan Jones, son of David Bowie famous for two well recieved films: Source Code and Moon. I expected Warcraft to break the streak of bad video game movies. It didn't. Then Tomb Raider, a movie with a director behind two successful movies: a slash movie and a disaster movie (two genres which are incredibly easy to screw up), came out and my hopes were restored. While the movie is still fluxuating between 49%-50% on Rotten Tomatoes, that's a step up.

Tomb Raider is notably based on a much more action-oriented reboot of the video game franchise that was released in 2013. The game focused a lot on realistic action, something the movie itself forcused on. Thus, Tomb Raider carried the same spirit and action the video game was known for. Getting that from a video game movie is rare, and a pleasant sight for gamers like me.

Still, it was a fairly predictable movie made of rewritten bits and pieces from other action-adventure flicks. This is not to say it didn't have its moments. Much of the story was still quite cool, mysterious, a little twisty, and even thought-provocative at times. And to add to that, Alicia Vikander gave it her all as Lara Croft, and owned Jolie. I loved watching Vikander as Lara.


I recommend Tomb Raider for anyone who wants some good action. This movie is far better than the original. This film is about recreating the spirit of the video game. And while it has its obvious flaw, Tomb Raider is a grand success because of its spirit.

Black Panther

I've never been that disappointed by a Marvel Cinematic Universe movie. In my opinion, the worst one is Thor: The Dark World. Even then, that one was a 7.5. They've all been worth something to me, and all added something to the series.

I've seen every one of the movies so far (of course most movie junkies probably have), so whether or not I had heard of Black Panther wasn't a factor into whether or not I'd see the movie. And I always thought the MCU was good. But I didn't expect Black Panther to be one of the best entries in the franchise.

Black Panther centers around a prince of an African tribe living beyond first-world and making themselves out to be third-world. The prince must deal with issues of family and betrayal, notably about the story of his uncle and how he must defend his country, throne, and his way of ruling. So it's basically The Lion King for comic book fans.

Storywise, it was a lot of fun to see. The secret civilization of Wakanda was not only a visual treat, but the explorations of the modern culture of Wakanda added a lot of heart to the story, as well as those aspects taken directly from Ancient Wakanda tradition, or taking influence from that culture. There were a couple of good plot twists that were played out very well, only itched by a tiny bit of predictability.

The cast members got into their characters very well. Chadwick Boseman played a great young-king-slash-hero that kept me engrossed in his character. Andy Serkis' role as Klaue was hilarious. I guess that's to be expected from Gollum. Jordan brought a real villain's soul to Killmonger. Watching him was like listening to Jeremy Irons play Scar. Excellent job. But Letitia Wright's job playing Shuri was a surprise piece of excellency that the movie put the right amount of focus on.

And don't get me started on the action. The MCU hasn't has such thrilling and well-coreographed action since the first Avengers film. The car chase scene practically kept my eyes wide-eyed throughout the entire run. I hardly noticed I was in a two-handed popcorn eating routine, slowly putting a couple pieces in my mouth one hand at a time, immediately after. By the time the chase was done, I had finished the popcorn.

Black Panther is one of the finer entries in the MCU. It's almost as good as Thor: Rangarok, and better than Spider-Man: Homecoming. I really wouldn't mind another Black Panther movie, becuase I want to see more of Wakanda and Wright.

Re: The Godfather, and Other Cinematic Tales
 

Duck Amuck (1953)

If you know anything about Looney Tunes, you might have heard about Duck Amuck. Most people remember Duck Amuck, a serious contendor for "most essential Looney Tunes skit." Unlike most Looney Tunes that tackled the same vein as an average sitcom, Duck Amuck was something entirely different. Daffy Duck acts as the stooge for a mysterious hand painting and drawing different kinds of turmoil for the poor unfortunate black-feathered soul who just wants to make another short film.

From the first part of the segments, it may feel like just a running gag of reinventions of scenery to annoy Daffy. Then the real torture begins. Going beyond the points of slapstick, this surrealist "misadventure" on paper picks fun at the filming of a simple movie while maintaining an absolute high on the absurdity of a cartoon or a slapstick.

The thing that interests me (and entertains me) the most about Duck Amuck is its ability to shift from one "setting" to another without losing a grip on what the skit was going for. The plotline of the movie: annoying Daffy, works well for any setting you paint him in. But I suppose at the same time, one shouldn't pay attention to that if it's a surrealist movie.

I've seen a lot of old cartoons on Boomerang and just around, like Mickey, Flintstones, Popeye, Woody Woodpecker, Tom and Jerry, and especially Looney Tunes. Looney Tunes was always my favorite of the oldies. But I've never seen another Duck Amuck until the thematic sequel with Bugs Bunny. And that, while funny, wasn't Duck Amuck. This is proably the best short subject movie I've ever seen.

Re: The Godfather, and Other Cinematic Tales
 

Nice reviews:up: I've only seen Platoon of the movies you've reviewed so far, and I agree with your thoughts on it. Oh, I'm sure I seen Duck Amuck at sometime in the past. BTW, maybe consider adding photos to your reviews? You can always go back and edit them at any time. Good to have another movie reviewer here at MoFo:)

Re: The Godfather, and Other Cinematic Tales
 

Well, you did see The Godfather.

Re: The Godfather, and Other Cinematic Tales
 

Duck Amuck is a masterpiece.

I have a short memory;)...Nah, I just missed his review on that one. I'll go read it now.

Thanks, bro. I don't know if photos are the right touch. It really doesn't help me stand out. I was thinking of adding quotes at the beginning of the review. Maybe I'll add poster images.

Re: The Godfather, and Other Cinematic Tales
 

I'm blowing through these reviews pretty quickly. I don't know if this is some skill or its expected in a movie forum, but I used to have to spend time thinking about my reviews, and now I'm blowing 'em out Pez style, and people like them. In fact, I have a few written in a computer file so I don't flood my own forum.

Batman: Under the Red Hood (2010) Directed by Brandon Vietti

"I'm just something you helped make."

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....1CrQL75sGL.jpg

Batman is my favorite superhero. While I haven't seen all of the Batman movies since I've been trying to dive into other dimensions of the film industry, I still enjoy a damn good Batman movie. I've seen two of the animated Batman films, and Subzero was damn good.

Under the Red Hood was just good. I honestly expected more from a movie that had a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. But that was from a very low amount of reviews at the time I had checked it. There weren't even ten reviews there. That's something I should have taken into consideration before I saw the movie.

Batman: Under the Red Hood mostly centers around a much more personal scar (although not a bigger scar) of Batman's than the famous death of his parents that lead him to be the Batman in the first place: the creation of the Joker. As a ghost from the past haunts him, he must deal with the possible crimes of the Joker, the birth of a new Red Hood, and the death of his most recent Robin.

There are a lot of interesting plot points that will please any Batman fan as much as a t-shirt with two pop culture references pleases a comic-con nerd. And they are all resolved with gusto. But there are almost no surprises other than the fact Nightwing makes an appearance, and does not have much to do with the plot other than the fact he was the first Robin. The whole film was pretty predictable.

Still, the movie was very well directed, as expected from DC cartoons (especially Batman) And the action was eye-popping and thrilling. The casting choices were pretty much perfect as well. Overall, I'm glad I saw this movie, but it could have been less predictable.

Dr. Strangelove, or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb (1964) - Directed by Stanley Kubrick

"I wish we had one of them doomsday machines."

https://meansheets.files.wordpress.c...trangelove.jpg

I love Stanley Kubrick. Ever since I first watched 2001: A Space Odessey, I've been interested in his style and flair. I've already seen seven of his movies: 2001, Full Metal Jacket, Spartacus, Paths of Glory, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, and Dr. Strangelove which I watched last night right before going to sleep. And with each of his movies, I've had something I could take away with me. For Dr. Strangelove, what I took was it's unique look at anti-war, which will be the leading point of the review.

You see, where many anti-war movies show off the terrible attitudes soldiers of differing sides have towards each other, like in Platoon, or tackle the negative effects on economy, like Grave of the Fireflies, or even both like in The Human Condition, Dr. Strangelove discusses the asurdities of war in an occasionally absurd way: comedy. It takes someone with a deranged mind to come up with conspiracies and act on them with gruesome, malicious intent, which leads the film into it's plot.

Pink Panther star Peter Sellers plays a strong but well-mannered British soldier imprisoned by an insane American soldier who wants to annihilate Russia, an American persident with a strong mind but a nervous persona, and a seemingly-demented and paralyzed ex-Nazi strategist Dr. Strangelove, who seemingly doesn't get enough screen time until you realize Peter Sellers himself gets half the screen time, like Eddie Murphy in The Nutty Professor. Each character is played by Sellers exceptionally as they all fight against the nuclear assault in their own way.

Peter Sellers is not the only star of the show. Every major character gives it their all as the humorous sides of their personalities slowly grabs a stronger hold on the characters, thus showing off the asurdity of their strategies and warfare and how easily one screw up can lead to something drastic. As I myself am an anti-war man (I am fairly conservative, but unquestionably anti-war), I can definitely relate to any relate to any man who sees the absurdity in the characters, whether it be a war-driven mind, an overly peaceful mind, a racist mind, etc.

And if the characters don't bring enough heart and soul to the movie, the production value in my opinion should. It was incredible. Exceptionaly direction from Kubrick and realistic scenery and dialogue brought a realistic side to this otherwise absurd comedy driven by comedically flawed minds and overly strong or weak wills.

Dr. Strangelove is a mid-60's classic that stands out among other war movies for being the kind of movie that covers depressing topics in a way we can pay attention to almost professionally without shedding a tear due to the characters being largely unprofessional. A personal favorite of mine, this war-movie fanboy would rush to see it again for the way it handles the idea of a doomsday and the avoidance their-of. If the people behind it can't be professional, we can. Kubrick is a genius.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001) - Directed by Simon West

"Hey, you're the tomb raider."

http://missnombril.m.i.pic.centerblog.net/cf4be99a.jpg

I remember the first time I ever saw Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. At the time, I liked it enough to give it 4 stars. I played it again a few days ago, and learned from my mistakes. Lara Croft: Tomb Raider was one of the first serious attempts at making a good movie based on a video game, and for the most part it was a failure. While it was a fun movie that had its action-packed moments and decent storytelling, there was a lot about the movie that kept it from being what it should have been.

The film centers around video game icon, miss Indiana Jane herself, Lara Croft, attempting to solve the mystery around an ancient artifact clock her late, rich father hid in his own mansion. The film has Lara travelling around the entire world evading secret societies who want her clock for themselves and Lara dead.

While this is not an unfamiliar setting for an adventure movie, it's still a good cliche. Many great archaeologists in fiction go through this kind of thing. In the end, what truly matters is the execution. So was Lara's movie well executed? No.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider is really an action romp that's specifically geared to show of Angelina Jolie doing superhuman stunts in shorts while constantly maintaining a badass woman image. And while I have no complaints about a badass woman, that kind of image being the focus of a movie makes it a failure unless satirized in a Sucker Punch manner. In the end, the action is tainted by the image sometimes and the superhumanity of Lara takes away from her humanity and connections to other characters.

The action was fairly predictable at times. You could tell many times how things were going to pan out. And in contrast to the whole "the journey's more important than the destination" proverb, the journey to the end result of anything in this movie fails to build up an end result, rendering both a little pointless.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider may be an essential for Jolie fans, as well as the sequel. But it only stands as proof of the unfortunate belief that there's no such thing as a good video game movie. Whatever potential that was in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider wasn't used very much.

A Quiet Place (2018) - Directed by John Krasinski

"......."

http://es.web.img3.acsta.net/r_1280_...35/2940111.jpg

Horror is a genre that bugs me these days. A lot of it is not original at all, and many horror movies ride off the backs of movies that inspired them. And while this goes for all genres, horror is very bad at maintaining a balance. But as with every genre, one movie can stand out by being original, and drawing attention. In this case, a movie drew attention by staying quiet.

A Quiet Place doesn't ride off of the backs of other horror movies. In this absolute chiller of a thriller, the constant silence is a necessity both in the plot and for the movie's scares, leaving many of the scares in the first half of the film to be based on sounds themselves, and with proper effect and deliverance.

This film centers around a family lost in a post-apocalyptic world of once-thriving farms and forests, avoiding creatures who hunt by sound. Their survival depends on their silence, and they use sign language to communicate. Any loud sound at all is an absolute danger. And that alone is something most horror movies use in predictable ways, like footsteps on the above floor. Not A Quiet Place.

John Krasinski's direction of the film is outstanding. Taking advantage of the sounds and silence themselves through the cinematography and sound editing (especially) adds a very good level to the story which may or may not feel underdeveloped depending on what you're paying attention to.

The movie is about atmosphere and the necessity to focus on current situations. As a result, there is little room for an origin story for the creatures or for even knowing the character's names. But unlike movies that can easily be criticized for not addressing names very often, like Dragonheart, A Quiet Place puts the focus on survival, and thus the need for names is minimal at best.

There is an absolutly abrupt ending to the film that leaves a lot of room open for a sequel. While some movies do that terribly, like Alien Vs. Predator, The abrupt ending for A Quiet Place was above perfect, ending on a stunning shock which may be the biggest shock in an already shocking and thrilling movie.

A Quiet Place may not be the movie of the year, but it stands out as a key entry of tje modern horror scene that sets Jim Halpert himself, John Krasinski as a future grand director who may be able tp stand with modern greats like Wes Anderson, as well as put modern veteran horror directors like Adam Wingard to silence. Although it's one of the worst ideas ever to talk through the movie, it's on that will be talked about for a while.

Rocky (1976) - Directed by John G. Avildsen

"Rocky, you went the distance."

https://i.pinimg.com/474x/3e/e3/97/3...ire-rocky-.jpg

I caught Rocky yesterday about an hour after I got back from A Quiet Place. I didn't expect the best sports movie ever, but I did get something very heartfelt and gripping in an everyday-life manner. Rocky wasn't all punches and kicks. It's human, very human indeed.

Rocky is about a working-class boxer/mob enforcer who is going nowhere with his life, as told to him by his friend Paulie and boer veteran Mickey Goldmill, criticizing Rocky for constantly fighting "bums" and being a mob enforcer. But when Rocky gets the rare opportunity to fight world heavyweight champion Apollo Creed, Rocky takes the chance and trains like hell as his friends around him are changing with him.

I remember the scene in Barton Fink where Barton is criticized for writing a "fruity" wrestling movie. Now when John Mahoney's character said "fruity," I felt he meant "human." I don't know about you, but I think a human boxing story is something the world needs rather than ninety minutes of punching.

My point is simple. Rocky acts as a reminder than the world around us affects how we confront everything in life, especially human interaction. Our minds are influenced by other people, and Rocky makes an example of that out of most of the characters, such as the once-shy but now confrontational and strong-minded Adrian, Rocky's girlfriend; Adrian's brother Paulie, who was once sleaze but is now getting a grip on his drinking; Mickey who realizes he was wrong about Rocky being a bum, etc. In that level of humanity and character development, we can all take something from Rocky.

However, the film is by no means a measterpiece in my opinion. While it may be one of the most enjoyable sports movies out there, it WAS directed by Karate Kid director John G. Avildsen. He boasts little to no real film-making talent, and like the directors of Star Wars episodes V and VI, Rocky is a diamond in the rough of Avildsen's filmography that boasts nothing truly spectacular about the film-making. The film is mostly driven by character and the ending boxing match. That boxing match was very eye-gripping, I'll give it that.

Rocky is a lot of fun. And while it may have gotten too many sequels, Avildsen was probably happy he got such a famous franchise. I recommend Rocky for anyone who's into cinema or boxing, because it is undoubtably a sports classic, even if it needs a little bit more touching on.

Mystic River (2003) - Directed by Clint Eastwood

"We bury our sins here."

https://i.pinimg.com/474x/89/fb/59/8...vin-oleary.jpg

Mystic River, one of Clint Eastwood's most gripping movies, is a fine and grim tale of how friendships turn around for the worst through the depths of time, and become ugly enough to kill. Although it's not the most well-directed film of Clint Eastwood's filmography, the film does a superp job of bringing the pains of the world together in two hours of a clever mix of a simple family drama and a murder mystery guessing game.

