Keyser Corleone's Movie Memoirs

So whenever there's a series I've completed, I try to make sure I get through another entry when it comes out. Pray for me when I get through the Transformers movies. This time, it's gonna be Spy Kids, as a fifth one has made its way to Netflix. Chances were it was gonna be even worse than before, as the movies kept getting worse, but I wasn't gonna knock it just yet.

Another new SK team is forming as an overprotective father who maintains severe tech restrictions on his kids now has to deal with the theft of a code he created, one that can break into any computer system around the world. With his house now in danger, the kids are sent away to a safe house where they learn to be spies like their parents. But it takes more than a bunch of gadgets to save the world from a cyber-terrorist who uses his own video game as a security measure to control the world's banks, companies and everything else. They gotta play the game like pros.

Basically, this is a combination of every Spy Kids movie we've had so far. The plot is largely rehashing the first, we have our robot sidekick from 2 except it's a crab (as well as fighting skeletons with swords), a major video-game plot with elements of 3, and... the general incompetence of OSS that we didn't see until 4. So the good and the bad are both attached, and considering that the series kept getting worse over time... this is a slight improvement.

The energy of the first three films is totally there, and that energy is a key factor in any good Spy Kids movie. Our two siblings really feel like kids most of the time, rather than overly clever protagonists like they did in 4. It helps that the movie was all about video games dominating the world, so this was easy for the kids. In a way, it recreates the first film's theme of children being familiar with a childlike world, where the children had to work their way through a children's TV show. Unfortunately, the feeling isn't fully replicated here, as a lot of adults play video games these days. At least the video game aspects were delivered with some creativity here and there, improving on the unique plot of Spy Kids 3 where it counted. On top of this kind of imagination, we get a few new gadgets, but they don't really feel as cool as before.

The real issue of the movie is its completely half-assed look at honesty. "You can't just be dishonest" and "honesty always wins" is NOT gonna convince a kid to be honest without the logic of it attached. As is to be expected, the characters just naturally grow to accept it without any rhyme or reason, and of course our villain learns it, albeit with a twist that I thought actually worked for the story being developed, so it wasn't a total disaster at the end. Think of it like the ending to season one of SAO. On top of this, most of the adults are just plain incompetent, which the first movie was able to avoid. The head of the OSS was made to look like an utter fool for no reason other than to glorify our protagonists. And finally, the parents are ALWAYS bickering over the stupidest things, and as excepted, the dad was super wrong in his efforts to protect the world, as well can expect from modern day kids movies like this. Big surprise.

Well, Rodriguez isn't gonna let his biggest seller go that easily, so be prepared for more Spy Kids movies sometime in the future. But it's pretty obvious that the series is starting to lose its dignity, and may eventually be downgraded to that of another Land Before Time film. Spy Kids 5 won't really bring back the old fans, but at least it tried hard to stay close to the same spirit as the original, unlike 4. So this is, like I said, a slight improvement over 4.

= 44

Robert Rodriguez's directorial score does not change.

Now's a good time to explain my best and worst directors lists rules so there's no confusion.

1. A director must have at least three movies to qualify for either. This is to ensure that directors who keep making movies are not overshadowed by directors who only made a couple, based on the premise that constant quality control or the constant lack thereof is a trait of one of the best or worst.
2. No less than 3 movies can make the list, and no more than the top or bottom five.
3. The list that a director appears on is decided by the number of good movies vs. the number of bad ones. If there's more good than bad, the director goes on the best list, and vise-versa.
4. On the best list, the top 3-5 movies will be counted, and on the worst list the worst 5 will be counted. These movies will receive an average score that decides the position of the director.
5. Although the minimum amount of movies is 3, the directors with 5 films will still have priority over the ones with 4, and the ones with 4 have priority over three. As such, they will be grouped by the highest WHOLE NUMBER.
6. Directors with the same score will be ordered based on the positions of their best movie on my movies list, with the top movie giving the director priority, and lowest position for the worst directors.
7. A movie scored 50 or higher qualifies as a good movie.
8. If a director receives a score less than 50 on the best list despite having two movies scoring 50 or higher, the director will be given a merit minimum of 50 points. And if a director on the worst list scores over 50, the director will be given a score of 49.9. The amount of movies directed still has priority in placing the directors.
9. If a director scores the same score three times, and it is their highest or lowest score depending on the list, that score will remain permanent until a better movie or worse movie is made. In the events of directors with the 100's or three 0's, the director's position may never change.

