Citizen Rules...Cinemaesque Chat-n-Review

→ in
Tools    





Interesting to see your added ratings now, as in the HoFs you didn't have them.



Interesting to see your added ratings now, as in the HoFs you didn't have them.
Yeah, I don't rate the noms in an HoF. In an HoF when I compose my voting list it's based mainly on what I liked or not liked, my gut reaction so to speak. But when I review a movie in my thread, I rate it on how much I liked it of course, but also on it's historical, technical or artistic merits. So sometimes I might vote a movie low but still give it a decent rating. Hopefully that makes sense.



Interesting to see your added ratings now, as in the HoFs you didn't have them.
Yeah, I don't rate the noms in an HoF. In an HoF when I compose my voting list it's based mainly on what I liked or not liked, my gut reaction so to speak. But when I review a movie in my thread, I rate it on how much I liked it of course, but also on it's historical, technical or artistic merits. So sometimes I might vote a movie low but still give it a decent rating. Hopefully that makes sense.
Yeah, I get it. What’s interesting is you did give Brimstone a Rating for both... did you just dislike that much? I wasn’t a huge fan either.



Yeah, I get it. What’s interesting is you did give Brimstone a Rating for both... did you just dislike that much? I wasn’t a huge fan either.
I just flat out hated Brimstone, so I guess my 1 rating reflects me having to suffer through it's long run time




It's a Gift (1934

Director: Norman McLeod
Writer: Jack Cunningham
Cast: W.C. Fields, Kathleen Howard, Jean Rouverol
Genre: Comedy


"A henpecked New Jersey grocer makes plans to move to California to grow oranges, despite the resistance of his overbearing wife."

Not a well known film...today W.C. Fields is like Rodney Dangerfield in that he...'gets no respect.' ...I've only seen one other Fields' movie and that's the riotously funny My Little Chickadee (1940) with Mae West. I like W.C. Fields but he wasn't at his best here. The first part of the film dragged and it seemed stilted and staged and I didn't find anything funny about it. Some of the actors most notably his daughter couldn't act and were flat in the delivery of their lines. Though she was pretty enough, so I forgave her The wife was good!

I have to say the blind man gag was cringe worthy. Even back in 1934 that must have felt like an old, stale vaudevillian gag, not funny.....BUT the film did get funny and I did laugh once they headed out west to the orange orchard. The picnic scene on a rich man's estate was hilarious. I loved how they made a HUGE mess with their garbage. And the crackers falling on the little boys head was hilarious, even more so when they fell into his mouth. OK that was inspired comedy, but too bad most of the film felt like a cake walk.





Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)

Director: Robert Hamer
Writers: Robert Hamer, John Dighton
Cast: Dennis Price, Alec Guinness, Valerie Hobson
Genre: Comedy crime-caper


"A distant poor relative of the Duke of D'Ascoyne plots to inherit the title by murdering the eight other heirs who stand ahead of him in the line of succession."

I love British films about nobility set in the 19th century. Pride and Prejudice & Jane Eyre are two that come to mind. And Kind Hearts and Coronets reminded me of those British melodramas that deliver human interest stories set inside the world of upper crust 1800s England. Some might call them soap opera style, like it was a bad thing, which it's not when done well, and Kind Hearts and Coronets was done very well...With it's personal story of one poor man's rise into the world of rich nobility, as told by his first person narrative...in that way it reminded me of another great film Barry Lyndon.

I thought the main lead Louis (Dennis Price) was well suited for his role, and his love interest Sibella (Joan Greenwood) was interesting. She had this way of talking than made her sound a bit sinister without even trying. She was real good too. And yes Alec Guinness played a bunch of different roles and did a good job of it. So the movie totally worked as a drama for me, but I would never have guessed this was a comedy. I'm not sure what the comedy was suppose to be? Perhaps Alec Guinness in all those disguises? Maybe it was the language barrier that stopped me from laughing as there were times I couldn't understand what some of the secondary characters were saying and no subs on the DVD either.