The film is about three adults, one of which is now a cop, who were best friends during their childhood. But their eyes see the world in its true, terrible form once one of them is kidnapped. And this opeining scene is not the worst that will come. When the daughter of the remaining man (Sean Penn) has been murdered, he suspects anyone around him, and his two friends end up involved.

The film is a little slow-paced for my liking, but the emotion of the film kept me enthralled constantly. The cast easily got into character, almost as if a part of the characters was a part of the cast and no one knew it. Everyone poured their heart into it. But what really interested me about the movie is the dialogue. It was like watching a real murder mystery play out instead of just another episode of CSI.

But the real plot points are within the dialogue of the characters. Having to tell thing, hide things, or make up things is a key factor in the plot twists that wait around the bend of the Mystic. The humanity of it all was the leading way in which the pain of the characters is shared with the audience. I know I felt like I would go crazy if my kid was murdered. I felt that throughout the whole movie. It was a movie about pain, and that's something anyone can relate to.

Mystic River is a modern classic, and an essential for those who want to play "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon." Each of the three main casting choices, Bacon, Sean Penn, and Tim Robbins, put their all into the roles, and watching them dodge bullets as they try to solve the mystery is a real treat, even if it's an unpleasant series of events.

Annihilation (2018) – Directed by Alex Garland

“It's like they're stuck in a continuous mutation.”

https://i.doanhnhansaigon.vn/2018/01...1516267143.jpg

When 2018 started, I got wind of a new Natalie Portman sci-fi movie called Annihilation. When I first heard of this movie, I was careful about reception. I was impressed with the reviews when the reviews finally came out, but worried it would turn into an Alien copy like 2017's Life. Instead what I got was a beautifully rendered, smartly written, genuine sci-fi modern classic that boasts one of Natalie Portman's finest performances. This may be one of my favorite sci-fi movies.

Annihilation is the mindful mystery about a female scientist who ventures into some strange alternate reality called “the Shimmer,” where her soldier husband ventured a year beforehand with his team and was the only one who survived the trip. As she ventures into this estranged world where everything feels, and may very well be, rewritten, their own physical limits and samity are put to the test. And it doesn't help there are monsters around.

This film is a lot like Russian art-house director Andrey Tarkovsky's three-hour slow cinema epic, Stalker. In that film, three men venture into another world full of alternate realms that are always changing. And the evaluation of the mind is a key factor to how events play out in Annihilation as well. Stalker was the movie that got me interested in psychological films. And psychological evaluation that applies to an entire world's full structure is the real premise of Annihilation.

Although the movie gets pretty interesting from the get-go, the movie has several flashbacks which don't seem to play all that much of a role into the current story of venturing into the Shimmer and finding out what that craziness inside is all about. These flashbacks usually revolve around the events surrounding Natlie Portman (or Lena) and her husband kane before Kane's departure into the Shimmer, and they don't add very much to the story that connects or displays any great amount of mental evaluation. So there's the main complaint about the movie, besides it taking a slow half-hour after a great introductory half-hour.

And despite the psyche of the film, there's very little character development in the film. That's a leading criticism I have for 2001: A Space Odyssey, a similar but far more well-developed sci-fi story. I don't even remember all of the names of the characters. They all felt one-sided. And the dialogue needs some touching up on when diving into more personal levels, as if the dialogue was just there to tell the story.

My final criticism is the quality of the music. Much of the time, this mostly ambient soundtrack didn't add much to the creepy aura of the film, or it felt unoriginal. And sometimes, it took an electronic sound which only made me think, “What do they think this is? A Daft Punk mixtape?”

However, the psychological evaluation of an entire landscape, and how it affects minds, is something very interesting and gripping in a sci-fi movie. Stalker made mentions of how its own special place woks, but spent more time on evaluating characters themselves while travelling through the landscapes. Annihilation tackles both at once, and carries amazing scientific explanations for impossible things happening in the Shimmer. Another great thing about the psyche of the movie is how these evaluations tie into the plot twists, making the thought-process of the people and the world put together more gripping, as if the whole idea is to try and see into the character's minds.

Along with the story comes amazing visual landscapes and effects where stunning. The slow cinematography may hinder things a little bit occasionally, but is also an essential part of the movie when necessary. Slowly moving across beautifully developed landscapes with incredibly realistic but original looking flora and fauna, the movie very much like Stalker in that manner as well. One should watch the movie just to see the visuals if they don't like psychological mumbo-jumbo, because the plant-life, the sky, and the animals are all breathtaking. However, this may also be seen as a fault, because it's apparent after the first half of the movie that visuals were taken into account much more than character, especially considering that the film traded decent explanation of the fates of a couple characters for visual spectacle, leading to an anti-climactic “battle” at the end.


Finally, let me add that the acting is great. Natalie Portman gives one of her most emotional performances I've ever seen. Sometimes I forget what a talented actress she can be. So Annihilation helps prove than Natalie Portman isn't all Star Wars, and is really much more essential to sci-fi in general, especially when you include Mars Attacks and Thor. I also greatly enjoyed the acting of Gina Rodriguez as the strong-willed Anya who eventually starts to go insane.

I can easily see Annihilation being considered a modern sci-fi classic. It's got visuals like nothing I've ever seen. However, if it had more character development for a focus, it would have been a better movie than Stalker, which I'm convinced is a thematic source of influence. It's still something that should be definitely seen. Again, amazing visuals, wonderful story that takes the entire world itself into account, and great acting. Lame music, not enough character development, a little ant-climactic. Take these pros and cons into account as you will, but I'd say this will be seen as one of the best sci-fi movies of 2018, and I honest6ly believe it's one of Natalie Portman's finest movies.

Re: The Godfather, and Other Cinematic Tales
 

Duck Amuck might be the greatest work of animation ever.

Disaster Movie (2008) - Directed by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer

"Drugs. Lots and lots and lots of mind-altering, enchanting, DRUGS!"

http://fr.web.img6.acsta.net/medias/...6/18958287.jpg

Now I'm a comedy guy. It's not my favorite genre, but I love it. I'm a firm believer that the crap statement, "Comedy is the worst form of entertainment" is exactly, entirely that: crap. In fact, there are a lot of comedy movies that critics hate that I'm fond of.

However, it might be true in a different definition: There is no low comedy won't stoop to for a good laugh. I turned on Disaster Movie last night because I expected to like something about this movie. Instead, it only acted like further proof (unfortunately) that both definitions have truth.

Disaster Movie is one of those parody movies by infamous directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, notable for writing the Scary Movie series and doing other parody films in that same vein, like Epic Movie, Vampires Suck, Superhero Movie, Date Movie, and Meet the Spartans. As you can see, they aren't the most educated in terms of what's funny and what's not. And Disaster Movie is definitely a NOT. In the end, the lows that comedy stoop to still need to be FUNNY. Disaster Movie is largely unfunny.

This properly named pseudo-doomsday teen movie centers around a terribly done Juno-style relationship between a man and a woman, who end up caught in two different places during an inexplicable apocalypse. Along with this parody of disaster movies and teen relationship movies are comedic cameos by people dressed as many pop culture stars from 2006-2008 fiction and non-fiction. These movies and TV shows include 10,000 B.C., High School Musical, Marvel, Enchanted, and Indiana Jones.

Throughout the entire movie, there were only two thing that made me laugh: the Flavor Flav scene and a specific line I won't ruin for you on the off-chance you plan on seeing it. But the bulk of the movies and cameos are not only unfunny, but they add literally nothing to the movie. is that the real mofus of the movie? Just to throw in pop culture references all the time without any coherency? Terrible!

Also, there's one thing that ruins anything good about the movie, one simple and terrible thing made up of six words that should never go together: rabid Alvin and the Chipmunks puppets. This was the worst scene in any movie I have ever seen, and I'm an MST3K fan. It was absolutely appaling and disgusting, partially because of the terrible delivery and partially because of the puppets' appearances in general. I honestly want to watch the Alvin and the Chipmunks movie just to wash that image out with the other "live-action" chipmunks.

I will admit... I laughed throughout the movie. Why? Becuase I couldn't believe they thought some of these ideas were good ones. I was laughing at the writers' taste. How could they have thought this movie was funny?

Disaster Movie isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but it's certainly up there. The line I mentioned was just enough to save it from getting the top slot (or bottom slot), but I still wouldn't recommend it. It's at the bottom of many "worst movies of 2008" or "all-time" lists, and it likely deserves it.

The Beast of Yucca Flats (1961) - Directed by Coleman Francis

"A prehistoric beast in a nuclear age"

http://www.thestarlite.ca/movies/bea...atsposter1.jpg

Mystery Science Theater 3000 is one of my favorite shows. But I usually only watch it when I want to go through a bad movie. And while Crow and Servo's jokes help me get through them, they do not serve as distractions at all. In fact, they helped me get through the worst travesty of a film I currently know: The Beast of Yucca Flats.

This infamously bad B-horror movie is about a Russian scientist who's caught in a nuclear explosion and is turned into a wretched beast bent on killing and killing. It follows a vaguely similar vein as Hulk except he doesn't really "mutate."

So what makes this movie so bad? So many things. First, the music itself isn't a real soundtrack. The same sound effects are played on repeat for minutes on end and do very little to bring out any horror. If one could call it musi, I'd like to hear their definition of music. Just don't play any for me. And certain plot elements, such as the beginning and the car chase, are not touched on ever again. Sometimes, plot elements just disappear, failing to set up any sort of real story in place of an extremely simple origin story with no creativity.

The acting itself is terrible. Tor Johnson, a Sweidsh wrestler, plays the monster, and does a horrendous job at it. All he does is walk around slowly and swing a stick. But I suppose his acting isn't quite as bad as the acting during the death scenes. Those who are killed look like their passing out from an aspirin-party instead of being killed.

But the worst thing about the movie is that there is little to no dialogue. Now I understand there was a small budget, but dialogue doesn't cost extra money. The movie was filmed without it, so like the music, the dialogue was added afterwards. However, the cast waited for moments where their faces were either obscured by darkness or blurred by far-off shots or turned from screen. This didn't leave a lot of room for dialogue. This completely destroyed any chances of character development. And the acting for the unconvincing and campy dialogue was horrid.

The Beast of Yucca Flats is the worst movie I've ever seen. There was only one good thing about the movie. Can you guess? I'll tell you. it was less than an hour long. I'm glad I watched it on MST3K. 0/5 doesn't even begin to describe how bad it is.

It sounds cheesy! But I'm going to watch it, I love 50-60s sci fi monster flicks. I've seen quite a few. I've heard of The Beast of Yucca Flats but never seen it, it's on youtube as a regular movie without the MST3K crew, so that's what I'm watching. It can't be any worse than the movie I watched last night:eek:

What did you watch last night?

Re: The Godfather, and Other Cinematic Tales
 

I though you might ask that:p It was Howard the Duck....ugh yuck, so hard to watch.

Ah, hell man. I can't wait to see that just to see how campy it is. It's pretty high on my "bad movies to see" list.

That's why I watched it too...and a couple of weeks ago I watched another all time movie flop, Ishtar (1987) which I rather liked. I thought it was pretty decent.

The Chaos Class (1975) - Directed by Ertem Eğilmez

"The new vice-principal is coming today. maybe he'll put things in order."

https://ortakoltuk.com/wp-content/up...%C4%B1-1-1.jpg

I've been looking for this classic Turkish dramedy film, The Chaos Class for a while now. I heard it got excellent reviews. Imdb users kept 10/10-ing the movie. But I think it's for the same reason American Graffiti was so popular: the nostalgia.

This Turkish classic The Chaos Class is the first of a series of films telling of different goofball high school classes, with the first telling of the first ever Chaos Class terrorizing a private Turkish school with their obnoxious antics, such as distracting an old teacher with war stories to get out of tests, or going behind the back of a blind teacher. This has been going on for years since they refuse to graduate and leave the high school life they've settled so much in. But when a new vice-principal comes, the Chaos Class are in for a world of trouble. This vice-principal means serious business, and he isn't going to tolerate anymore of thier antics.

Now I thought the movie was occasioanlly funny as hell, when they weren't resorting to the running "cow" gag. Still, there was wit to spare. It was also a lot of fun seeing how the events played out. I haven't had this much fun in a class-versus-teacher war since I watched Recess as a kid. Good times.

But I didn't get the five-star treasure I was looking for. The story was just fine, and I loved watching and guessing what would happen next. And the cast brought plenty of charisma to the movie. Still, it had some serious flaws in it.

The first flaw is that the "score" was really the same two or three tunes played over and over again to the point where they got tiring. It's not much of a score. This is the same problem I have with The Beast of Yucca Flats, except the music in The Chaos Class is a lot better anyway. Still, an hour into the movie I deeply wished for another song.

The next big flaw was its direction. There were so many scenes that cut off before I could get a laugh in, leaving no room for a reaction and having to bring myself to pay attention to the story again. No I liked the story. In fact, I think Peter Weir of Dead Poets Society fame should definitely remake it. But the half-second shots were a terribhle thing to put in a movie with more potential.

Despite the glaringly obvious flaws, The Chaos Class is a lot of fun. I believe it's mostly so well known on Imdb for its nostalgia. I mean, who doesn't wanna relive the good parts of their youth? And high school/college antics like that were pretty common in the late-70's, and make for the plots of many high-school films. The Chaos Class should prove to be a hell of a time. Still, get a better cinematographer.

Robocop (1987) - Directed by Paul Verhoeven

"Dead or alive, you're coming with me!"

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....oL._SY705_.jpg

The 80's was a wonderfully estranged time for children. Mecha anime, sports cars, superpowered police, and early furry mascots were the hip-and-happening plague that stormed the 80's. And of course, the adult 80's action movie fad had to grab a piece of that action now, didn't it?

Following in the footsteps of Arnold Swartzeneggar (Terminator, The Running Man), Robocop is an 80's classic about a policeman in a world always shooting for the future. While bullets are not yet a thing of the past, Detroit's tech companies are looking for new ways to enforce the law. When our aformentioned policeman is killed in action, he is rebuilt into Robocop.

I expected a semi-pleasant cheese party. I was also a bit weary of the film beforehand, because I knew it had gotten edited 11 times before the MPAA finally changed their rating from a X to an R. But the violence didn't disgust me as much as people let on (these are the same people who told me The Exorcist was scary). In fact, it wasn't even as cheesy as I thought it would be. Under Paul Verhoeven's direction, Robocop entertained me a lot more than I thought I'd be.

The best thing about Robocop is the realism. The movie has a few "advertisement" scenes that show you the basics of the world around you, and let you know through news reports the major events that affect the whole city of Detroit. Not to mention, the costume design was exactly what was needed for Robocop himself and not outlandish in any way in my opinion. And while this sense of realism is tainted by cheap robot CGi for about six onscreen minutes, the way the handled the motions of that robot was perfect. And while the action was occasionally over-the-top, it was quite thrilling.

While any chances of character development are killed by focusing solely on Robocop himself, the film's story and evolution of the titular character only gets better and better until the very end, where a not-so-surprising but very satisfying plot twist awaits. Roocop's journey of self-discovery acts as a way to see Robocop as a person and as a robot.

The music was very good. The score was exceptionally well-placed throughout the entire movie and carried the drama, action, and emotions of the film with it. The music was one of the best things in the movie. And the acting was wonderful, especially on Weller's part. Weller played an excellent robot, emotionless but wondering about his true self.

Robocop is an 80's classic that acts as a tough-guy movie while acknowledging its science fiction action figure roots, turning both sides of the film into one spectacular comination that makes Robocop one of the most important movies of the 80's. I had little interest in watching the remake before I saw this, and now I'm certain there's no way the remake could overpower the original film.

Sword of Doom (1966) – Directed by Kihachi Okamoto

“Evil mind, evil sword”

https://78.media.tumblr.com/2b283a8c...3wpso1_500.jpg

Although I am still very new to samurai movies, having only seen a few must-see moies like Seven Samurai, Harakiri, and Yojimbo, I know a damn good samurai movie when I see one. But I've spent a lot of time looking for only a few obvious movies all over the place like Sanjuro and Samurai 1, 2 and 3 and having little luck. How embarrassed was I when I realized I overlooked a very important one? That movie is Sword of Doom.