So, take Ninja Turtles, add an A-Movie studio with Power Rangers B-actors, write a knockoff of The Neverending Story, give us a villain who's essentially Loki, and you get one of the most well-directed dorkfests of the 90's. Warriors of Virtue is a forgotten movie with a large amount of effort put into the production value, one with costumes almost as good as the ones from the earlier costume-driven film Nightbreed. But its story needs some work.

Middle-schooler Ryan has a limp and can't play sports, which he thinks will help him fit in. But he still has friends in odd places, like his martial artist / chef friend Ming, who gives him a rare book which he thinks will help Ryan with his life. When Ryan gets a chance to hang with the teen football players, he falls down a whirlpool in a water plant and ends up in the world of Tao, where he meets up with the guardians of that world: five Roo warriors who defend their people from the maniacal tyrant Komodo (not a lizard, human). He soon finds out that the only way to truly beat Komodo is to unlock the secrets of that book: the "manuscript of legend," which ends up in the hands of Komodo.

This movie is basically all about energy told through the spectacle of production. We see some expertly-directed scenes in this debut of Ronny Yu, later known for Fearless. I mean, only Yu would put so much passion into directed a montage of a martial arts master using his skills in the kitchen. The flashiness of these action sequences still has the general behavior of 80's and 90's martial arts cheese, but each scene is handled professionally, which means the spectacle here is lived up to the fullest potential that 90's family films would allow. On top of that, we get a careful balance of colors through some highly convincing set pieces, which is probably the best thing about the movie. Obviously, Ronny Yu did the absolute best that he could've done with what he was given.

Unfortunately, there are a couple of problems. First of all, our out-of-whack story really does need some fleshing out. While it's not a horrible story and there are some decent moments, the whole of story-world concept wasn't given the care that was needed. I mean, seriously? You couldn't think of anything besides "manuscript of legend?" Auryn, anybody? On top of that, while we have much better kangaroo costumes than Tank Girl, we also have some pretty cheap acting. The cast of the kangaroos were not given enough character development to work with, and our villain, who easily has the worst dialogue in the movie (do not think thoughts???) is basically a bad proto-Loki and Angus MacFadyen performance so poor it's often laugh-inducing.

I enjoyed it slightly more on the first watch for the surprise, but there really wasn't much of a downgrade here after this second watch. So Warriors of Virtue is basically a movie strictly for a Power Rangers fan. it's got most of the ingredients necessary for Power Rangers, but with an impressive production level. Yu justified his existence in Hollywood with his direction, although we rarely heard much from the four Law brothers who created the characters, largely because these characters were as thrown together for the 90's anthro buzz the same way Street Sharks and Biker Mice from Mars was, only being more tolerable. In other words, it's a great B-movie, although it's still not a great movie in general.

= 62

Ronny Yu's Directorial Score (3 Good vs. 0 Bad)

Freddy Vs. Jason: 75
Bride of Chucky: 63
Warriors of Virtue: 62

Score: 66.66 / 3

Lowering the movie 2 points brings Ronny Yu's position on the best directors list down from 191 to 197 between Rob Cohen and Michael Bay.

This noir thing going on Movieforums right now is probably our most important buzz for a while. We currently have three games dedicated to the genre: the noir countdown, the neo-noir countdown and the HoF, and it's sucking me in. This is really helping me with completing my MoFo challenge lists as well, so I'm attempting to watch one classic noir and one neo-noir a day. Today's classic was Notorious, which is a good spy movie but not even in close to Vertigo. Instead, since I've made a point of closely following De Palma, I'm gonna review the neo-noir for today: Blow Out. I chose this one not only for the noir games, but because this is apparently the highest-rated De palma movie on Letterboxd, a site I use often.

