Keyser Corleone's Movie Memoirs

→ in
Tools    





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%



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.



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.



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

"What kind of family am I up against?"



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.



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."



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."



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.



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!"



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.



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 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.



Keyser Corleone's Robin Hood Week, Review 2

Robin Hood (2010) - Directed by Ridley Scott

"And the legend begins."



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."



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.




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?



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.