I first payed attention to the movie when I read a review by Movieforums member reviewed it, and I considered the review to be well-written and interesting enough for me to watch the movie soon after reading the review. I looked for it and found it, and I'm glad to say I watched it, because the movie was wonderful.

Sword of Doom is an adaptation of a Japanese serial novel where a murderous samurai flees his home after a duel and joins a group of assassins, slowly but surely descending into madness. As his past catches up with him, the movie concludes with a shocking twist and an abrupt cliffhanger for an ending.

It took a few minutes for the movie to really get interesting. But right after the movie got good, it got better every ten minutes. The direction of the movie was phenomenal. The cinematography was perfect, showing off whatever was necessary in a simple but proper artistic manner, never losing touch. And this matched well with the action in the movie. The sword battles were far more fun to watch than the battles in Seven Samurai, and Nakadai's skills were incredible. The shot where he slowly walks through an attacking gang killing everyone in one swift slice was incredible.

The acting was wonderful as well. Nakadai got into character very easily, playing someone who was downright secretly nuts. I felt uncomfortable looking at his face when he did that. And one of my favorite scenes comes after many shots of him smiling after a kill, when he sees Toshiro Mifune slaying his teammates and he's scared s***less.

And another thing I noticed is how much darker this movie was from the samurai movie's I've seen. Without any dialogue to examine it, the film uses Nakadai's faces to show how deep the psychological scars are going.

If I had to fault the movie for anything, it's for the complexity. I love complex movies, but this isn't the same thing as Tarkovsky's experiemental film, The Mirror. It's not a movie built for complexity, which means there's nothing to justify the fact that the movie is hard to follow.

Despite that problem, I believe Sword of Doom is one of the finest samurai movies out there. Anyone who's into movies should check this out at least once. A dark touch and a twisted story make this movie one of the best.



Recommended for: samurai fans and psycholgical thriller fans.

Bicycle Thieves (1948) - Directed by Vittorio De Sica


"There's a cure for everything except death."


https://assets.mubi.com/images/noteb...jpg?1442605540

The cinematic movement known as Italian neorealism is a social statement. Intentionally neglecting the conventionalities of big-name actors (with a few exceptions like Europe 51'), Italian neorealism showcases povertous (a word I made up meaning, “full of poverty) post-World War II Italy and bases itself on the realistic drama of the civilians.


Because this entire movement makes a point of replacing Hollywood panache a simple realistic outlook (hence the latter half of the name), it's only fair that this film be judged by realism and impact. This is something I taught myself twenty-five minutes into Bicycle Thieves, a 1948 film that's arguably the most famous film of the movement.


Bicycle Thieves is the heartbreaking story of a jobless man who buys back his pawned bicycle to get a job hanging posters. But when his bike is stolen, he goes all over Italy to find it.


This look deep into the world of post-war Italy doesn't bass itself on https://assets.mubi.com/images/noteb...disease-ridden hobos and scrap-scraping animals. This is about those who journey into the attempted accomplishments humans put themselves through and how they affect others. Watching the realistic “society” of post-war Italy unfold was something I've never really seen a movie focus on. It hadded a huge amount of realism to a movie that carries a goal of staying realistic.


And the characters themselves were not built on character development, since the film was really one man's search for his bike. We got to see the world through his eyes, feeling for him while feeling his emotions. From front to back, Bicycle Thieves was like living the man's life for a little while.


Don't watch this movie if you want a great adventure or dadaist-level art. Watch it if you want to feel human. That's what Italian neorealism is: it's the humanity of a man going through a time when humans need to and can be only that: human.

The Conjuring (2013) - Directed by James Wan

"God brought us together for a reason."

http://horrornews.net/wp-content/upl...vie-poster.jpg

I don't watch a lot of demon-based movies. Before I saw this movie I had only seen one other demon-related film: The Exorcist. And while The Exorcist is without a doubt the better movie, The Conjuring was a lot scarier.

Most people assume The Conjuring is a made up story about real-0life demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren. Nope. Google It. The family was real. The demon is real (I'm Christian, by the way). The Conjuring is a reimagining of the story of the Perron family haunting and the demon haunting it. Ed and Lorrain Warren come into the house to deal with what may have been the most intense demon experience they have ever faced.

Now I believe in demons without a doubt, but I'm not scared of them. I mean, hey, God can deal with them very easily. But I get into the "spirit," heh heh, of wehatever movie I watch. This movie scared me. That may be because I don't watch a lot of horror. Despite that, he build-up was excellent. I saw a couple of thinfgs coming, but most of the scares were twists on what I expected. Impressive.

The depiction of the demonic possession was far beyond realistic. It was amazing to watch how the special efects and the wonderful actors worked together to create a realistic facade of a demonic haunting. And of course, there's a happy ending I was very pleased with.

I have two major faults with the movie. First, the Perron Family has very little character development. I love character development. Second, there were plenty of times James Wan didn't really grasp the ideals of a perfect film. The cinemotagrapher wasn't very focused at times. Although, sometimes it gave the film a found footage feel, so that was kinda cool.

The Conjuring is one of the better horror movies I've seen in the modern age. I believe It is the best horror movie ever, but there's no doubt this movie is a proper horror thrill ride that doesn't base itself on blood and gore in lue of actual scare tactics.

Titan A.E. (2000) - Directed by Don Bluth and Gary Goldman

"We called it the 'Titan Project,' and it was a testament to the limitless power of the human imagination."


http://p0.meituan.net/movie/9119da51...401c163198.jpg

Out of nowhere wo nights ago, I got an itch to watch this again. My opinion of this movie changes EVERYTIME I see it, which is odd since this was a childhood favorite and I usually watch those for nostalgia. This was a bit different. I've been considering Don Bluth as a contender for one of the greatest children's film directors, but most of his post-NIMH films didn't really hit the mark as well as they could have. Titan A.E. is a turnaround for him, steering towards sci-fi after almost wearing out his fantasy schtick.

Titan A.E. is a space opera about a young man who's been drifting in space with the rest of humanity for 15 years after an alien race eliminated the planet Earth. After finding out his late father gave him the secret to finding a ship that can give a new home to humanity and change the course of their future, he sets out on a race to find the ship before the alien race responsible for humanity's near extinction blasts it away first.

This film got a lot of slack upon release for its story which many felt was a bit kiddy and all "done before" in science fiction. I think both of those statements are unfair criticisms. First of all, compare Titan A.E. to Don Bluth's other movies like Rock-A-Doodle or All Dogs Go to Heaven. Not so kiddy now, is it? There are even several instances of blood! There's plenty of action violence, or at least enough to warrant the PG rating, and it covers adult topics like death pretty often.

As for the second criticism about the film feeling "done before," or a jumbled up collection of common sci-fi plot points, parts of me find that to be even more unfair. Sci-fi is one of the most popular and written genres on the planet, and is a key figure in the nerd culture that's been plaguing streets and fanfictions ever since Star Trek. Yeah, it's been done before. So has every other sci-fi movie on earth, even the good ones. Here are some examples of great movies that have been done before. Annihilation? A female-fronted reimagining of Stalker with underdeveloped monsters. Interstellar? Nerfed 2001 with a Planet of the Apes ending. MCU? It's the MCU. We don't get a lot of animated post-apocalyptic space operas with an alternative rock to techno soundtrack, especially one with John Leguizamo playing a nutso and goofy turtle-alien and Nathan Lane playing a lanky mass of disgusting charm in the form of a baboon wearing brown jeans. And, WE DON'T GET VILLAINS MADE OUT OF PURE ENERGY LIKE EVER.

Another thing people probably miss, likely due to the common and occasionally reasonable criticism of over-features effects, is that DOn Bluth directed the film very well. This wasn't just about fancy CGi. Bluth and Goldman put more time and effort focusing on the cinematography and the impact of the film that the story only suffered a little for it, as opposed to his poory written early-90's movies. The flight-scene in the red dust storm was phenomenal. The CGi was extraordinary. That movie, like 2001, was ahead of its time in special effects. Not to mention, the music was very well placed. Maybe none of these songs are super-hits that you'd like to hear alone, but they match their respective scenes in the film properly.

The characters usually didn't fall flat. Korso clearly had more sides to him as the film progressed. Akima had a young, independent tough-girl presence but was also hurt by the destruction of Earth. Cale was a blatantly independent loner who ignored his family-related emotions a lot but was also a genius who could just look at a machine he'd never seen before and figure out how it worked, and eventually learned to accept other people's ideals. And the performances were quite good. Korso is easily one of my favorite Bill Pullman roles, and I became a small fan of Matt Damon through his role as Cale. And I just love Gune. I want Gune as a pet.

Titan A.E. has a lot of strong points. But maybe the visuals ended up too annoying for purists to pay attention to other things about the movie. There are some unique things about the film as well that get overshadowed by plot elements, or more accurately sci-fi traits, that people have probably seen too many times in a movie. Overall, it could be a bad combination of common beliefs that keep critics from seeing the true colors of Titan A.E. behind the fancy CGi. And regarding the CGi, as aformentioned, the film was ahead of its time by about a decade, and I think that gets overlooked very often. 2001 didn't get slack for any of that, and neither should Titan A.E. when not even Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3 had the most realistic effects. Titan A.E. is an animated treasure, and I hope reviews for it in the future are much more merciful like with Blade Runner.

Re: The Godfather, and Other Cinematic Tales
 

Agree about Titan A.E.. Underrated. I think the animation style and some of the corny jokes belie its stronger qualities. Some very cool ideas (bad guys made of energy!) in there that could've made for a really terrific sci-fi film if it had decided to go in a more serious route. I'd love to have seen it in live action.

Re: The Godfather, and Other Cinematic Tales
 

True, but it being an animated movie with a little corniness made it a family friendly movie. Smart move.

Batman (1989) - Directed by Tim Burton

"I'm Batman."

http://fr.web.img6.acsta.net/r_1280_...07/4581110.jpg

Tim Burton of all people directs a Batman movie. Who saw Mr. Pee Wee's Big Adventure making that total shift? And who saw Warner Bros. actually backing him up on that? Well, he didn't disappoint. Easily the most iconic Batman movie before The Dark Knight came out, Tim Burton's Batman redifined the superhero scene where Marvel kept failing before the X-Men franchise.

This Batman tale focuses on a reinvented Joker who plans on killing everyone in Gotham, a journalist who wants the whole scoop on Batman, and a Bruce Wayne much more scarred by his past than usual interpretations. And of course, there's a twist involving the Joker this time.

Tim Burton might not make a lot of five-star movies, but he sure makes some fun ones. The cinematography of the whole thing and the sets are absolutely perfect for a Batman film, and even better than what the Nolan series had. Whenever I think of Gotham City, my mind goes to the first shot of the whole city in this movie. And the score carries some of Danny Elfman's defining music. Who would've though Mr. Oingo Boingo would have made it this far?

The acting is top-notch. Nicholson plays the Joker, and he's a real good Joker. It's always great for me to see a clever and well-acted interpretation of one of my favorite villains. And Michael Keaton, as usual, brigs real heart to his role as Bruce Wayne, which would end up as one of several of his defining early-career roles.

There is only one problem I have with the movie. For a while, the film seems like it's shifting between main characters, putting too much emphasis on one character at a time. As a result, there wasn't enough Bruce Wayne in the film.

Still, I gotta say this is a classic superhero movie that set the standards for superhero movies in the future until the MCU redefined them. Batman is my favorite superhero, and the Batman movies are one of my favorite film franchises to go through. And it's really thanks to Tim Burton's classic.

Mamma Mia (2008)

"Mamma mia, here I go again! My my, how can I resist you?"

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/7d/4b/1f/7...ie-posters.jpg

Almost immediately after I go to the Netflix app, I turn Mamma Mia on. I just pressed it spontaneously, just like that. I don't even know why. I had very little interest in the movie before watching it, and I'm not even an ABBA fan. Well, I watched it anyway. My plan was to review Batman Returns, but I'll get this off of my chest.

I am a fan of musicals, but usually when they're absolutely phenomenal. I have so many Rodgers and Hammenstein movies on my to-do list, but I haven't even checked them out because I don't feel they can top The King and I or The Sound of Music. So me putting on Mamma Mia was a complete surprise for myself. Given the ratings, I'm not entirely sure what my expectations were beforehand, but I was fairly pleased with the end result.

This musical chick flick is about a bride-to-be who finds out about three possible dads she could have, and invites them all to her wedding without her secretive mother (Meryl Streep) knowing about it. But there's one problem after another when she catches them before the wedding.

I'll bet this movie was better on stage. There were a couple of big problems with it. First off all, most of the voices were incredibly underwhelming to the point where I really wished it was ABBA singing "Dancing Queen" and "SOS." And Pierce Brosnan just can't sing. What the hell went through their minds when they cast him in the film when they could have gotten someone like Gerard Butler, who's singing voice was just good enough to warrant a role as The Phantom of the Opera in the live-action movie by Joel Schumacher!? Pierce Brosnan has an edgy history with polarized-to-bad movies like Die Another Day or After the Sunset, and his singing voice didn't help. And I felt Amanda Seyfield's voice was better suited for Disney Channel original movies. Good, but not ABBA good.

My second complaint is that the director, Phyllida Lloyd, clearly didn't know what she was doing. It's like she was just copying the musical's direction and paying no attention to where the camera went for most of the movie. I mean, sure, I don't expact kathryn Bigelow. But I at least expected better than this.

But despite these complaints, I'll admit I liked the movie. I don't usually do chick flicks (this might even be the first one I ever fully watched), but there was a good presence about it. Meryl Streep, the best voice in the movie, was a real treat to watch. I had already seen her in Into the Woods, and this is a woman who was made for modern musicals. Her dancing was great and her acting was even better. perfect choice for the role of the mother Donna. And the older women in the movie were also quite a treat because they were just so funny and realistic as far as obnoxious woman who desperately want their youth back go.

And since it IS an ABBA music, most of the music was pretty good. yeah, we didn't have voices like Flatskog and Lyngstad, but most of the songs were pretty catchy. The real problem with the score itself, vocals aside, is that it can be song-after-song on multiple occasions, weighing down the story. But the story that was their was quite gripping. I kept wanting badly to know what was going to happen next, right from the first couple minutes where the basics of the plot are thrown in your face alongside one of the opening songs.

I'd say this was a pretty good movie for what it was. There's a lot of room for improvement, but it does its job as a musical. Thankfully I hear the sequel is much better, so I guess I'll see that when it's on DVD. My favorite thing about the movie was EASILY Meryl Streep.

Batman Returns (1992) - Directed by Tim Burton

Gotham City was ravaged by a disease that turned eagle scouts into crazed clowns and happy homemakers into catwomen!

https://www.booska-p.com/up/images/n...rns_Poster.png

I grew up with the Tim Burton Batman movies (not the Joel Schumacher ones). I remember when my dad bought the first one. I have no idea when he bought the second, but this helped me rank Batman as my number 1 superhero. And Batman Returns is the best one.

This sequel to the 1989 hit with Jack Nicholson featured Michael keaton once again donning the Bat Cowl as he investigates the crime spree headed by orphaned mutant Oswald Cobblepot, a.k.a. The Penguin, Penguin's connection to corrupt business owner Mex Shreck, and the appearance of a mysterious woman who gives a new definitoon to the term, "cat-burglar."

I'm in the minority when I say this movie's better than the first. Sure, we don't have a lot of Bruce Wayne's trauma to deal with like we did in the first movie, but instead we get to see more of his bachelor side and his trouble with balancing out relations and superhero biz, Spidey style. Michelle Pfieffer plays a perfect Catwoman (don't say it) who not only looked really sexy, but brought a lot of comic-book appeal to the film. Danny DeVito as the Penguin? Wonderful choice! If they ever get another actor for the role, the actor needs to be trained by DeVito himself. And I won't leave out Christopher Walken's performance. he's Christopher Walken, so you can always expect a good, likely creepy job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GXMsxgdZx0

The reason I like this movie more than the first is because there's more of a comic book approach than the first film, and Tim Burton balances it out very well. The campiness of Batman villains is at its absolute best when you have Tim Burton, Danny Elfman and Danny DeVito behind the wheel of villainry.