Jack is a sound effects provider for a movie studio, and he seems to enjoy the job. Put things take a turn for the worst when he steps outside with his equipment, and accidentally catches a gunshot before witnessing a car accident. Saving the girl in the car, he finds out the dead man in the car was Governor McRyan. But the cops don't want him to even mention the girl, and nobody wants to believe there was a gunshot. But it's not long before he realizes he's being watched, and that the girl he saved is more deeply involved in the potential murder than she even knows.

Now if you've been reading my reviews, you'd probably know that I've been keeping a scored list of the best directors, taking their top three-to-five and calculating an average rating, all for the fun of it. The score for De Palma, before watching this movie, was 93.4 / 5, so to get a five-star rating (95 or higher), he needs a movie with a score of 89 or higher to overtake the last movie in his top five. Will it happen this time?

Apparently this movie is a loose and thematic remake of the 1966 movie Blowup. I didn't know that before watching this, so I may have made a mistake. I'll be sure to watch Blowup over the weekend. But this doesn't mean I didn't get anything out of this movie because I didn't see another movie first. In fact, I was put in a constant state of in-your-face thrills.

A similar movie I gave a 100 rating for is The Conversation, a movie about a surveillance investigator who overheard a conversation that he believes will lead up to murder. So while watching Blow Out, I spent the whole movie comparing it to The Conversation, measuring its fear tactics, story consistency, everything. In the end, watching a similarly-themes but completely unrelated movie is exactly what helped me get the fullest experience this movie offered.

Like I said, I was in a constant state of thrills. Brian De Palma's direction was extremely artistic but carefully paced. This helped to make even scenarios that might seem boring, like recording sound effects, fill to the brim with a sense of nocturnal mystique or even occasionally the underground aesthetic. Every genre that was used as influence was at the mercy of Vilmos Zsigmond's cinematography, whether accompanied by Pino Donaggio's wacky but moody noir music or given the silent treatment. So while this movie certainly has some focus on the cool factor, the most important thing is that the cool factor never detracted from any other aspect. Even down to those painful last two minutes, the cinematography was always perfect. This was the kind of movie that left me so hurt that I didn't even quit the movie when the credits rolled. I soaked in the music, waiting for the feeling to go away naturally.

This sense of art from De Palma, Zsigmond and Donaggio worked beautifully with a very realistic movie that handles conspiracy on a smaller scale than the blockbuster, giving it that approach while tackling these things from a psychological perspective. The stakes we see aren't always as mysterious as in The Conversation, but they certainly are more relevant to the plot of Blow Out. And our lead lightning rod for our relation to the realism, John Travolta, effortlessly gives us the proper acting needed to feel what he as an average human being feels. He didn't even need to try. While the other actors all did good jobs at the roles they were given, as well as the development therein, I felt that giving Travolta the lead role was the best decision. And it's also very interesting to see Lithgow in this early role as a psychopath. I mean, I always knew he could play one from the obnoxiousness he displayed on 3rd Rock from the Sun, but to see him pull it off so much earlier in his career was what made it intriguing.

Blow Out beats The Conversation in most of the criteria I set up for comparing the two movies. I think I should've gotten to this movie a lot sooner, as it provided me with the best experience I could've asked for this conspiracy thriller: realistic, artistic and emotional. This Hitchcockian experience is totally a must-see, and I hope it gets a good position on the neo-noir charts. Now I think my next neo-noir will be De Palma's Body Double.

= 100

Brian De Palma's Directorial Score (9 Good vs. 1 Bad)

Blow Out: 100
Carlito's Way: 100
Carrie: 98
The Untouchables: 96
Scarface: 92

Average Score: 97.2 / 5

By knocking Mission Impossible out of the top five, Brian De Palma's position on my Top Directors List raises from 39 to 17 between Stanley Kubrick and Ingmar Bergman.