But I think the reason the humor elements didn't work for me was that the style was British dry humor and some of the references I just didn't get. Not the films fault of course, I'm sure in Britain in 1949 the audiences totally got it. I appreciated the film sets, which were richly detailed with many different shooting locations. And the drama and story was to my liking. But I'm not sure how to judge this as a comedy as I seen it first and foremost as a drama.





Duck Soup (1933)

Director: Leo McCarey
Cast: Groucho Marx, Harpo Marx, Chico Marx, Zeppo Marx
Genre: Comedy


"Rufus T. Firefly is named president/dictator of bankrupt Freedonia and declares war on neighboring Sylvania over the love of wealthy Mrs. Teasdale."

You know I always thought that Groucho really had big thick black eyebrows and a huge mustache to match. I thought that when I use to watch the Marx Bros as a kid. When I was adult I remember seeing a much older Groucho Marx on TV and I wondered where in the hell his eyebrows had went to! So it came as a big shock to me when I finally realized that Groucho was adored in black grease paint after all! Of course with the internet all one has to do is to look at the photo up there and see the grease paint!

I like Groucho! He's funny with his smart ass remarks and I guess that grease paint helps too. The Marx bros did all of their famous antics in Duck Soup: Harpo with his scissors and his leg in the arm trick, good stuff! I think my favorite bit was Chico and Harpo dressed up like Groucho and the resulting mirror scene, a classic for sure. I wasn't big on the story, for me the draw are the four Marx brothers. OK only three of them are actually funny. Poor Zeppo might not get any gags but he's a good sport.

Not my favorite Marx Brothers movie, but hey it's not bad.






Metropolis (1927)

Director: Fritz Lang
Writer: Thea von Harbou (screenplay and novel)
Cast: Brigitte Helm, Alfred Abel, Gustav Fröhlich
Genre: Sci-Fi
Silent Film


"In a futuristic city sharply divided between the working class and the city planners, the son of the city's mastermind falls in love with a working class prophet who predicts the coming of a savior to mediate their differences."

Metropolis starts off deep and heady. Right off the bat we're introduced to all sorts of interesting futuristic things and in a very short time. We never find out what the Eternal Gardens are all about but we can use our imaginations.

Unlike some silent films, Metropolis hooked me from the start. Right away we see the big city and those gardens with girls on parade, and we see the city designer's son who's beset to choose one of the lovely garden decorations! Then he spots a poor girl surrounded by starving children and is smitten. I don't know why, she wasn't that hot looking, but I guess he's a man of deep character and he's had enough of the weekly trollops. So he follows the girl to the bowls of the city and discovers there a hellish world of people slaving away to machines. Now that's a hook!

And for the next hour I was memorized by the technical cinema achievements that Fritz Lang was able to reproduce on screen. Audiences back in 1927 must have set with their jaws dropped at the sights of Metropolis...I noticed great detail in the interior shots of bedrooms and offices too. The furniture, the art design all looked futuristic to me. And all those extra actors! OMG this is a huge, huge epic film. It's literally a monument to Fritz Lang.

Metropolis isn't just long, I mean it felt long. At 2 hours and 33 minutes the last 90 minutes dragged and that's because for all the grandiose sets and cinematic achievements, there's not a great story to be had. The last part of the film meanders and hits upon religious and political themes without really every exploring them. And the end scene that resolved the big worker's riot with a mere handshake is very unsatisfying.



However I still hold the film in great regard for it's amazing scope and artistic design. I love the look of the robot before it's transformed into Maria. And I loved the transformation scene itself. OMG! for it's time that was beyond amazing. And I loved the German expressionistic approach to film making. Those scenes of the workers marching to work as the sway back and forth with heads held down like mere clogs in the machine...that was amazing.



Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	a.jpg
Views:	370
Size:	204.8 KB
ID:	56423   Click image for larger version

Name:	aa.jpg
Views:	396
Size:	103.9 KB
ID:	56424  



Lucky Star (1929)

Director: Frank Borzage
Cast: Janet Gaynor, Charles Farrell, Guinn Williams
Genre: Drama, Romance
Silent Film


Such a wonderful film with such an odd title, I mean what was a lucky star anyway? Well never mind I'm not really looking for an answer, just saying it was an odd title. Anyway let's cut to the chase...

...Director Frank Borzage knew how to world build! I swear I wasn't watching a movie, I was in the movie, somewhere deep in the Ozarks or some other backwoods place where poor people eke out a living by any means they could, even if that means hiding nickels in the dirt!

I'm amazed that during the silent era that this film could make such three dimensional scenes...with country roads that seem to go on forever. Even in today's CG crap-world they can't do what was done here, build atmosphere out of dirt and wood.

I was impressed by the way the film was lite with it's subdued lighting and what looked like fog or mist in the quiet country side, which really added depth and ambiance. Even more impressive is the way the director worked in all three dimensions with roads that twisted and went uphill right out of the screen...and Mary's house that was down low in a gully, beneath the dirt road like it was sunken from all hope. Gosh this film is stunning in it's look, but did I like the story?

...Yes I did! I'm a sucker for a love story and that's what this is, both Janet Gaynor (wow was she tiny or what!) and the two male leads were both good. I swear the one guy Wren, looked like George W. Bush on steroids. The ending was the only disappointment for me as it was a prime example of a deus ex machina...but that's OK because visually the movie rocked!





The Kid (1921)
Director: Charles Chaplin
Writer: Charles Chaplin
Cast: Charles Chaplin, Edna Purviance, Jackie Coogan
Genre: Comedy, Drama
Silent Film


"The Tramp cares for an abandoned child, but events put that relationship in jeopardy."

This might be my favorite Chaplin film so far. Two aspects of Chaplin the director & writer stands out:

1) He takes a bold social stand by clearly stating the unwed mother's only sin is that of motherhood. We then see her leaving the building where she had the baby and two rather stern people are shaking there heads in disapproval. For 1921 that was bold of Chaplin to champion the unwed mother in his film.

2) Chaplin allows the child actor to shine in the film, giving the kid many a close up. Another actor/director might have been unwilling to let the kid have any of the limelight. But Chaplin seems to not have an ego about his own stardom and so we get equal time with little Jackie Coogan.



The more I know of Charlie Chaplin, the more I think he was a pretty cool dude and way ahead of his time. I think this as most of his films that I've seen Chaplin tries to impart as sense of social responsibility to his films.

The movie itself moves at a good pace, there's always something going on and as soon as one problem is resolved the next happens. Through out it all, Chaplin plies our emotions and makes us call about the plight of the Tramp and the Kid.





Pandora's Box (1929)

Die Büchse der Pandora (original title)
Director: Georg Wilhelm Pabst
Writer: Frank Windekind (play)
Cast: Louise Brooks, Fritz Kortner, Francis Lederer
Genre: Drama
Silent Film


"The rise and inevitable fall of an amoral but naive young woman whose insouciant eroticism inspires lust and violence in those around her."

I love that scene where Lulu playfully climbs onto the lap of a man who she thinks is only out for a good time. She has so much youthful joy in her pretty little face, that it makes what happens next, so very memorable.



I really liked Pandora's Box, I don't have a complaint, not one. Louise Brooks was so perfect for this role and I read that the role almost went to Marlene Dietrich. Marlene is great, but I don't see her as Lulu. There's only one Lulu and that's Louise Brooks. She imbibes Lulu with unbridled energy and a real feeling of innocents. Which is odd as she's grown up in dance halls and so has seen and apparently done it all, and yet she's not jaded, nor does she willingly use her feminine charms to get what she wants. To me she's pure of soul as her intentions are altruistic.....Wow! I'm really thinking of Lulu like a real person, see that's how powerful of presences she had.