The sets of the film are just as good as the first one. But with the combination of Burton, Christmas time, and Gotham, you gotta expact a wonderful kind of cheesiness that only DC comics could offer. And the best part about that is they add a lot to the story when you take into account visual effects. Mostly, sets are there to look pretty. This has a little more.

Tim Burton's wonderful sequel to his own hit superhero movie might not be five-stars, but it's damn close. It's well worth checking out for any fellow Batman fan, and is another essential for Michael Keaton.

Let the Right One In - (2008) - Directed by Tomas Alfredson

"Are you a vampire?"

http://i1.daumcdn.net/thumb/R500x0/?...591F2DFC10B1AA

I was just looking up some of the highest rated vampire movies out of curiosity, and the Swedish modern classic Let the Right One In ended up near the top of the list. I remembered seeing the Netflix movie popping up but always considered it a pass and go movie, as well as its American remake, Let Me In. I dismissed them as typical vampire movies like Twilight and watched other things.

I'm willing to bet I wasn't just ready for the movie. I didn't remember the reviews for the movies so I looked them up last night. DAMMIT THEY'RE HIGH. So, yeah. I watched it for the first time today and... it was so effective on me that I'm still reeling.

The film is about a bullied 12-year-old boy who wants to become tougher to intimidate the bullies. When he meets a mysterious new neighbor, a girl the same age as him, he has no idea she's actually a vampire.

I'm not a vampire guy myself. When I do horror, I usually do psychological or alien horror. And I'm also a fan of horror-comedies like Beetlejuice. I was going on an utter whim here, hoping I'll discover another gem in the realm of modern horror because I hardly find those. Even most classic horror movies didn't quite do it for me. But I'll admit, it wasn't scares that powered this movie. It was the drama between the bullied boy and the lonely vampire girl and their eventual young love. This is what Twilight should have been, not the cheesy Teen Nick turned Gothic romance but the young, innocent lovers romance. That drama kept me going on, and an hour and fifteen minutes into the movie I was so shocked by how events played out that I didn't know if I could handle the ending.

Speaking of that shock, I'll add that it felt very PERSONAL. This is key to the film's progression because one would easily fault the movie for having little character development. I refuse to fault this film for that. The effect on me, and likely most audiences, is built on the tension between the two main characters. Character development would have harmed the movie.

The ending was phenomenal. I really couldn't believe what I was watching. The best moments of direction in the film take place at the last few minutes of the movie, the great climax. Although the rest of the direction in the film shouldn't be overlooked. Where most indie movies only keep powerful characters like vampires off-screen while they use their powers due to budget restrictions and limited special effects, the effect the direction had on that recurring trait of the film only helped improve on the vampire's already mysterious character. And the eating-people scenes were a shock to the system. To think a 12-year-old girl has to go through all of that?

Let the Right One In is one of my favorite horror movies, and is a hell of a lot better than most of Swedish film-king Ingmar Bergman's films. I'm still recovering from the shock of the climax. I was planning on watching its American remake, Let Me In, right after watching this, since the remake also got phenomenal reviews but was lightly criticized for being derivative of the original film. But if the film's almost as good as its original Swedish counterpart, I really can't do it now. The Swedish one pushed my horror-drama limits quite a bit and I don't think I can go through the story twice in one day. I'm honestly ready to relax with a chick flick.

Batman Forever (1995) - Directed by Joel Schumacher

"Wholly rusted metal, Batman!"

https://78.media.tumblr.com/5dd36998...rpyro2_500.jpg

When I first watched the first Schumacher entry of the 80's-90's Batman movies, I kind of enjoyed it for Jim Carrey's performance. But that was years ago. Now I'm not that fond of it. Batman's famous film series was turned into a barrage of colors that don't match well with black.

This time, Batman might need some help dealing with two villains at once! Not only does the former district attorney-turned-gambling crime lord Two-Face run rampant on Gotham, but a vengeful scientist sends riddle to Bruce Wayne in an attempt to get back at him for rejecting a "grand invention." It's time Batman got a sidekick, which might be the young acrobat bent on revenge against Two-Face.

My first criticism is very blatant: the colors. There were colors and colors all over the place. I'd say they put Superman's costume to shame if it weren't for the fact that THIS IS A BATMAN MOVIE. Pretty colors and Batman don't mix at all. Maybe for the Joker, but adding them anywhere you go and turning a beloved DC Comics landmark into Pastel-Gotham City doesn't help the franchise's dark mood which was so powerful in the first two movies that it hurt. I'm no homophobe or anything, but I, like many critics, believe it's Schumacher's sexuality that might have had a say, and in the end that backfired. Homosexuality in Batman is a long-debated topic. There's even a Wikipedia article. You wanna add some gay, fine. But closing the camera in on fake Bat-Nipples and glossy Bat-butts doesn't help a Batman movie, especially since Schumacher tried to defend himself by saying the suits were influenced by ANCIENT GREEK STATUES. There's the naked truth for you.

Secondly, the story. There I things I liked about the story, which I'll get to later, but part of it was thrown together with too much sci-fi influence for Batman. Maybe it's fine for a typical cheesy 60's comic book, but the Burton Batman movies already had a feel about them that was dark and quirky, and the sci-fi elements were too quirky for the darker elements to really work.

I'm mixed about the characters. They mostly felt unrealistic. But I loved some of the acting. I especially love Jim Carrey's performance as The Riddler, because he's perfect for the role of a quirky, yet kinda insane inventor who loves to tease you with riddles. Val Kilmer also did a good job as Bruce Wayne. I thought Bruce's role in the movie was a little emotionally weaker than usual, which annoyed me, but I can't deny Kilmer did a good job maintaining an air of strength throughout the role, which helped a lot. I wasn't that impressed with Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face. He had charisma, but he felt more like a cartoon character than the Two-Face from Batman: The Animated Series.

I won't deny there's a good amount of action. Some of the story elements worked well with the action, and it's clear Schumacher payed close attention to the cinematography to give the film an artistic feel. The only real problem with that is that it was a little too artistic for Batman standards. But it was still movie quality. Schumacher's great with cinematography.

Batman Forever is very easy to have problems with. Thankfully I look at enough of the good things about the movie to give it a decent rating, but Schumacher shouldn't have been put in charge. Thankfully, we had the Nolan series and the animated Batman films to satisfy all of the fans.

Re: The Godfather, and Other Cinematic Tales
 

Feel free to comment on my reviews and provide some feedback.

Batman & Robin (1997) - Directed by Joel Schumacher

"Hey, chill."

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....AL._SY679_.jpg

Well, this is the last of the 1990's Burton/Schumacher Batman movies, and thankfully it was the last. I have a dark feeling that if Schumacher made another Batman movie it would have only been even more jacked up. This is one of the worst superhero movies I've ever seen, hands down.

This time, Batman and Robin are at odds with THREE villains! One is the unfortunately quotable polar opposite of a pyromaniac (I hope you saw what I did there), a planto-kinetic woman who's too self-aware of her appearance and powers, and a mindless brute. So, Batman and Robin are going to need a third wheel, because apparently the Batmobile lost one and the Joker ran away after he realized Schumacher's Batman is bull.

The colors. The seizuriffic colors. My hand shakes at the atrocity. Pastel goth doesn't even start! Who is this movie and what has it done with my beloved Gotham City? I would pay to get my beloved back, but I'm done paying for Schumacher movies.

And what the living hell is with the Bat nipples? Is it just me, or are they even more noticeable? I'm certain that in all of history, nipples have never been more distracting. The suits were terrible. They were overly glossy, too "armored-up," and silver isn't Batman's or Robin's color. It's such an unfitting style that parts of me honestly prefer the original Bibleman suit!

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/trNrxfsHZI4/hqdefault.jpg

And the belt is very likely construction paper!

The plot had a lot of potential, but trying to balance out the three plotlines seemed like too much work for Schumacher, especially when none of them are played well. Shwartzennegar's character was too focused on the overdone ice puns made somehow memorable with his accent than actually freezing things. Uma Thurman's cartoon performance of Poison Ivy and her, ahem, previous form, might as well have been Nick Jr. villains. And Bane wasn't interesting or even scary at all. He was just there for the purpose of having another villain.

And much of the plot was so stupid that it might as well have been a cartoon movie. That's honestly what it felt like. Schumacher clearly tried to hards to make a live-action cartoon. In fact, the darkness of Batman was completely done away with for this. The opening scene was so lauhable I hoped the rest of the movie would follow suit, but it didn't.

The chemistry between Batman, Robin and Batgirl is oftentimes underwhelming, trying to hard to be "personal" when in reality it ended up flat-out predictable most of the time. Chris O'Donnell does a much worse job as Robin than he did in the last movie, and I would honestly prefer Hayden Christensen's Anakin.

I have one good thing to say about the movie that saved it from being a total disaster. Schumacher knows how to direct a movie well. He always did, and he payed attention to the stylistics of the delivery. At least he pays attention.

Batman & Robin is not a good movie. I pity anyone who enjoys it because they believe it's good, if I may be blunt. I'll always like the laughable feel of the opening scene, though.

Good to see others loving this too. It's probably my favorite film at the moment. It's such a perfect mix of horror, character driven drama and innocent romance.

If you're a reader I can recommend the book as well. It's very high on my book rankings too and I'd really hope that more of John Ajvide Lindqvist's books would be filmed (especially Little Star).

I might. I'm trying to be more of a reader.

Open Range (2003) - Direced by Kevin Costner

"Everything they think they are or did, takes hold so hard that it won't let them see what they can be."

http://de.web.img2.acsta.net/r_1280_...5/19288944.jpg

I watched this a while back with by grandparents who said it was a good movie. I watched it in HD, to be more specific. This little tidbit plays an important role in the review later. Right now, let me just sum up the basics by saying it was a good movie with good acting but it was a little hard to follow and needed more meat to the story.

Open Range is a western about an open-range cattleman and a scarred ex-soldier dealing with an abusive land baron who hates open-rangers and attempts to scare them away and even kill them. Eventually, the land baron pushes all the wrong buttons, and it's war.

The characters had the making of lovavle characters one could relate to, but they weren't quite developed enough, and so they weren't relatable enough. This unfortunate oversight made the characters feel a little generic. But the acting was good. This all-star cast nailed it good. And the story was a bit interesting. It needed a lot of meat to add to the plate, however, and the length of the movie occasionally kept it slow at times and boring in a couple of spots.

The scenery was all good and convincing, having that old-west open-range presence. But there's something you should know: never watch this movie in HD. There's a garden at the end of the movie, and with HD you can tell it's plastic. Well, Costner, I guess he over-spending lesson Waterworld tried to teach you didn't pan out as well as you thought.

One more thing I have to say was that the action was all fun and thrilling. My brain was on the edge of it's seat. But Costner didn't direct the ending scene as well as I had liked. It focused a little too much on being epic and not enough on the action itself.

Open Range is a fun movie, but I hardly consider it an essential figure for the western scene or for Costner fans. Maybe completionists will get more of a kick out of it.

The Sting (1973) - Direced by George Roy Hill

"Dukey, if this thing blows up, the Feds will be the least of our problems."

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7c/53...d6616cb862.jpg

I've seen three movies directed by George Roy Hill (The Sting, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and Slaughterhouse Five). I've also seen three Paul Newman movies... 4 if you caount Cars. The Sting is definitely my favorite involving both of them, largely due to the direction and heart put into the film.

Paul Newman reunites with Robert Redford in a Depression-era New Hollywood film about a grifter who seeks out a veteran conman hiding from the FBI in order to outcon a vicious crime boss in a grand scheme involving horse-race betting. But the FBI wants to use this young grifter to get close to their old enemy.

This was the second Paul Newman film I watched when I was trying to introduce myself to him and his art. The first was obviously Butch Cassidy. Now Newman was magnificent as Butch, but playing Henry Gondorff was a much better role for him. Newman was always great at playing the self-assured man, ever since he played in The Hustler. And Robert Redford beat his role in Butch Cassidy as well, playing a young conman that seems to have little knowledge of what he's really trying to do. But neither of them outshined the other. It takes a lot to go head-to-head with Paul Newman.

What I found interesting was how this movie pitted the famous duo from the classic western AGAINST each other at times, as if to totally shift the mood from two life-long buddies to something more mature and modern: a question of trust. That was a plot element made only more compelling by casting those two in their roles. That casting choice right there is a little bit of proof that George Roy Hill is underrated as a movie director.

And another notable thing about The Sting is its more positive outlook on the Depression, making things seem more worth-living rather than making the movie feel like a real depression. This gives you hope for the main characters to complete their goal, despite the moral conflict you may have with their methods.

I don't have any complaints about The Sting. If there ever was a must-see for an actor, it's The Sting for both Paul Newman and Robert Redford. Absolutely perfect.

Dreamcatcher (2003) - Directed by Lawrence Kasdan

"I'll show you things you'll wish you'd never seen."

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/...20130415014237

I've been interested in Dreamcatcher for a while, but didn't watch it until yesterday. I expected a pretty bad movie, but I didn't entirely get what I bargained for. There were quite a few things about the movie I liked.

This sci-fi horror book is based on a Stephen King novel about four psychic friends going on a camping trip an dealing with an alien invasion. Little do they know that a government agency has been tailing the aliens for a long time and is planning on taking any risk to rid the world of the invaders.

As a movie about psychics, Dreamcatcher was pretty cool. One of my favorite things about the movie is the "warehouse" visual metaphor which one of the characters ends up trapped in. And Kasdan payed close attention to the special effects without making the movie a CGI-romp

I understand Rotten Tomatoes called it incoherent, but I don't really think so. All of the subplots in the movie that were built up were eventually explained. I was very pleased with that. And although the cast didn't really do anything memorable (except for Donnie Wahlberg as Duddits) and they only had decent development, I loved the way they got children who look and act like their adult counterparts for the flashbacks.

But the movie is very predictable. Five minutes before some of the scares, I could tell what was going to happen. Some of the movie scared me, and some of the story engrossed me, but I knew when most of the characters who died were going to. And of course, the way the first character dies in the movie is because of a stupid reason. I won't spoil it, but he did something incredibly stupid, and a monster got to him.

I thought Dreamcatcher was a decent movie. I liked a lot of the story and I wouldn't mind a remake closer to the novel, even though I've never read any Stephen King novels. But I guess if I want a really terrible Stephen King movie, I'm going to have to watch Cell, because Dreamcatcher was less of a disappointment than I anticipated. I would say it's a love-it-or-hate-it movie, but I wouldn't use that extreme. I'll say like-it-ir-don't-like-it.

The Thin Blue Line (1988) - Directed by Errol Morris

"If there was ever a hell on earth, it's Dallas County."

http://michaeltapper.se/wp-content/u..._blue_line.jpg

The Thin Blue Line is one of the most highly-reviewed documentaries in the world, and it took me a while to see it because I knew it was about police troubles. I'm going to level with you: I hate bad cops. I'll explain more about that in the review. But I've never been so engrossed in a crime-documentary in all my life.

The documentary is an analysis of the murder of a police officer and the trial and conviction of a man only framed for the murder by a braggart 16 year old. This man is Randall Dale Adams, a man with little to no history of violence and no criminal record, as opposed to the man who framed him: a convicted robber and braggart named David Harris. The film explains the many mistakes from the case and strong possibilities that he was not guilty.

The first stupid mistake the police make is trusting a braggart. Here's a stupid 16 year old everyone knows as a talker, and they think they can trust him? Second, police threatening people to sign a confession is proof of stupidity and refusal to admit their mistake. I don't mind good cops, but bad cops get my blood boiling. A lot of bad cops use their badge as an excuse to do what they want the in a similar manner to religious figures of the medieval times who used their authority to kill innocent people.