Now I won't be finishing the movie I'm watching this night, but I'll give you a hint, and it's more metaphorical than you think.

I remember an episode of a cartoon that's helped me with some of my stories: OK KO. It's a cartoon about superheroes who all work in a plaza, and one kid who works in a bodega there. KO and his friend Dende, a kappa girl, find that POW cards, a series of trading cards with official heroes and power levels on them, do not include kappas because of an old stereotype involving a myth about kappas eating people. This leads them to nearly throw all their POW cards away, but they struggle with it because POW cards are how they united as friends. They change their goal to changing the POW card company to teach them why the action is wrong as opposed to just throwing the cards away and letting the evil continue. They decided to "embrace the good while acknowledging the bad."

In a way, this is what critics do everyday, but the real challenge is a personal one: separating the art from the artist. This is what happens when morality becomes a leading factor. In some cases, the overall message is the evil that leads people to even ignore good filmmaking quality. Because this notion is often portrayed by radical reviewers who keep things black-and-white with no regard for the complexity of the world as detailed by live itself (and even Donnie Darko's speech), I feel that this attempt at "punishing" something defeats honesty and the purpose of right and wrong overall. The next excuse is often "enjoyment being defeated by the morality," but this still relies on an overpowering of a person's "feelings." In other words, it's discrimination. So in a total irony, I'm going to review one of the most controversial films in history, one that is often discriminated for its message, which, ironically, is something I just spoke against: discrimination.


A part of me can't believe I watched this movie. It might have something to do with the movie's strange history, or maybe it's the fact that it's a three-hour silent movie with in-the-know rep in general, or maybe it has something to do with the confidence I feel at this point in my life to judge this movie properly. I haven't really felt this way since I first saw Abel Gance's Napoleon. Or maybe it's because I never really decided to watch something pro-KKK or anything like that before. I always knew I'd judge it for the technicality as well as the message, but still, I've never made this decision before. Nevertheless, I'd review it as fairly as I do anything else.

A man from the North and a women from the South fall in love during the late stages of the Civil War, and it's not long before Abraham Lincoln is shot. With the South now in economic turmoil, and some angry African-Americans wanting to push white men out of power, it's not long before the brother of our Southern lady, Ben, declares war on the free black men of the South by forming the Ku Klux Clan.

I suppose one must get this out of the way as soon as possible, especially if you don't know yet. The movie's pro-white supremacy. And it paints a bad picture for modern Southerners, especially conservatives. The one who actually taught me that racism existed and agreed that it was one of the stupidest things on Earth was a Southern conservative: my father. And lemme tell you, he never would've let me watch this, even for a film class. And this is the same man who recommended Bicycle Thieves to me when I asked him about his choices for the greatest movies ever.

You wants some examples on its supremacy? Well, first and foremost, even though the Klan doesn't really show up until the third act, the KKK is seen as a heroic force throughout its screen time. I mean, the whole save-the-damsel thing kind of cemented it. And the intertitles often have some nice words to say about them. On top of that, the intertitles throw in a negative phrasing or two concerning the Radical Republicans who wanted to punish the South. The other great example of this bull is how African-Americans are depicted as, and as an autistic man I'm being kind, special. They walk around like they don't know anything, and yet their economy relied on them knowing how to do these jobs.

And number 3: white men in blackface because there's no way they could get that many black people to star in this kind of movie. You can even point them out. To me this is a moral AND movie-making flaw. The same movie that pioneered making a few people look like hundreds of people couldn't think to just have one actor look a little different with make-up and a fake mustache? Honestly? It makes the scene from Babylon about the black guy being given blackface to look "more black" feel so insignificant that it might as well not even take the form of a grain of dirt on our Earth. That scene might as well not exist.

OK, and now for the technical stuff.