The Unknown (1927)
Director: Tod Browning
Writer: Tod Browning
Cast: Lon Chaney, Norman Kerry, Joan Crawford
Genre: Drama, Horror, Romance
Silent Film

"An 'armless' criminal on the run hides in a circus and seeks to possess the beautiful daughter of the ringmaster at any cost."


Before Tod Browning made the infamous Freaks (1932) and the classic horror film Dracula (1931) he was a hard working silent film director with over 50 silent films to his credit. One of the better known of his silent films is the 1927 Lon Chaney vehicle, The Unknown.



The Unknown is short at 1 hour 3 minutes and packs a lot of emotions into this lurid story of a jealous circus performer with no arms. Played to perfection by the man of a 1000 faces, Lon Chaney. The Unknown caught my interest from the very start and then held my attention throughout the film. Unlike a lot of silent era dramas, it was easy to follow, thanks to the focused story and the limited number of characters...By my count there were only four characters and that helped the story to come across with gusto.

I loved the story line of an 'armless' carnival performer in love with a woman who detested men's hands. Wow, what a story idea! It was proper Tod Browning bizarre and that made the film pretty darn cool. Lon Chaney commanded the screen whenever he was in the camera's eye. I can't believe that was Joan Crawford! I couldn't see any resemblance to her in her later films. I read that 14 minutes are missing of this film, that's too bad as I would have loved to seen those lost scenes. The Unknown, is a silent that should be known.

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	aa.jpg
Views:	360
Size:	147.4 KB
ID:	56475  



You ever going to do the Pixar reviews? Just curious to see your final ratings.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Catching up on a lot of reviews. Even with being a prolific reviewer here, you give good insight into your thoughts during the movies and pick excellent films. I just wanted to say that while I might not post in this thread (I really should) I appreciate all the time and effort you put into your reviews.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



You ever going to do the Pixar reviews? Just curious to see your final ratings.
Yup, I'll be doing those soon.

Catching up on a lot of reviews. Even with being a prolific reviewer here, you give good insight into your thoughts during the movies and pick excellent films. I just wanted to say that while I might not post in this thread (I really should) I appreciate all the time and effort you put into your reviews.
Thanks Suspect, you know I use to review a movie every day, now I hardly have the time, even though I still watch 1 movie per day. Most of those last movies were actually chosen by other people in HoFs




The Man Who Laughs (1928)
Director: Paul Leni
Writer: Victor Hugo (novel), J. Grubb Alexander (adaptation)
Cast: Mary Philbin, Conrad Veidt, Julius Molnar
Genre: Drama,Mystery


"When a proud noble refuses to kiss the hand of the despotic King James in 1690, he is cruelly executed and his son surgically disfigured."

I swear that's Madonna circa 1990 in that screen shot. And yeah I've said that before about Freaks. That's Olga Baclanova in both films btw. I think it's a fine film that's based on the French author Victor Hugo's work, Hugo also wrote Les Miserables and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. And in the last chase scene when Gwynplaine is trapped in a castle looking tower, the crane shot of him looking down at the pursuing crowd below from atop of the buildings pinnacle, reminded me of the same scene with Lon Chaney in The Hunchback of Notre Dame.



To me The Man Who Laughs isn't so much about the story or the world building or even the look of the film. To me it's about one thing...the sustained look of nervous fear on the face of the great Conrad Veidt. Matching that frozen look of a nightmarish grin carved in his face, is the beautifully serene gaze of the elfin like Mary Philbin as Dea. Those expressions spoke volumes and conveyed inner being that no narrative could.






Marianne
(1929)

Director: Robert Z. Leonard
Cast: Marion Davies, George Baxter, Lawrence Gray
Genre: Comedy Musical Romance


'During World War I, a young French woman struggles to choose between two suitors: a blind soldier to whom she is engaged and an American serviceman.'