The whole Dr. Death scenario got on my nerves. Here's a man who spends most of his testimony bragging about his degrees, coming to the exact same conclusion he reaches 99% of the time no matter who he's talking about? It comforts me that in 1995 he was expelled from the American Psychiatric Association for such behavior. Yeah, I'm sorry people didn't realize how vain and clueless that man could actually be twenty years later. His job was to see if this "murderer" had no remorse, and after 15 minutes of talking with him, suddenly Adams is "Hitler" and "Charles Manson?"

And the Millers! Don't get me started on those self-absorbed argumentative "witnesses" who'll do anything for a quick buck. The sad thing is I don't think Adams would've had much of a chance if they weren't a part of the picture anyway.

Thankfully, Adams was released from prison after 12 years thanks to this film. In the aftermath, Adams was brought to a habeas corpus hearing and was released from prison. Personally, I hope people learned something from this. But I'm a little angry that it seems no one who took a part in the unlawful detention got just desserts. Maybe their reputations were a bit tarnished, but I don't really think that's enough.

The Thin Blue Line is one of the most informative and to-the-point documentaries I've ever seen. Not a moment wasn't vital to the case and the analysis, and in the end the documentary succeeded as a movie and as a serious testimony to the unfairness of Adams' incarceration. It's definitely a movie to take something home from.

Nosferatu (1922) - Directed F. W. Murnau

"Do not utter it, or the images of life will fade into pale shadows and ghostly dreams will rise from your heart and feed your blood."

https://imgc.allpostersimages.com/im...8-13198931.jpg

Nosferatu is the only film released by the studio Prana, which went bankrupt after the widow of Bram Stoker sued for copyright infringement since Nosferatu was really an unofficial adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel, Dracula. Despite this, the film was a massive success with the critics. I agree a little bit, but there are problems.

This adaptation of the novel centers around the nosferatu himself, Count Orlok, making his way to Germany and begins a killing spree which the townsfolk believe to be a rumored plague. ANd the only one who may be able to stop the vampire is the young bride of a real estate agent.

To get the good stuff out of the way, the movie is wonderfully shot and directed. This is my first F. W. Murnau film, and I enjoyed the direction. I love the way Murnau shot Nosferatu's shadows, adding an essential part in vampire movies to come. I'm now greatly looking forward to his other hits like Sunrise and City Girl. And Max Schreck (not to be confused with the Batman character) plays a wonderful vampire. His over-the-top appearance and slow movements add a lot to the movie.

The first half-hour of this ninety minute silent movie kept my attention throughout most of it because the characters had their own level of attitude and relatability that fits with some of the campier silent-era aspects of the film, like... say, Schreck's makeup. And the vampire elements of the story were played well for that time.

But now I'll cover the bad stuff: there wasn't enough of Orlok. The subplot of the townspeople believing Orlok's killings to be a plague was too much of a focus. And there was also too much emphasis on the mystery aspects of the movie to the point where it didn't feel like a vampire movie. And third of all, why does the woman who can stop Nosferatu specifically have to be a sinless woman? They never really cover that.

Overall, I liked a lot about the movie, but there were some obvious things Murnau focused too much on. Still, it was quite enjoyable throughout most of it, so I'd still say it was a great silent-era movie. Normally I get bothered by things like a lack of character development and unrealistic sets, but it's still a silent movie.

Brazil (1985) - Directed by Terry Gilliam

"A ruthless minority of people seem to have forgotten good old-fashioned virtues. They just can't stand seeing the other fellow win."

https://eu.movieposter.com/posters/a...n/38/MPW-19401

I avoided watching the 1985 sci-fi film Brazil for a long time because I knew about how it ended, and it almost felt like a pro-totalitarian message. But as I thought about it for a couple of years, it seemed more like a mocking of the entire concept of totalitatianism. So I watched it today.

Directed by Monty Python member Terry Gilliam, Brazil is the not-so-adventurous story of a daydreaming bureaucrat in the future who finds the woman in his daydreams, abuses his job to find information on her, and eventually giving into his fantasies and getting into trouble.

It's obvious from the beginning from notable quotes that the film is geared to mock bureaucracy and totalitarianism, two political systems that are over-controled and annoying to think about. The movie is full of wit, and every bureaucrat-related line is not only a clever mockery of that system, but a reminder of the horrors that too much of it can display.

The sets are sometimes incredible for visual effect, but sometimes underwhelming and desolate for the purpose of reminding the viewer that not everything's chrome in the future. And Gilliam's direction is properly driven by the fantasies and cruel realities of the movie.

The last minute of the film really spoke to me. While it's not a happy ending, it said to me, "If people kept going crazy within and outside of totalitarian government, it would lead to riots, and eventually abolishment of the abuse in the system.' So while I hate endings where the good guys don't get their way (which is why I knocked a full star off of Invasion of the Body Snatchers), this ending had more of a meaning in my eyes.

If I had to fault it for anything, it's that there's very little character development. Most of the characters don't need it, but the girl needed a lot more. And there were a couple of unnecessary bloody scenes at the end of the movie that really didn't add anything except a couple of "I didn't need to see that" moments which are better left in B-rate zombie movies.

Brazil was very enjoyable. Its heart is in its true message and the satire of it all. The terrifying combination of bureaucracy and totalitarianism is only good for being made fun of, and Brazil is proof of that. And it feeds intpo my fantasies of a day and age where we won't get redirected one-hundred people to get a form checked out.

The Enemy Below (1957) - Directed by Dick Powell

"It's a bad war. It's reason is twisted. It's purpose is dark. It's not for a simple man."

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kUoR96lzTJ...-L-jOjTqE.jpeg

I'm a fan of war movies, and I have been a fan for years. That was one reason I decided to watch The Enemy Below, a 50's war movie. The other two reasons were because it was from the 50's and the third is that I wanted to try a Robert Mitchum movie. In the end, I was glad to have seen it, but it's not that much of a classic.

One of the last films directed by Dick Powell before his death, this submarine-based film centers around a naval-officer chasing down a Nazi submarine captained by a man who questions the Nazi regime. As this battle between mind and missiles is underway, who will come out victorious?

The Enemy Below benifits from two wonderfully played lead roles by Robert Mitchum and Curd Jurgens. Both actors put a great amount of effort into the roles and they pay off considerably. Watching the two battle it out throughout the movie was the highlight.

The movie also benefits from some wonderful effects and set designs. That's the thing about war movies, especially submarine ones: they have to be just right in order to work. You can't go flaunting low production like in some cheesy sci-fi movie, or flaunt decor like in Adam West's Batman. War movies are serious and their sets need to be taken seriously.

However, the movie suffers from occasional so-so direction that doesn't attempt to emphasize the violence or the sets, or even the people. And most of the time, the dialogue gets boring and occasionally feels like it's going nowhere other than into another missile fight. And the music was so generic "50's action movie" that it didn't add anything at all.

The film also suffers from a little bit of stretching. In 90 minutes, we have a couple of missile battles and by the first hour it feels done before. But there is a satisfying ending with better direction.

The Enemy Below is a good movie for Robert Mitchum fans and might make for a good time to war fans, but this is by no means a true classic. I only watched it because it fit the bill of what I was looking for at the time. In reality, it's worth a watch but will be passible for people who aren't into that kind of thing.

Just a reminder, feel free to comment on the reviews and movies if you want.

Smokey and the Bandit (1977) - Directed by Hal Needham

"We ain't never not made it before, have we?"

https://res.cloudinary.com/hrscywv4p...dit_dbvdx0.jpg

Burt Reynolds, one of the worlds greatest actors, a man with the perfect combination of charisma, talent, and mustache, died on September 6, 2018. He was set to star in the new Taranino film, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, but wont now, sadly. However, his memory will live on and so will his films like Boogie Nights, The Longest Yard, and The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. But how can I talk about Burt Reynolds without mentioning what may be his most iconic film, Smokey and the Bandit?

This carsploitation cult classic directed by stuntman Hal Needham is a high-speed cat-and-mouse chase between a charming and legendary trucker and an obsessive county sheriff. Not only does he make a bet with a rich man to bootleg beer all the way to Georgia, but he ends up picking up a woman who left the sheriff's son at the altar!

The movie doesn't have a large story to it, which may be enough to knock off nearly a full star. This is even more jarring when one realizes that the characters don't have any development whatsoever.

Depsite that, the characters don't always feel flat. When you have Burt Reynolds behind the wheel, you can always expect a wonderful performance as the suave, sophisticated wisecrack with a mustache he's so good at playing. His chemistry with the flying nun herslef, Sally Field is wonderful, and between characters there are oftentimes enough quotes to fill a manual. And the movie is only more entertaining when Jackie Gleason is never too far behind on the road or in talent. His role as the obsessive and crude sheriff on hot pursuit gives a lot more than the role itself had to offer.

But the biggest attention-getter is the constant road action happening between the Bandit in his iconic black Trans-Am and the countless cops on his tail on multiple occasions. And the element of the Bandit's reputation added an element of surprise when the viewer gets to see so many truckers offering to help the Bandit on his times quest! That's charisma right there.

Smokey an the Bandit is a movie I've been wanting to see for years, and as usual, I was busy. This review is my special honor to Burt Reynolds for sharing his talent with the world. I think I'm gonna check out the other two sometime, despite the reviews. They won't change the fact Smokey and the Bandit is a classic.

The second movie is worth watching, but if you're watching it for Burt Reynolds, don't waste your time with the third movie. If I remember correctly, he basically only has a cameo appearance in the third movie.

Watch Hooper, The End or The Cannonball Run if you're looking for another one of his fun movies.

If it's that bad, I need to see what a B-movie rate car movie is like.

If I remember correctly, Jackie Gleason was supposed to be The Bandit in the third movie, but test audiences didn't like it, so the movie was redone with Jerry Reed as The Bandit.

I think that just proves that only Burt Reynolds could be The Bandit,

Edward Scissorhands (1990) - Directed by Tim Burton

"I am not complete."

https://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/7/9/...17180709_o.jpg

Tim Burton's had a hell of a history, hasn't he? Mr. Pee-Wee Frankenweenie is known for his dark and eccentric visuals more than anything, and he always does what he can to keep that up when the situation calls for it. I think a good contender for his most "Burton" work is Edward Scissorhands, a favorite throughout my preteen-to-early-teen years.

Edward Scissorhands is a unique "Beauty and the Beast" meets "Frankenstein" combo telling the story of an incomplete artificial man with scissors for hands, taken from his isolated castle-home in an act of kindness. But the constant kindness of the townsfolk soon goes haywire as the town attempts to use him for their gain, and turn all of the blame on him... except for the family who took him in, including the young girl who starts to fall for him.

While Batman did have its share of Gothic scenery and sets, Edward Scissorhands is the film that really shows Burton's style at its most recognizable form. While the simple-minded townsfolk all live in their simply-made homes of very similar architecture, with all of the residents sharing similar minds, the structure of Edward's castle is beautiful, showing off a very creepy outlook while displaying a plethora of plants and tree-trimmed statues of an almost adorable nature, mirroring Edward's outside-isn't-inside persona. This is mirrored by a hand-shaped bush in the center of the front garden.

In this way, the characters and the scenery match each-other in personalities and mindsets compared to visual outlook. It takes a whole town to turn against Edward as soon as one of their own tries to use him (two if you count the hair salon scene). The hair salon scene shows some naked statues used for modelling in the backroom, which to me mirrored the owner's, or Joyce's, sexual desires which have found their way to Edward all too quickly.

But the real story is between Edward and Kim, or Johnny Depp and Winona Ryder. Not only are both of their performances wonderful, but the tension between them as events unfold only gets more and more powerful until the cliffhanger end that leaves a lasting impression of a sad ending that you just love either way due to its heart and charm. And this is a movie that's all about charm. The dancing in the snow scene always just keeps me glued.

Everyone in the cast felt necessary, except for the religious fanatic. Her actress could've been a hell of a lot better. But the rest of the cast was perfect for their roles. Kathy Baker's exaggerated performance as the lonely-in-love Joyce felt so realistic, and impressively annoying to the point that her intolerable behavior is a treat to watch. And there isn't a scratch to be found on Depp's performance as Edward. While Edward's character isn't based on sharp wit, it's hard to find a person who can play someone so alone and innocent, desperately trying hard to fit in despite his off-putting handicap.

And might I add that the costume design was quite excellent? I'm not just saying this for Depp's costume. The hairstyles, the clothes, everything felt either humble and carefree or self-absorbant depending on the character. Everyone payed attention to what they wore in this setting.

Edward Scissorhands is the movie that really put Johnny Depp into the spotlight, and rightfully so. I was amazed by it the first time I had ever seen it and I still am. The visual charm, the diverse characters, the wonderful acting, and the romantic tension are all so powerful that by the end, one can't wait to watch it again. Or, at least this might be true for big Burton fans. If you want a good movie just for some Tim Burton charm, this is a serious contender.

The Flintstones (1994) - Directed by Brian Levant

"Yabba-dabba-doo!"

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/B8...s=w397-h590-no

The thing about live-action film adaptations of cartoon shows is that you have to walk a very fine line between the real and the fictional, knowing when to balance the two and when to place more emphasis on one or the other. But you must also be able to stay true to the source material, which is something that a lot of movies fail at. For The Flintstones, it's a bit different. The representation of the cartoon was nearly perfect, but the emphasis on the real or the fictional was two strong multiple times.

This infamous adaptation follows everyone's favorite caveman, Fred Flintstone, as he ends up being promoted to the vice persident of the company he works for. But what Fred doesn't realize is that not only did he get there because Barney secretly owed him a favor, but that he's being used in a conspiracy to fire a bunch of his buddies and steal a bunch of money.

I'm going to go over the problems with the move first. The biggest problem is the plot. Instead of keeping it simple like the cartoon, the movie makes the fatal mistake of being all about what is likely THE single most boring subject any kid could ever hear about: business. That's most of the plot.

Second, the movie has a few miscasts. While every actor in this film is a good one, Elizabeth Taylor doesn't look at all like Wilma's mother, while the rest of the cast looks almost exactly like their counterparts. Second, Rosie O'Donnell as Betty Rubble? Who's zero-watt stone age idea was that? Hell, I would've rather picked Winona Ryder!

But I'll be very frank. I love the cartoon, and I am glad that the spirit of The Flintstones was copied nearly perfectly. John Goodman shines as Fred Flintstone in an almost scary clone of him that keeps the movie going, with the only problem being that he was a little more stupid. The rest of the cast (who I didn't criticize) fit the Bedrock bill perfectly as well. And personally I thought crappy CGI dinosaurs were a real charmer as well as the Jim Henson Dinosaurs style puppets.

The level of cartoon insanity was also a clear and refreshing charm of the movie. If movies like Transformers and Masters of the Universe are an indication, it's that a lot of the time people are trying to hard to be modernized and realistic. I can't even begin to describe the horrors of the live-action Sonic the Hedgehog. We don't get that with the Flintstones. We get most of the bedrock we know and love.

So this movie will be really love it or hate it, especially if you're a Flintstones fan. I thought i was decent, and I'll let you decide your love level for yourself. You can call it a modern piece of cacve-art, or you can let it be buried in the rubble.

Fight Club (1999) - Directed by David Fincher

"The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is: you DO NOT talk about Fight Club!"

https://media-cache.cinematerial.com...vie-poster.jpg

David Fincher is slowly becoming on of my favorite movie directors. I've seen three of his movies: Alien 3, Se7en, and Fight Club, in that order. What I love about him is his ability to go very in-depth into the very soul of psyche, what makes us who we are. Psychological dramas and thrillers are one of my favorite genres, and I get underwhelmed if there isn't enough analysis in a psychological drama. Otherwise, it's just a drama. And I have not seen a psychological drama go more in-depth than Fight Club, a movie that already had to compete with the terrifically terrifying Se7en.

Fight Club is a novel-based film about an insomniac who's been joining support groups to relieve his stress, but is in trouble again when a woman starts doing the same thing he's been doing. Eventually, he meets an easy-going and philosophical soap maker who claims to be everything this insomniac wants to be, and convinces him to start a club for fighting to relieve stress. But this so called club soon turns into a violent gang, and the gang soon turns into a cult that plans to bring society to its knees.