The sad truth is you can be skilled at one thing and suck at another. You can have immoral beliefs and still be a talented filmmaker. And The Birth of a Nation likely stands as the greatest reminder of this irony. Its technical achievements have been constantly replicated over the last 108 years for more humane cinema, and some inhumane cinema.

First and foremost: this is one of the first cinematic epics. AN "epic" is described as a dramatic movie with a large and dramatic scale, often defined lengthy spectacle-oriented shots and bombastic music, to put it very simply. The "sword and sandal" genre is even defined as a subgenre of this on RY, although I disagree, as many peplums are simply adventure or action-adventure, but I digress.

The war scene, as I have said, shows D.W. Griffith literally inventing the first methods of making a few people look like hundreds of people through editing. This is a major success for the movie's technical achievements and does help the grand scale of the war scene, and several other scenes for their runtime (or until the charm of the scene runs out due to excessive length).

This movie also had a fixation on how to apply the camera itself for an emotional tool. First-person shots are very common with this movie, and through that we can see the emotions of these struggling people and, from economic experience, we can relate to these people well enough. Thankfully, this movie also has an obsession with narrative. While stories from back then hardly had a lot of character, the one-sides we get mingle with each other in ways we very easily understand, because we're kind of going through some of these things on a much smaller scale, although we feel the stress of these things. Having said that, this is mostly from an economic standpoint. We don't rely on slaves but we know all about economic failure.

When it comes to racial stuff, it's impossible to relate to Ben in his KKK scenes. But I also felt a sense of disappointment during the scene in which many Northern white men were being punished out of office by the some of those from black community, despite the fact that the North set them free. You don't want anyone dead for that or anything, but if I were a Northern at that time, I know I'd be saying, "What the hell? We literally free these guys and this is how they repay us? What would their families and friends say about this?"

But I really have to say: there's another problem with this movie. On the subject of Napoleon, the 1927 movie was five-and-a-half hours long, and it never once felt drawn out or overlong. The first act of this film really does feel that way, especially the war scene. The other acts don't draw out quite as long, but the movie still suffers from it. While it's certainly trying its hardest to rely on plot, there are so many characters with one side of development that it still feels either half-full or three-quarters full. The war scene in the first act might've been a pioneering feat which would be replicated much later on, notably when editing the movie to make a few people look like hundreds, but the scene recycled shots and what not. Honestly, no matter how flashy it was at the time, to me, you might as well be filming another action sequence from Ultraviolet.

Well, on the moral side, The Birth of a Nation is misguided and offensive. On the technical side, this is grandiose, innovative and detailed. As an analytical man, I will not be joining either the love train or the hate train. I won't be saying, "this is absolute dogshit for its messages and there are no excuses for it" or "this is one of the most influential movies of our time and stands as a keen reminder of the expectations and beliefs of the time." This is an innovative movie by a misguided man who liked a misguided novel and adapted it to the big screen. No more, no less. In the art of moviemaking, the technicality matters more. A message is one part of a whole movie, and while the movie acknowledges economic turmoil, it should NOT be promoting this KKK garbage. So any merit the economic statements might've had are countered by the racial statements.

From a personal, and maybe even religious viewpoint, even if some of the economics of the Confederacy had plausibility when used in other methods, you'd think that the people reading the Moses story would realize that slavery didn't work out before. It's the destiny of the descendants of the Israelites to sin and be taught a lesson in a neverending cycle, but having become the Egyptians themselves is exactly why they lost. I can only hope for the day when good, honest non-racial Southern conservative like my dad don't get slack for the sins of their ancestors anymore.

= 77

D.W. Griffith needs 1 more movie for a directorial score.

I decided to get one more D.W. Griffith movie review out of the way before I switch to another silent director, as I feel a need to explore Abel Gance more, having loved the only two Gance movies I've seen so far. Now D.W. Griffith is considered one of the earliest giants in film. But I feel that he's a better moviemaker than he is a storyteller, so the three films I've seen so far: The Birth of a Nation, Broken Blossoms and Home Sweet Home were all underwhelming in one way or another. So what was to come of his second most famous movie, Intolerance? Was I gonna be wasting my time with another overrated piece of history, or was I finally going to end up loving one of Griffith's movies? I kinda get Walter Hill vibes from Griffith, as many of his movies were underwhelming to me despite the status, like 48 Hours and The Warriors. But I did love Southern Comfort's thrills, so let's see.