To be honest I didn't really enjoy it all that much from a pure entertainment stand point. But what I really liked was Marion Davies. I can see why she was such a big star in the silent film days, and I can see why William Randolph Hurst took such a fancy to her....She was a doll! And so animated and lively that she carried the film effortlessly. I'm kinda embarrassed to say that this is only the second film I've seen of hers. I need to work on that!

Even though Marianne doesn't compare to the heavy hitter films in this HoF, I'm still glad I seen it as it's an important part of film history and sets on the cusp of both silent and talkie movies.


Originally this was shot as a silent film and as a drama and was 30 minutes shorter. What's interesting from a film buff's point of view is that this movie was made in that one year when sound films made a huge impact, and some silent films that were in production went back into production and added in sound. At no other time in movie history has such and abrupt change took place in films.

I haven't seen the silent version of this, but I think I can tell that the added in dialogue scenes were done to take advantage of the new trend in sound. I swear this film has more dialogue in it than films being made today, and it has a bunch of music to boot, which must have been amazing for audiences in 1929 to see AND hear.





Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

Director: Stuart Baird
Cast: Patrick Stewart, Tom Hardy, Jonathan Frakes, Brent Spiner
Writers: John Logan, Rick Berman, Brent Spiner
Genre: Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi


In a nut shell what I didn't like about Nemesis is this: there was little focus on the Star Trek world and the established characters, with almost no world building or character exploration. Instead there was a lot of focus on block buster Hollywood style action. And there was too much focus on the bad guy played by Tom Hardy, which left little time for the Star Trek crew to have any meaningful lines.

The director, Stuart Baird has only three films to his directorial credit and is mostly known as an action film editor. And that's what he did to Nemesis turned it into a Hollywood action flick. You could take the Star Trek crew out of the picture and it wouldn't even matter to the film. Besides the short wedding scene, there's nothing really Star Trek about the film. The ST crew needs to be endemic to any ST movie.

Even some of the cast members have had harsh criticism for the director. Marina Sirtis called him an 'idiot' and a 'son of a bitch'. On the movie's DVD extras she said the director didn't know a thing about the Star Trek universe and didn't even know that Geordi La Forge was a human, he thought he was an alien because of the artificial eyes.

To me the film seems to disrespect what the ST crew was all about. Which is not surprising because reportedly the director was said to have hated the Star Trek franchise and refused to watch any of the TV episodes. It feels like he thumbed his nose at the ST universe and made Nemesis into another no-brainier action flick.

But worse the film has the stupidest plot line of any ST film, that includes the often maligned Star Trek V. There;s Remus the lesser twin world of Romulus where the Reman's are slave labor and a human clone of Picard is sent to that slave world as a child. So the Picard clone rises up in a slave revolt and somehow manages to get the baddest ass war ship ever constructed (how?) and a huge army all from a bunch of slaves? Then instead of using his death ray to exact revenge on his Romulan slave masters as one would expect, he decides to destroy Earth instead. That's all bush league writing.

Though the most inane thing in the movie is that stupid off road car chase with Picard driving on the desert planet...Especially stupid is it's death defying jump off a cliff and into the back of a waiting shuttle People watch the Star Wars franchise for silliness, err I mean fun...Star Trek was always a thinking person's franchise...that is until Nemesis and later JJ Abrams got a hold of it.

-



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
I don't think I've watched Star Trek: Nemesis since it was in the theater, but as I recall, I didn't like it either. I'm not really a fan of any of the ST:TNG movies. I liked Generations, but even that movie was only okay.

With the exceptions of ST:TMP and ST:V, the ST:TOS movies are much better.
__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.



I don't think I've watched Star Trek: Nemesis since it was in the theater, but as I recall, I didn't like it either. I'm not really a fan of any of the ST:TNG movies. I liked Generations, but even that movie was only okay.

With the exceptions of ST:TMP and ST:V, the ST:TOS movies are much better.
I liked First Contact and Insurrection the best, I like Generations too. I watched one of the JJ Abrams ST movies and that's all I'll ever watch. So for me Nemesis was the last one.