Now what I'm about to say may upset you: There's is a serious plot twist near the end. Now what I'm going to say next might piss you off: I knew the twist of the movie before actually watching it. This helped me see the movie in two lights so I could deliver a proper analysis. The whole movie, narrated by Edward Norton, is about the Narrators journey into his own mind, his own chaos, and the world around them slowly being altered by his "friends," his psyche, and his uncertainty of the future. His need to control things manifests into a false form of freedom which is slowly taking control of the world in a new light.

Not only does the movie boast an incredible evolution of the character and the world around him (as well as that farther away but influenced by him and his friend), but the movie has other strong points. The most notable strong point is FIncher's love of unique cinematography, turning simple CGi moments into twisted and surrealist moments of almost uncomfortable ecstacy that drives the audience to keep guessing at what's going to happen next, even if they flat-out tell you.

And I'm not going to end this without bringing up the acting. My personal favorite cast member was Helena Bonham Carter, who's performance as poverty-mistress Marla was a reminder that reality is what the insomniac is facing even in his own little world, seemingly effortless portraying the stress and uncertainty that mirrors the Narrator's own. And Norton's role as the Narrator/insomniac felt all too convincing to be written off as an act. In fact, both Carter and Norton made Brad Pitt's wonderful performance as the soap maker Tyler look like a little kid mimicking Mickey Mouse. And then, of all things, there's pop rock musician Meat Loaf playing a former bodybuilder coping with testicular cancer, on who appears on and off in the movie. That was a great role, too.

But one thing I notice about Fight Club is the same thing I noticed in Se7en: the need to make an adult movie without resorted to countless moments of sex, blood and language. I think Fincher has a habit of providing social, maybe political and psychological commentary in almost brutally honest ways, taking these adult topics we mistake for maturity into consideration and turning them into either examples of the horrors we face in this world, or turning our habit to mistake these things for real adulthood into mental extremes. Fight Club is an example of how we lust for the things that are considered adult, but are in truth terrible for us. When Tyler wants the Narrator to ease up and let go of a need to control everything, he himself is controlling things more than the Narrator realizes.

Fight Club is my favorite movie of the 90's. The twists, the characters, and the analysis of our modern interpretations of the modern world are all put to their limit without being overdone, and skillfully filmed and directed in an almost surrealist manner. This movie stood out more than sore thumbs, more like shiners and scars on a man's face after entering the Fight Club.

Re: The Godfather, and Other Cinematic Tales
 

Don't forget to comment on the movies reviewed an the reviews in general, because I'd love to hear your feedback.

Scarface (1983) - Directed by Brain De Palma

"The world is yours!"

https://www.movieposter.com/posters/...in/12/A70-6300

I easily find myself attracted to gangster movies, not for the violence or for the plots, but for the retribution and comeuppance of those that commit these terrible acts of violence and deception. I think one of the greatest examples of characters that get these in the end is without a doubt Tony Montana, A.K.A. Scarface.

In the loose 1983 remake of a classic 1930's gangster flick, Scarface centers around Tony Montana, a Cuban immigrant who's hiding away from Fidel Castro in Miami, Florida. As Montana rises up the ranks of gangster-hood, he becomes further set about from the world he claims to own, and puts those he loves but doesn't trust in more danger. And the world he owns will betray him after he breaks a taboo among gangsters: he got high on his own supply.

I saw this classic Brian De Palma film (and the first of his movies I've seen) because I've heard mixed things about it. And though I don't deny it's classic status, I believe it's a fair bit overrated. The movie has a lot of strong points and iconic scenes, so it's a hard movie to complain about. But those that see its problems might see scars on the face of the movie as well as Al Pacino.

I'll start with the strengths. First strength: Al Pacino's acting. I always expect a good job from Al Pacino. Ever since I first viewed The Godfather and his role as Michael Corleone, I never considered he'd do a bad job in a gangster movie or a drama. So far, I haven't been dissappointed. The other actors were mostly good, but since the movie focused on Tony Montana, there wasn't a lot of room for most of the cast, even Michelle Pfeiffer.

Second strength: Brian De Palma's direction. There wasn't any flaw in his cinematography. Every scene was perfectly placed, starting from the beginning to the dramatic end. I expected that, to be honest. Brian De Palma is a classic director, and many consider this his best movie.

Third strength: The plot. Watching Tony Montana's character shift from a caring person to a total ass is an interesting evolution when you look at the way he affects the world around him. Plus, one interesting thing after another just keeps punching the audience in a powerful manner.

Fourth Strength: The quotes. There are a lot of fantastic quotes about life, the world, gangsters, etc. I would watch this movie again just for the quotes alone.

Fifth strength: The sets. Gangster movies need great sets. Without them, they feel more like a typical crime movie. It's rare to have a fantastic gangster movie with minimal sets, like Reservoir Dogs. The mansions in this film are beautiful, and the Florida scenery is phenomenal. It's a beautifully filmed movie with beautiful places. And these strengths encompass some of the most important things in filmmaking in my eyes, so I'll still give it a high rating.

Now I'll go into the cons. First con: The f-bombs. I know I just praised the quotes, but I never said the dialogue as a whole was perfect. Even Pfeiffer asked him if he could stop saying that. It's hard to appreciate most of the dialogue of the central/titular figure when every fifth word's the f-bomb. It gets very tiresome very quickly.

Second con: The soundtrack. I'm sorry, but I just don't think a gangster drama needs a Giorgio Moroder soundtrack. I understand it's an 80's movie that's set in the... 80's, but this is Scarface, not Footloose.

Third con: The character development. This isn't like The Godfather where the world around the central figure affects him and evolves him, because then you can get away with little to know character development, in part because of careful foreshadowing. This is about Tony Montana affecting the world around him, and the characters don't get a lot of screen time in comparison to him. Some of them are generic. For example, Gina is a stereotypical irresponsible little sister who gets a little annoying. What really sets Sosa aside from other gangsters?

Fourth con: I don't like Tony Montana. Shouldn't the main character be a bit more likable? He starts out as a little bit of an ass, but he jut gets worse and worse! If I want to spend three hours with a guy the movie places too much emphasis on, I'd at least want to feel like I can have a beer with him.

Well, overall, Scarface is a great movie. But for a first-time view, I CANNOT call it five-stars at all. Tony himself was a bit of a scar on the movie. But at least the rest of the surface is pretty enough to enjoy a fine gangster movie. Anybody who wants a typical great gangster movie should check this out, but I warn you: Tony Montana is a dick the size of a flagpole. He might want to live the American Dream, but he certainly was not a dream come true. But it has some wonderful strengths which rival that of Coppola and Scorsese films, so there's that.

Come and See (1985) - Directed by Elem Klimov

"You can't join the partisans without a gun."

http://br.web.img3.acsta.net/r_1280_...9/20472234.jpg

I might have brought this up before, but I'm a war movie fan. While I'm still lacking in movie-going quantity, I'm addicted to war-film quality. That's why I checked out this obscure but classic Russian movie called Come and See, the final film directed by Elem Klimov before he got bored with cinema.

Come and See is a stressful war drama about a sixteen-year-old boy who joins a Soviet resistance during World War II. And as the pains of war dig deeper into his mind, he loses himself.

This was a movie that was hard for me to love in one area of filmmaking, but dreadfully easy in others. I'll get that criticism out of the way: I'm addicted to character development, and the development her was minimal for most of the cast.

However, I have never seen an anti-war movie like this. I mean, it's not Grave of the Fireflies, but it's very powerful and heartbreaking. This is exactly what war does to people. Here we have a wonderfully acted teenager hoping for glory and action in the battlefields of war, an yet as soon as he does, one thing leads to another to turn him into a pain-stricken zombie soldier who eventually can't be told apart from any other partisan. The movie is often classified as a psychological drama, but this doesn't come from any dialogue like in most psych-dramas and thrillers.

The power of the anti-war movie and the psychological drama are all told through the incredible cinematography an story development that turn this from a piece of cruel reality to a nightmare you can't wake up from. This movie describes a word I learned recenly: oneiroid, taking the Greek word from dream. It means, "dream-like." This movie is like that, but it's not a Lynchian dream sequence with confusin plot twists. No, this is a nightmare where you know what terrible things are going to happene eventually. Because that's what war is: a living nightmare. And there may not be any other movies that fit that bill as perfectly as Come and See. Even the Mozart music had a serious effect on the terror the story and camera placed.

Come and See isn't a bloody movie, but it certainly is not for the faint-hearted. This is one of the most disturbing and distressing movies one may ever see for its situations alone. It stands out because of that, and because of its oneiroid playout. What a benchmark in Russian cinema!

Tower Heist (2011) - Directed by Brett Ratner

"A robbery can change very quickly."

https://d1imv0kbea7zlf.cloudfront.ne...Aq0umdT543.jpg

It's a shame about Ben Stiller. I've been a fan of him for years, but many of his more recent movies just haven't been that great at all. It's a shame he's not far from becoming another Adam Sandler, because it feels like he'll star in anything. It probably wasn't the best idea to put him of all people in a crime comedy, because with him and Eddie Murphy behind the wheel, I expected this decent movie to be a lot better.

Tower Heist is a crime-com about an apartment manager who finds out his boss has been embezzling money from the company, including everyone's pensions. Furious at his boss, he gathers a bunch of fellow employees and a local convict to steal from his rich boss while the man is under house arrest until the trial starts.

Now, I liked the story quite a bit. It had a lot of potential to be something great, had a few decent twists, and a great ending with a high moral standard despite the attempted theft by the main characters. What happened to Ben Stiller's character at the end of the film felt right, just perfectly in line.

There were parts about the movie that were well filmed and directed, and parts that weren't. I guess it all depended on what was necessary. The direction was usually fine during the dramatic parts, an a little underwhelming during the comedy.

And speaking of the comedy, this movie wasn't funny enough. For those who don't know, the director, Brett Ratner, directed the Rush Hour trilogy. And even with Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy as major characters, there just wasn't enough humor. The dialogue was just fine except for the lack of great gags. There was a fair share of chuckles, but that's it. It's great to see Eddie Murphy acting like a crazy, obsessive criminal since we see Eddie Murphy doing the thing that made him famous in the first place: be humorously pretentious. But there's not much else alongside that.

In the end, Tower Heist has its strong points, but they may be tainted by the flaws. Depending on what you're paying attenion to, you might not be bored. Just don't expect the funniest movie ever.

Won't You Be My Neighbor? (2018) - Directed by Morgan Neville

"The greatest thing that we can do is to help somebody know that they're loved and capable of loving."

http://www.polecamfilm.pl/obrazy/film/103836_w1.jpg

The best thing about documentaries is not the amount of true information or the art of direction. It's how much the movie makes you feel something for the subject in question. This is more true for biographical docs than any other kind.And the best example of this would probably be a movie about the work and messages of one of the most wonderful and loving/lovable men who ever lived: Fred Rogers.

Won't You Be My Neighbor is a recount of the life and work of Fred Rogers, known for his hit children's series, Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. As the film goes deep into the history of the series, it also recounts the ground-breaking morale content, Rogers' contributions to society, and his ability to love people even when in sadness.

I watched the show often when I was a toddler, but elementary school is the era of being obligated to grow out of puppets other than Kermit. So I had no fanhood left when I watched this. And when it was done, I felt nothing but absolute love and respect for this man. This is not only one of the most informative documentaries I've ever seen, but one of the most eye-opening and touching.

Althroughout the movie, we got to see that the real Mr. Rogers was not a joint-smoking alter-ego for a television icon (did you know Barney is a tantric sexpert? Yikes.) No. Anyone who saw the show was looking at the real deal, even if he was using handpuppets. The characters he played we occasionally pieces of his own personality, and the topics he would cover are almost brutal in truth but handled lightly throughout the show. Those who worked with him were amazed to see him do things like that, and I was amazed when I realized he in a way was his own show. This man had a moral code more impressive than any man I have met in my life.

To see Fred Rogers' history in pictures was almost overwhelming. What happened in his life to lead to these things? This was a man who could spread the real messages of peace and love everywhere. He was even able to convince Richard Nixon's people who wanted to pull funding from children's television that children's television was a great thing if done right. And Rogers did it right.

There is so much moral content to take from this film, all worth it. The whole world can learn a thing or two from Mr. Rogers, and the basis of his show is much more powerful in this film to the point where I want to watch the show in my age just for the moral standards of this man alone. This level of emotion through morals and truth makes this currently the greatest documentary I've ever seen. It took the year 2018 to do it.

The Game (1997) - Directed by David Fincher

"Discovering the object of the game is the object of the game."

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pr...9I=w530-h715-p

Every so often, a man's gotta do something unique to really stand out from the crowd. It's a hard thing to do when it feels like all of the ideas have been done before, and it's even harder to do when you're pulling pieces from different stories. In the end, it's sometimes best to let things turn into a real mindwarp so a level of interest can be obtained. David Fincher's The Game is a fairly unique experience with an unexpected and happy (if not underwhelming) ending and a twisting and twisted story.

David Fincher's third film is about a rich investment banker who's brother gives him a voucher for a company that makes unique "life-changing" games for those who apply. But after the game starts, this banker finds himself the center of a series of pranks which soon turn into a scandal involving his friends, enemies, and even complete strangers who are in on it.

The Game is a part of Fincher's history of mindwarps, and the mindwarping starts from the very beginning of the film, similarly to Se7en. However, the build up is much slower than Se7en, a movie that thrills a man from the beginning in a dark and gross way. But the story does manage to get more and more interesting until the very end, where the ending, while happy, doesn't really seem fit for a thriller. A psychological movie? Sure. But not a thriller.

With all of that said, I've never seen a story quite like this. The twists and turns the movie took all felt right, as if there could not have been any more fitting piece in the puzzle. And I'm going to point out that the acting in the movie was nothing short of exceptional. The fear the characters felt, as well as the knowledge and discoveries of the twists and how the characters react seemed authentic. This is one of the most well-acted movies of the 90's. And the dialogue matched. It's actually a very quotable movie when you get down to it.

The only serious complaint I have about the movie is the music. It was dull throughout, and did nothing to help the atmosphere of the film (except for Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit.") Howard Shore has made some incredible music over the years, so I expected much more from him. But it was lame.

The Game is a fun movie for what it's worth, but it's not one of Fincher's best. It makes for a good series of plot twists, like Twin Peaks, but unlike that show, the suspense often gets waned down by underwhelming music and cinematography. For a thriller, it could have been more thrilling, but as a psychological movie, it's fairly well done.

Pulp FIction (1994) - Directed by Quentin Tarantino

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....FL._SY741_.jpg

Is Pulp Fiction really one of the greatest movies of all time, and a landmark in modern cinema as well as a stepping stone for the independent industry? Or is it just seriously overhyped by people with a Rated-R fetish for sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll? There are many reasons to consider this a flop. I see criticism of this movie quite often in many common forms. But I have to disagree, because I understood the movie and its hype the first time I ever saw it. Pulp Fiction is easily one of the greatest movies of the 1990's.

Pulp Fiction is an anthology of connected stories involving a day in the lives of everyday ********. You've got (now imagine this to the theme of Gilligan's Island) the black hitman, and his best friend, the big crime boss, and his wife, the boxing man, the pumpkin and his honey bun robbing restauraaaants! Each of these people have their own story to tell, and they're only barely connected in a day in the life of crime.

No wonder there's all the criticism. The stories are all out of chronological order, starting in the middle of the whole story and ending at about the same place. The dialogue doesn't have a bunch of philosophical one-liners or anything, with the most philosophical line being a bible verse that lasts about five sentences long and may be hard to memorize. Jackson drops f-bombs like the army at the beginning of the movie, so there's that.

But there's something people are missing. There's a reason why the mocie's called "Pulp Fiction." That's not a title Tarantino pulled out of his ass, no. The movie is supposed to carry resenbliences to pulp fiction magazines. You know, adult oriented comics that handle "lurid subject matter?" They could have many different unrelated stories. If this were a movie that just had a bunch of unrelated stories, would it be any different from another anthology movie? Would it stand out? Not to mention, the cost of having to hire more and more actors who may or may not even be any good would be a problem. And if the movie was told in chronological order, it would only be worse. It's the responsibility of the audience to pick and choose certain things from each story to hold onto as you progress through the film. By this logic, the story-writing of Pulp Fiction is clever and well-placed. And it stands out from other crime movies. This was the best decision Tarantino ever made in his history as a director.