Intolerance is a thematic piece of art combining, and often shifting through four different stories in four different periods of time: the story of Jesus, the war between Babylon and Persia between the kings Belshazzar and Cyrus, the events leading up to the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in France, and an original tale about a lonely woman who's life comes crumbling down as her criminal husband is falsely accused of murder. And all of these movies tell stories of how people suffer because of simple-minded reasons for intolerance, notably class-related or even cultural.

First, let us all meditate on the vast, demonic powers that be which ensured that D.W. Griffith, director of Birth of a Nation, wrote a movie criticizing intolerance.


And now to get a little more serious.

Intolerance is a film Griffith made as a response to the controversy surrounding Birth of a Nation. Honestly, this guy shouldn't have been surprised. But I guess this response to backlash is a hell of a lot more positive than Uwe Boll's threats to box critics. Besides, even the best of people can make a movie about tolerance, and it's not exactly a controversial message. But what about the best of MOVIEMAKERS as opposed to the best of people?

The theme works on a variety of emotional levels. It tackles real history with some fictionalization which steers a little close to home. One story is a modern day one about false accusations, which I myself relate to because I have a serious problem with the existence of the concept. The music on the Tubi stream is purely epic, adventurous and melancholic, and it's all flowing perfectly with every scene of abuse, depression, war and even more. There are plenty of scenes here which will keep your eyes glued, especially if you're a humanist or a history buff. In fact, the war scenes during the Babylon segments are incredible. The use of sets, editing and smoking creates scenarios of entire epic backdrops of castles smoking as people are running away. Buildings crumble with artistic flair, and it tells me that this had to be a first in the world of cinema. This movie was pulling off certain feats that Birth of a Nation, in all its cinematic advancements, didn't achieve. There was literally a moment during the establishing celebration shot at the beginning of act two where I froze. I just froze at the site of it. There are even very short but impressive early attempts at choreographed dance scenes involving this scope of cinematography or close range shots of multiple dancers.

Now one criticism I do have is that the Jesus segments aren't given enough screentime. I mean, we've already seen Jesus on the screen by that point. We even had Giulio Antamoro's Christus film that same year. But it wasn't a very good one. It had some fancy direction and a very basic approach. If this movie put just a little more time into it, say bring in some scenes involving Judas, then its fourth segment would stand out, especially considering that most Jesus adaptations aren't exactly known for being groundbreaking cinema. This is a real shame because, like the other segments in the film, the costumes, sets and actors are at the top of their game. The onscreen presence, combined with the direction and music, create a cinematic atmosphere that the Bible story can't get these days. At least the prosecution of Jesus is placed in a more dramatic part of the movie where the endings mold into the theme.

Okay, I'll get behind the historical relevance of this movie. Every technical feat that Birth of a Nation achieved was improved on and shamed by Intolerance. This feels kind of like the very first "movie," as it's not just a filmed 40+ minute story told through a camera. This is all about the art of presentation, be it the visuals, the themes and the emotions that we feel through the characters. And no politics attached, just humanity this time. If not for the underusage of the Jesus segments, this would be absolutely flawless, so I feel it's only right to give this movie, applying so many new techniques to maximum effect regardless of the flaw, the barest minimum of a five-star rating I can apply.

= 95

D.W. Griffith's Directorial Score (3 Good vs. 1 Bad)

Intolerance = 95
The Birth of a Nation = 77
Broken Blossoms = 63
Home, Sweet Home = 35

Score: 67.5 / 4

D.W. Griffith moves up on the Best Directors List from #243 to #199 between Kevin Kolsch and Sylvester Stallone.