As far as other strengths go, the acting was extraordinary. This movie was a real comeback for John Travolta, who got to relive a little of his Saturday Night Fever/Grease days by having a dance with Uma Thurman. And Samuel L. Jckson never shined brighter than he did in this movie. I've seen plenty of Jackson films, and this is definitely his best role. His story, like Bruce Willis' story, is about living a morally crappy life and finding the path to redemption, probably indicating a great change in his life. The same can't be said for Vincent Vega/John Travolta. If you've seen the movie, you know what I mean. Excellent mirroring and foreshadowing, if you ask me.

Yes, there's a good deal of f-bombs in Pulp Fiction. But the truth is, some people do talk like that, and the movie isn't flooded with characters like that. It's loosely based on pulp fiction magazines, so expect a more violent and adult approach to the everyday life of a group of criminals, junkies, etc. Plus, there are a lot of quotes to take away from it just because the quotes are things you don't normally hear, and their occasionally funny. I mean, do you really think the only thing on a hitman's mind is murder? If he wants to talk about what big macs are called in Europe, I think anybody can do that.

There are tiny little flaws throughout the movie which barely mean anything if you ask me. For one, you can barely see a bullet hole before anyone shoots in that direction. And Quentin Tarantino's acting is pretty lame, but he only has five minutes of screen time, so it's not like Keanu Reeves' role in Dracula or Sofia Coppola's role in The Godfather: Part III (sorry, Francis.) This little flaws are so minor that I just don't pay attention to them.

Another one of my favorite things about Pulp Fiction is the soundtrack. Everyone who knows cinema knows that Tarantino likes to use classic radio hits in intentional lue of a soundtrack composer, so instead of using music to build up suspenseful moods, you get the realistic approach and have no music at all during these suspenseful moments. I'm a huge music fan myself, so that's something I can easily get behind.

Pulp Fiction is both treasured by the world, and misunderstood. I'm a proud member of the "treasured by the world" scene, as I am with Roots by Sepultura, another polarized piece of art. This movie is unique, unintentionally quotable, memorable, brilliantly acted, and definitely in a league of its own. And I'll add it's actually not quite as graphic as some people have let on. Kill Bill, Vol. 1 is way worse. And to be clear, just so you know I'm not one of those "the bloodier, the better" guys, you can oftentimes find me watching Aladdin just for the fun of it, because I still love kids movies. But if you're over 18 and don't let crime and what not bother you, consider checking this out sometime.

Re: The Godfather, and Other Cinematic Tales
 

Think we have similar ratings on the movies we've both covered, Keyser.
I think the only one I'd rate totally differently is Black Panther. You had a where I'd mark it down to about . Not one of the MCU's best for me, I found it kinda boring, but, it's just my opinion. It's not as bad as Thor or Thor The Dark World, but it was pretty bland for me.


Liked your RoboCop review too, and, in the last line you mentioned the remake, I would certainly like to see your thoughts on that God-awful pile of garbage :D

Alien (1979) - Directed by Ridley Scott

"Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility."

https://images.complex.com/complex/i...izgyd0hf/alien

Making a horror movie must be one of the most daunting tasks ever for the constantly thinning amount of original or good scares one can attempt. The idea that you can make an original horror movie has been scoffed at for decades. But new thrills can be made with new special effects, and new story elements.

In the classic era of horror, we didn't have the right kinds of special effects for space travel and what not, and monsters were even harder to make. But in the mid-60's, Star Trek gave us some answers, and science fiction had been taking a massive turn for the better. It was about time someone put together another good sci-fi horror movie sometime after the original 1950's Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and the once young prodigy Ridley Scott gave us an answer to all of that with a new kind of space opera that left chills of many kinds down peoples' spines for the last few decades: Alien.

This classic late-60's horror film tells a horror story beyond anything you've heard around a campfire. As a spacefreighter receives a signal from a dead planet in the middle of nowhere, the crew awakens from their hypersleep to investigate. But when an alien creature is brought on board for studies, it quickly evolves into a terrifying monster that none of them understand... or have a chance against.

I first saw this movie during my teen years, and this along with its sequel are two of my favorite movies. this movie really stands out from the other horror movies I've seen for its constant build-up and its dark atmosphere so chillingly ethereal that it's overpowering. Right from the beginning, one gets the signal that the film is going to take a turn for the worst quickly. And right after the opening credits have finished, it does. And while the film leaves certain questions unanswered, the ease one gets from the ending after the constant horror leaves a man satisfied.

The sets in this film are extraordinary, as well as the alien's costume design. It's hard to find sets this realistic in a sci-fi movie, and sets so chilling and uneasy in horror or sci-fi! Star Trek's been trying. H.R. Giger was the man responsible for one of the most iconic (and hardest to draw!) monsters in motion pictures. The different abilities and the evolution of the monster all fit very well within the film's weird theme: believe it or not, it's the horrors of sex and it's mistreatment! Whoa. Who wouldn't thought a xenomorph was a penismorph? But if you know about Giger's history with Dead Kennedys, it's no surprise. I think people really underestimate this movie's status as a "monster movie" like vampire and werewolf flicks, but this thing's a lot scarier than those.

The music has it's own part to play in the chills as well. The film has a soundtrack that starts out nice and pretty, but eventually starts getting all the more creepy as the alien evolves into a real monster. The man responsible is Jerry Goldsmith bringing us one of his greatest film scores in his whole history, and one of the greatest of horror films. And it pairs perfectly with Scott's sense of cinemotagraphy. Blade Runner and Alien are proof that he loves slow building, and slow building may work better for Alien than for any movie.

And finally: the acting. The film features Sigourney Weaver as Lt. Ellen Ripley (the lead character of the series, also known by fans as "the bitch,"), and also features Tom Skerrit, John Hurt, Iam Holm (a favorite), Veronica Cartwright of the 1978 film, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and more. While the cast isn't quite as well developed and memorable as the marines from the sequel, the cast of Alien clearly put their hearts into the roles as they all deliver their characters effortlessly. Sigourney Weaver is a real show-stealer, even as she goes head-to-head with Ian Holm. Who can go head-to-head with Ian Holm? This was one of the most well-put together casts of the 70's, and it's scary that Aliens had a better cast. The only flaw this movie has is not having enough development for the characters.

Alien is one of the greatest movies ever made, no doubt. It's a serious chill thrill, the scenery and cinemotagraphy are incredible, it's very ethereal, and it has a brilliant cast. This movie doesn't really on countless sex, violence or f-bombs, and stands out among the sci-fi and horror crowd as something people can't write off as another classic piece of horror cheese, setting a new example for what you can do with sci-fi horror and taking one big leap for horror-kind from classic 50's pieces The Day the Earth Stood Still. I recommend this for anybody who just likes movies in general.



Review requested by SeeingisBelieving

War and Peace, Part 1: Andrei Bolkonsky (1966) - Directed by Sergei Bondarchuk

"I know of only two real evils in life: remorse and sickness. And happiness is the absence of those two evils."

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/...02,500_AL_.jpg


When I first heard of the 1966 Russian film adaptation of War and Peace, I had read that it was a seven-hour film. I took it as a challenge (I passed this challenge before with a live Grateful Dead album and Satantango), but when I heard it was four movies spread across seven hours of total time, I lost some of that interest. I tried the first movie, anyway, expecting it to be bothersome in one way or another. But it only got better and better, and eventually my eyes were practically glued.

This faithful adaptation of the classic epic novel follows two main characters: Andrei Bolkonsky, son of a Russian general, and his best friend Pierre Bezukhov, an illegitimate son of a rich nobleman. When Pierre inherits his father's entire estate, and Andrei goes to join the battle against Napoleon Bonaparte, both of their worlds turn into a battle for true happiness as they struggle to find what they want from life. But before finding that, they have to find what life means.

The movie was beautifully shot from the get-go. I didn't even know people could do that with a camera back in the mid-60's. I mean, I expected some quality to come from the filmmaking in one way or another (this is a Mosfilm release, after all), but the cinematography brought in an epic, dreamy, and yet somehow dramatic kind of beauty that hypnotized me on occasion. If you asked me for great examples of cinematography, I'd give you this as one of my first recommendations.

But the real beauty of the film is how accurately the characters are portrayed as soul-searchers lost in the midway point between the horrors of the real world and the imbalance of their own little worlds. As the film is narrated by these two characters, one must wonder what it is they really want. And buy the end of the film, it seems like they have it figured out. But one can still only guess, because the ending of this film is really only a quarter of the way there! And while the dialogue and acting were incredible, the writing of the two characters was the real catcher.

One goal of a movie adaptation is to get the audience interested in the book. I'm hella interested in the novel. War and Peace is one of the most skillfully crafted international movies I've ever seen, and I'm greatly looking forward to the last three parts. The last three aren't over two hours like this one, but I know I'll be entertained. I know War and Peace is like the longest novel ever written, but like I said with that Grateful Dead album and Satantango: "Challenge accepted!"

Pearl Harbor (2001) - Directed by Michael Bay

"Because of this unprovoked, dastardly attack by Japan, I ask that the congress declare a state of War."

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjrDpFhVAAA23PF.jpg

War movies are something I've had an eye for ever since I was eleven. Believe it or not, it was the 45-minute war scene in Pearl Harbor that kindled my love for war movies. But as a romance movie, there's hardly anything to be kindled, and Pearl Harbor relies on love triangles and cheesy love letters more than it does on the attack itself.

The drama based on the true and terrible event in American history shows two childhood friends joining the Air Force right on the verge of Word War II. When one soldier (Ben Affleck) leaves his new love interest (Kate Beckinsale) to join in real fighting, he's mistaken for dead and his friend (Josh Hartnett) ends up in a relationship with the girl. When he returns, the three are locked in a love triangle right on the verge of World War II's beginning: the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

WOW, what a cheesy romance movie. You should hear the love poems sent between Affleck and Beckinsale. Actually, no. Don't. That's two minutes of your life you'll never get back. And it has a very familiar love triangle story that doesn't do anything for a story based on an American tragedy. While the film is fairly well acted, you don't know very much about the characters other than this love triangle going on, when the movie was brimming with potential for well developed and lovable characters. This is especially true for Alec Baldwin's role as historical figure Jimmy Doolittle.

But like most people say (and I agree), the forty minute war scene, the attack on Pearl Harbor, is without a doubt one of the most well-directed action scenes I have ever seen. It's phenomenal. It's almost worth getting through the three-hour love-romp just to watch this scene. The production values are incredible, the stress is real (unlike the romance), and the characters shine at their brightest when acting.

But the story is oh so incredibly predictable. It's a simple love story with simple characters, and believe it or not, when I caught an hour and a half of it on TV when I was eleven, when the big plot twist before the last fight scene came up, I knew exactly how the movie was going to end. No surprise, and I was a crappy critic back then.

Pearl Harbor is an extremely passable epic war movie only made partially worth the three hours by its wonderful was scene. Michael Bay has the potential to be an amazing director, and he squanders it severely. His Transformers days really began with this movie, and it's a shame he didn't put the same care into the war scene as he did with the characters and story.

Re: Keyser Corleone's Movie Memoirs
 

What's surprising with Pearl Harbor, is that it doesn't matter how realistic and shocking the battle scenes were, or how well put together the choreography was... it's that the movie tries so hard to make you care for the characters, and yet you end up absolutely hating them. Especially Beckinsale.
I reviewed this as well a while back, rated it 12%

Re: Keyser Corleone's Movie Memoirs
 

I seen Pearl Harbor I can't remember much except it was very average for me. I like war films too, I haven't seen many new war films that are decent. I can't say I would want to watch anything from Michael Bay again. What other war films have you seen that you really liked?

That would be a 20% rating wouldn't it?

Re: Keyser Corleone's Movie Memoirs
 

Think I might have posted this in my own reviews thread at some point... here's how I compare my own reviews that I do out of 100, to MoFo's Popcorns:


0%
1-10%
11-20%
21-30%
31-40%
41-50%
51-60%
61-70%
71-80%
81-90%
91-100%

Re: Keyser Corleone's Movie Memoirs
 

I forgot actually, I do occasionally chuck out a magic rating which is still a on MoFo... a magical 101%.
It's usually reserved for special movies like Saving Private Ryan or Pan's Labyrinth etc.

Re: Keyser Corleone's Movie Memoirs
 

I love war movies. My favorites from best to worst so far would probably be


Apocalypse Now
Full Metal Jacket
Schindler's List
Ran
Return of the King
Lawrence of Arabia
War and Peace Pt. 1
Braveheart
Princess Mononoke
Saving Private Ryan
Two Towers
Dr. Strangelove
Platoon
Ivan's Childhood
Come and See


And those are just the five-star movies.

Re: Keyser Corleone's Movie Memoirs
 

You should check out Brian De Palma's Casualties Of War (1989).

My Man Godfrey (1936) - Directed by Gregory La Cava

"What kind of family am I up against?"

https://pics.filmaffinity.com/My_Man...6058-large.jpg

I really need to get used to dated movies more. The thing is, I don't want to review just good movies, but bad ones. So reviewing lesser ranking movies from before the 60's is a bit hard because they end up feeling dated, something I'm trying to get a grip on. But I'm going to keep trying for the 1930's, so I decided to follow the footsteps of the people here and check out a recently talked about movie on my favorite film forum: My Man Godfrey, one of the earliest talking screwball comedies.

The riotous dramedy centers around a bum, or "forgotten man," who's hired by a compulsive rich girl after being put on display. The bum soon realizes the family he's working for is as dysfunctional as a poorly wired kitchen. But unlike all the other butlers who would let the craziness drive them mad as well, this new butler isn't scared one bit, not even at the many attempts at romantic tension by the very girl who hired him.

From the get-go, I was entertained. The opening credits sequence is a show full of bright lightbulbs spelling out the cast and crew, and shows a dazzle similar to the rich lifestyle the film portrays. And that's only the intro.

The real glory of the film comes from lead man William Powell and his perfectly-played role as Godfrey the forgotten man, who exchanges careful, witty dialogue as quickly as the Road Runner turns Wile E. Coyote's own attempts at harm upon himself. Godfrey makes a fine butler, not getting too deep into people's business and always finding the careful way around things.

And the family he works for is almost like something out of a cartoon! The mother is a ditz who's scene in bed when she's being fed her morning drink was so funny I nearly had to pause to get over it. It's easily my favorite part of the movie. And we have another butler who is, somehow, surprisingly good at immitating a gorilla. Wacko. I might as well have been watching The Flintstones.

But a problem I have with the movie is that it occasionally forgets being a comedy in place of a story, leading the two biggest features in this movie to often separate instead of combine as they should. And for a rom-com, it's not as rom as it should have been barely exploring the romance in the film as just another running gag. With that said, I love the last fifteen minutes of the film. It was a wonderful ending.

Basically, while I find My Man Godfrey a little overrated, it's still a fun movie which I'd be quick to watch again if other old movies weren't so high on my to-do list. It's a very good example of what screwball comedies should really be like: disturbingly real when you consider how wacky people can get instead of just being idiots like in the Dumb and Dumber sequels.

Good review of My Man Godfrey! and glad to see you liked it:)

It's the kind of movie that gets better with each watch. I watched it when I was first getting into films and liked it but didn't love it. My first watch would have gave a rating of . But on my second watch the genius of both the script and the actors bumped my opinion up to a . Then when I watched the fully restored version that had been digitally colored I even noticed more fine nuances and my opinion went up even higher. So if you get a chance, watch this one again. And if you pursue watching classic films from Hollywood's Golden Age, try also watching commentary tracks, those can be invaluable at learning what the earlier film makers were trying to achieve.

Check this page from BFI on early Screwball Comedies. Watch all of those and you'll quickly become well versed in these gems.:)

Re: Keyser Corleone's Movie Memoirs
 

I noticed people love the very old ones a lot more. It makes sense, considering what passes as a comedy these days is a Mel Brooks rip-off.

Ace in the Hole (1951) - Directed by Billy Wilder

"I can handle big news and little news. And if there's no news, I'll go out and bite a dog."

https://cdn.cinematerial.com/p/500x/...vie-poster.jpg

Billy Wilder is a name that grabs me for some reason. It's not his status as one of the greatest classic film directors, or the fact that he switches from noir to comedy on occasion, but it's all about his style and presence. You can do pretty much anything with movies no matter what crowd you want to attract and say, "I was influenced by Billy Wilder." That rings true for anyone influenced by one of the more famous newspaper stories in cinema: Ace in the Hole.

This classic piece of "film gris" stars Kirk Douglas as a show-off newspaper writer who's been in a dead end job for a year until he sees a golden opportunity when a man gets trapped in a supposedly cursed mountain. And when he goes in to help the man, he stalls the rescue long enough to make it big in the paper's, totally oblivious to the fact he may be putting that man in more danger.

I do not feel I have to point out how well directed the movie was. This is Billy Wilder we're talking about; there's hardly a better man with a camera's eye view like Billy Wilder. The whole time, the cameraman is taking the absolute best shot he can get, and the music is playing along with the camera's game flawlessly.

The story is so well developed I'd love a sequel if ever possible. One thing after another spells either good luck or bad news for all of the major cast members, especially between Kirk Douglas' character Tatum and Lorraine, the woman who's unsure of her convictions. The twists at the end of the movie made this one of the most memorable sad endings I have ever seen, and I usually hate sad endings.

But there's a problem: while the cast was fantastic, they're a bit one-sided. I mean, what we have here is yet another self-centered newsman slowly growing a heart after living a few days in a not-so-humbling success, his sidekick who does nothing but be a young ward, an independent woman who thinks a simple scam-of-kindness is a love letter, and another corrupt sheriff. No imagination, even though they managed to fit in the story snugly.

I don't think Ace in the Hole could ever be remade, because there are a lot of strengths about it. I would rank it a five-star film if the characters had more imagination. Still, if you wanna make a "Best movies of the 50's" list or whatever, you should check this out because it has an amazing performance by Kirk Douglas.

Avengers (2012) - Directed by Joss Whedon

"The Avengers. That's what we call ourselves. We're sort of like a team. "Earth's Mightiest Heroes" type thing."

https://kintin.files.wordpress.com/2...gersposter.jpg

Stan Lee, comic book genius and creator of many of the world's mightiest heroes, passed away today on November 12, 2018. he was 95, and lived a life full of success, love, and fame. He was one of the men responsible for the true success of Marvel Comics, and his creations have had man incarnations in other forms of media, like television and film.

The thing is, for a long time, superhero movies were hard to make due to their logical impossibilities like superpowers/dimensions/technology that was hard to recreate on film. Because of this, the comic book company that ran that specific movie industry was DC due to the success of simple heroes like Superman and Batman being brought to successful Warner Bros. films. We had Spider-Man related TV movies, an unreleased Fantastic Four movie in the 90's, a cheesy Punisher film, I could go on.

But since the release of 2000's X-Men, superhero movies met with a new standard, and Batman was out of the depths of cheesy Schumacher films, an Fantastic Four and Punisher were given other opportunities with no success. Spider-Man had a successful trilogy and a revival, and a Daredevil movie did poorly. But in 2008, The Dark Knight met with a serious contender: Iron Man, the first movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe which was followed by The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger, and finally, the movie I will review today in honor of Stan Lee: The Avengers.

After the events of the first five installments of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, super-soldier Steve Rogers/Captain America, weapon's specialist billionaire turned robot-suit pioneer Tony Stark/Iron Man, mutated fugitive scientist Bruce Banner/Hulk and Asgardian demigod Thor are called into action by S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Nick Fury to assemble a team that can fight off an alien invasion. But this isn't just any alien invasion. It's headed by Thor's mischievous brother, Loki, and their on the hunt for a powerful artifact that contain boundless energy.

What makes a superhero story? Well, it needs superpowers, witty lines, a compelling villain, an tons of action. Avengers has all of those things to spare.

We get plenty of superpowers and action scenes in this film. The action is evenly paced, while the camera's quicker-paced but never clunky. This adds a lot to the thrill, and believe you me, you're hardly going to find a more thrilling movie than The Avengers.

The cast is so into their roles it's not a joke. What we have here are several experienced actors all truly being the superheroes as if they were living some childhood dream. As the characters clash with the enemy, or each other, one can feel it, as if the audience is a part of it all. Even if you haven't seen any MCU movies before this, if you know Marvel, you pretty much know the main characters anyway. And enough is explained for things to make sense (if you pay attention, like in The Godfather), but you should still know SOME stuff about the characters before watching the movie. And the dialogue for the cast is phenomenal. It never feels campy, there's plenty of humor to go around without being a comedy, and it only makes one love the whole cast, hero or villain.

And there are some amazing moments of cinematography and pacing in this film. The pacing of the film is wonderful, making every second worth it by not overcrowding the film to much and always giving you something to watch for, while still taking short breaks to give you room to cope with the excitement. This is usually done with a joke. Some of the things that happen are perfectly placed by the camera for as long as they really need to be, and the epic camera scene featuring all of the Avengers fighting the aliens is one of the most well-filmed sequences I've ever seen in action movies. And I love action movies. A lot. And superhero movies.

Where the internet will choose The Dark Knight or maybe Logan for the greatest superhero movie ever made, I choose The Avengers. It gives every movie goer what they ask for in a superhero movie, especially one that revolves around six main characters. Marvel really outdid themselves, and they set a new standard for superhero movies, making DC bite the dust after having them beaten for decades (from the 70's-2000's) with just two heroes alone: Batman and Superman. Now all DC Comics can do is quiver in fear as they lose their marbles and hire Zack Snyder to head the DC Extended Universe, which fails miserably when compared to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And The Avengers sits right at the top of that glorious throne of the ever-popular superhero genre that's now so big it's integrated into our very existence, far beyond culture an far beyond comic-reading.

Thank you, Stan Lee, for everything you've done for the comic industry and our culture. Rest in peace.



Recommended for everyone.

Re: Keyser Corleone's Movie Memoirs
 

I've got a special announcement to make. Every so often, I'll be having special weeks, and the first one's happening today THis is where I review seven connected movies over the course of seven days. Altohugh the announcement was to be made today, I miscalculated the dates and wanted to start in a couple of days. So this will be my first official "Keyser Coleone's Week." I will never reveal all of movies I'll review in one day, so that I can leave you to guess for yourselves. I think that adds some excitement.

The first one will be the Robin Hood week, due to the release of the new Taron Egerton film that looks really bad and will be coming out the day after my Robin Hood week is completed. I've already prepared for the first movies I need to see for the review, and will be done with all of them very soon. I'll be reviewing seven different important Robin Hood movies over the course of history. I've carefully chosen every one depending on their level of importance, how well they're connected with each other or can be compared to each other, and their diversified quality so that I'm not reviewing a bunch of five-star movies. I'll be open with my first review within the hour.

Keyser Corleone's Robin Hood Week, Review 1

Robin Hood (1992) - Directed by Allan Dwan

"Huntingdon hath proved his knightly mettle!"

http://de.web.img3.acsta.net/r_1280_...3/20256147.jpg

This is the first of seven Robin Hood movies I'll be reviewing this week before the new Taron Egerton movie comes out. The first choice was a little hard. I could have gone with either the 1910's movie, the 1922 film, or the Sean Connery one. In the end I decided this one was the most important and that Sean Connery wasn't really as Robin Hood as Douglas Fairbanks was known for. Sean Connery's James Bond. So this is the first film I'll review.

This version of the classic Robin Hood tale centers around the knight Huntingdon as he gains the favor and friendship of King Richard the Lionheart, the heart of the maid Marian, and the wrath of Kign Richard's little brother, Prince John. As Huntingdon's away with Richard on the Holy Crusade, he gets a letter from Marian telling of the cruelties Prince John has brought upon Nottingham during his stewardhood. Escaping the crusades, Huntingdon returns home to face the prince and his assistants, Sir Guy of Gisbourne and the Sheriff of Nottingham, as he bands together an army that dwells in the forest and adopts the name of Robin Hood, the man who will save the poor from the greed of Prince John.

This isn't the most well-developed story the Robin Hood films have to offer, but it is a great story. The romance all feels real, the peril is occasionally quite eye-gripping (although a little too comedic at times), and the events that play out make for a great legend. But the problem with the story is that more than half of the movie is taken up by backstory, leaving little in the way of side-character screen time.

But despite that, the movie is one of the most well-acted movies I've ever seen. I've seen my share of silent pictures, and none of them had the presence the cast of Robin Hood pulled off. All of the actors, while they seemed like they were from the theater, could become so real and in-tune with their classic roles that it helped me really feel for the characters instead of worry about how the story will end up. This made the movie much more enjoyable for me. In fact, seeing King Richard's friendship with Robin was a real treat throughout the whole movie, especially considering that we don't get a lot of Robin Hood films where Richard is a major character.

This silent version of Robin Hood is a serious classic. If you want a damn good Robin Hood movie, look before the 1950's and get to the classics, including the silent ones. It's a lot of fun, a little funny, very romantic, and has a wonderful cast.



Recommended for anyone who's not bothered by silent movies.

Re: Keyser Corleone's Movie Memoirs
 

Who wants to try and guess what the next Robin Hood movie will be?

Re: Keyser Corleone's Movie Memoirs
 

I don't know which Robin Hood you'll watch next, but I'd suggest watching them in chronological order. You'll learn more about film history and the changing styles of film making that way. Cool that you watched the silent version of Robin Hood, I've not seen that myself.

I've already seen them all; I got through most of them this week. I just need to re-evaluate one more before I'm done. I remember most of them well enough to review, and I've already written another. But I've also got them in a specified order I want them to be in.

Re: Keyser Corleone's Movie Memoirs
 

Robin Hood week is a cool idea! Nice job so far.

Thanks.

Keyser Corleone's Robin Hood Week, Review 2

Robin Hood (2010) - Directed by Ridley Scott

"And the legend begins."

https://i1.netflixmovies.com/dibsl9e...lblsq3avev.jpg

I chose this and the 1922 film to do first for Robin Hood Week because I wanted to start out with an example of a great Robin Hood film and an example of a bad or meh Robin Hood film; then I can compare other movies to these two examples if I have to. I understand there's a lot of criticism toward the 1991 Kevin Costner/Kevin Reynolds film due to its inconsistencies and lead role's acting, but those greatly apply to this movie as well, and I don't hear quite as much criticism. If anything, this is a worse movie than the 1991 film will ever be, so I'll review this one first because I want my readers to realize just how bad a Robin Hood movie can be before I give my compliments to Kevin Costner's film.

Ridley cott's recent origin story for the famous folk hero follows him after the death of King Richard in 1199 as he and his friends return to England to find homes ruined and people taxed by the king's newly crowned brother, Prince John. What the sleazy new king doesn't realize is that one of his closest servants plans on betraying him for French rule, and it's Robin's duty to stop the scandal and try to free the people of England.

This movie was actually pretty boring. It was focusing too hard on a dark and gritty presence when the truth is the overall story and violence were not quite dark and gritty enough to match. The backstory concerning Robin's father was only barely hinted at on several occasions until the backstory is revealed and is completely underwhelming.

The action could occasionally be exciting and fun to watch, but that's easily at the expense of the direction. Ridley Scott's a veteran director who's still occasionally making great movies like The Martian, and yet the direction and cinematography of the action scenes are occasionally clunky. Besides, we don't get enough of Robin's arrows. For an origin story, I'd like to see how Robin actually became so skilled with arrows. That's something a lot of Robin Hood stories don't even bother with. In fact, the only good thing I liked about the trailer for the 2018 Taron Egerton film is that he was being TRAINED to be Robin Hood.

The acting was great. None of the characters failed at their roles, and Russell Crowe delivered the kind of Robin Hood he had to quite well. But this isn't the Robin Hood I love. Why is he around 40 years old, disgruntled, and a wannabe of Wolverine? And why is Marian nearly 40? Some origin story. But the truth is they were still great because Crowe and Cate Blanchett are wondeerful actors. And this version of Prince John is by far my favorite from the many Robin Hood movies I've seen. He was sleazy, like the walking, talking equivalent of a great AC/DC album.

The story, however, needs serious work. For one thing, it can't possibly be canon to the Robin Hood mythos if it takes place after King Richard's death. Robin Hood's story is largely about his allegiance to King Richard. No rightful ruler makes Robin Hood a villain instead of a righteous rebel. What's he going to do? Slay the king? And the characters are unbelievably flat. That's something most Robin Hood movies forget to focus on: the Merry Men and the prince's posse. And this film is one of the best examples of this. Tinker Bell gets more character development alone than all the Merry Men put together. Bu I am glad about one thing concerning the story: the Robin Hood tales are as much about adventure as they are about scandal, and this film balances the two fairly well.

Well, the acting and the action saved Ridley Scott's Robin Hood from being a bad movie, but there's a lot to be bored with in the movie as well. I'd say watch it once just for the acting and action. It's a war movie, so there's going to be a bit of action, and Scott didn't forget the scandal. But seriously, you could easily forget some of the flaws of the 1991 film and the 1973 cartoon if you watch this.



Recommended for Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett fans who just wanna see their acting, and to serious action fans who just want a bunch of action.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) - Directed by Tobe Hooper

"The events of that day were to lead to the discovery of one of the most bizarre crimes in the annals of American history."

http://tr.web.img4.acsta.net/r_1280_...zp/01/2048.jpg

I am reviewing the first slasher movie I've ever seen (unless you want to count Scary Movie, and I don't think most people would), and I saw it today: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I specifically chose this one because it was entirely tame. I'm surprised it's still considered an R movie. The Temple of Doom was a bloodier movie than this. But overall, this movie proves something that we have been ignoring for a long time: sometimes, one little nightmare's all it takes to scare ya'.

One of the first slashers ever, this movie is about a group of teenagers travelling through Texas and making their way to an old home owned by one of their fathers. However, the house is occupied. And among the disturbing rubble and trash is an unexpected guest who seems to have no intention at all except the worst kind: murdering them all. How many of them will make it out in one piece?

Let us take a moment to remember that the scariest things in life aren't based on backstories and character development. Sometimes, we just get a nightmare. I don't get them, usually, but I'm aware of how things can be scary without a story. It's a low-budget, low made film and a surprisingly suspenseful film. I suppose one could easily say it has no right to be as scary as it is, but it was.

Why was it scary? Well, what wouldn't be scary to a young person occupying an empty house where a murderer is waiting to chop you to bits? And it becomes even more scary when you realize the man's surrounded by people who are just as insane and deranged, and hope seems scarce.

The way Hooper filmed it was like a documentary, not carefully and steadily building suspense, but manically twitching all over the place to create an uneasy feeling, sort of a reminder that this isn't a film that prides itself on the way of the artiste. The music and sound editing is properly manic, too. The way the sound is edited makes every sound just as chaotic as the terrible situation when the going gets rough and chilling.

That's all I really have to say about this movie. It's a pretty simple movie, I won't dissect it (sorry). For eighty minutes only tainted by bad teenage actors for the first 50 minutes, it's a very suspenseful movie.

Re: Keyser Corleone's Movie Memoirs
 

Robin Hood Week is still on (don't be fooled by the Texas Chainsaw Massacre review), so the next review will be posted once my coffee has settled in. So here's a hint for the next one: what Robin Hood movie do you think will be the most relevant to the one I most recently reviewed?

Re: Keyser Corleone's Movie Memoirs
 

One thing I found with Chainsaw, is that it was scary because of the sound.
Not just the chainsaw itself, but the music (that violin sound), the laughing, screaming, the noise of that steel door Leatherface opens and closes... the ratting of the guy's feet after he's been hit over the head... even when Franklin is by himself talking to himself and whinging, then blowing raspberries, the tone of his voice and his mumbling, is disturbing.


It's like every noise, every sound, was cranked up to 11.


Probably the only movie that utilises source-noises and sound effects for horror effect.