Having found myself in a very rare mood for silent films, I am focusing on the possibility of constructing a list of my top 50 movies of the 1910's. I guess something rare came out of my D.W. Griffith marathon. But who I really wanted to focus on was Abel Gance, director of the brilliant silent films Napoleon and J'Accuse. I am honestly extremely happy to find The Tenth Symphony. I was afraid the only other Abel Gance movie I had access to was The Wheel, which is 4 1/2 hours on the easiest cut to find, and apparently the most complete edition is SEVEN HOURS. Having said that, if it came to that, I would watch the whole thing in three days just as I did with Satantango. But if possible I'd like to find ANY movie I can by a director I admire and haven't explored thoroughly, even if the only movie I can find stinks. Many of the Abel Gance movies on Archive.org are in French and don't have English subtitles. So I'm extremely happy that someone uploaded The Tenth Symphony onto YouTube with English subtitles.

Eve is an orphan in a relationship with Fred Rice, who manipulates her into murdering her sister and blackmailing her. Unwilling to comply with his demands, she pays him off to let her go. A couple years later, she marries Enric, a struggling composer who already has a young daughter getting ready for the world. But Rice becomes the girl's new fiancee, and Eve will take whatever steps are necessary to stop the marriage, even if it means killing herself. Eventually, Enric finds out about her past relationship and is lead to believe that Eve still loves Rice, which leads him to finish his music out of depression.

This is considered to be the first French Impressionist film, and there are many scenes which show early visual tricks for symbolic and emotional purposes. Some of these scenes feel a little cartoonish, but others have a strong sense of mystique. Within the first few minutes of the storytelling, I felt like I was going to be hooked. It sets up the moods necessary for personal intrigue and crime plotting. Unfortunately, after the first ten minutes, there was a scene that dragged on a bit too long, and that told me it was going to be common throughout the whole movie. And both pros and cons either shined or dimmed throughout the whole.

I suppose my favorite part of the movie is Eve's characterization. She's an unstable woman who's willing to even kill herself in manipulative efforts to bring someone down with her. This defines at least a good half of the story, and keeps things more interesting when the movie doesn't feel jumbled. I suppose it's all consistent storytelling, but the only one who really shines as a character is Eve. The end result is detailed storytelling which loses some of its emotional grip. But I commend Abel Gance for trying to tell a more packed story than what was normal for the era. Hell, the 1911 movie The Black Dream was a 15-minute story that was told across 53 minutes.

The final thing I should mention is the score. The music is grandiose and quite engaging, much more emotional than the movie is sometimes. But despite the skill present in the score, this is also a flaw as the music is more melodramatic than what the story calls for in many occasions. This brings another movie, The Outsiders by Coppola, which originally had a very emotional score by Carmine Coppola, Francis' father, which Coppola wasn't really happy with and changed after Carmine's death. This also brings to mind Karl Bohm's 1971 version of Mozart's Requiem, which displays a plethora of emotions with exceptional delivery, but also bears the flaw of forgetting that these happy, angry, sad and intriguing emotional sounds are playing a REQUIEM MASS, which Karajan certainly never forgot when recording his 1987 masterpiece.

Well, this certainly isn't the quality I was hoping for from an Abel Gance classic, but it certainly has its merits as a fairly well-directed French Impressionist piece. But as a story, it's standard drama that we see all the time. In fact, the subplot of finishing a classical piece wasn't fully necessary. It has good acting and music to keep it watchable, but in comparison to other movies of its time, everything about it save the music was already beaten by Intolerance. This really isn't getting the score I was hoping to give it to get Abel Gance on my best directors list, so I'll just have to hope the other Gance movies I have access to can live up to Gance's two perfect silent war movies.

= 63

Abel Gance's Directorial Score (3 Good vs. 0 Bad)

Napoleon: 100
J'Accuse: 100
The Tenth Symphony: 63

Score: 87.66 / 3

Abel Gance debuts on my Best Directors List at #82 between James Gunn and Byron Howard.