Reviews

24 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
M (1931)
10/10
Intense classic still impressive 90 years later
28 April 2020
What a stunning picture, as Fritz Lang cemented his place in movie history if he hadn't done so already with Metropolis (1927) among his other early works in the Weimar period. It is very different from that experimental work of extravagance, but even stronger. It is more concise, the script is fascinating as is the acting but to me real star of the show is the cinematography and direction. Its so brilliant and innovative, and still impresses today. It's hard to really imagine how it must have felt seeing this in 1931. The contrast of light and dark, the moving camera shots, the use of mirrors and shadows... and one can go on.

The script with its attention to the psychology of the people, the police and criminals is also fascinating. Of course further attention must be paid to Peter Lorre, who as a 'main' character does not have that much screentime until the later parts of the movie, but his time in the frame is magnetic and powerful.

Original, impressive, with a long lasting legacy which it fully deserves. Every movie fan should really watch this at least once.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Blonde Crazy (1931)
8/10
Very entertaining pre-code
28 April 2020
This crime comedy drama with James Cagney and Joan Blondell is really very entertaining. The start of the movie is more heavy on the comedy, which is relatively edgy making it very clear that this is a pre-code film. Cagney is nice and mischievous and Joan Blondell knows how to hit back (literally, sometimes). They are both very strong in their roles.

Very interesting to see the con they pulled that was very similar to The Sting.

The later parts of the movie have a more dramatic tinge, and bring it more in line with the sentimentality of a typical gangster movie of the period. The change in tone is somewhat abrupt, but the movie remains strong and entertaining until the end. It helps that it has a nice tempo and is not too long. Recommended
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Ultimate Pre-Code Gangster?
25 March 2020
Is there a better example of the Pre-Code gangster flick? Only maybe Scarface (1932) can compete.

Oh how good is James Cagney, his fierceness, his charisma, his tragicness as well.

It has a speedy pace, it has a marvelous cast -- Jean Harlow is always a plus, in my opinion.

Yes, it is a classic story of the rise and fall of a gangster, but here is how it became a cliché. Very well done, and that last act is magnificent.

James Cagney was a gift to Hollywood.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Frankenstein (1931)
9/10
More than legendary
25 March 2020
Even if one has never read the source book, has never seen one Frankenstein movie, one knows the movements Boris Karloff's monster makes, his arms stretching out, moving towards the camera. It is cliché, now, but here it is genius, legendary, a vision.

There is more here than just the monster, though that alone would make this movie worth a watch so many years later. Colin Clive is also strong as Frankenstein, and who can forget the moment as the monster comes to life.

A movie of 70 minutes, perpetually rewatchable, legendary in so many ways. It has changed Frankenstein, Horror, Film and Pop Culture in general since.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dracula (1931)
9/10
Legendary
25 March 2020
It is so easy to harp on the lesser parts of this movie - the silliness, the slowness, the lack of music for a lot of it, and the fact that for a modern audience the movie perhaps is more funny than scary (mileage may vary).

But does that even matter? Bela Lugosi plays such a legendary role, in such a magnificent way, it has to be seen at least once. The way he stares, the way he talks, so many may have copied or parodied it, but none have done it quite like he did.

The sets and Dwight Frye's role always delight as well.

Delicious.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Cocoanuts (1929)
8/10
A Great Start - showing what they were and weren't all about
25 March 2020
While this is not their best movie, it does very much show off what the Marx Brothers were so good at - but also show some of their failings.

Yes, this is a combination of sketches/bits like a lot of their movies, but some of these sketches are so good. My personal favorite was what I call the carousel bit with the hotel rooms and the dialogues between Groucho and Chico, although it has to be said that Harpo has some funny moments too as he always had.

As was often the case with the Marx Brothers, the other roles weren't all that interesting, although I did not mind Kay Francis.

I think the musical intermezzo's were a bit much this time around, it really seems a bit hit and miss with their pictures. But overall the hilarious moments remain in the memory. Fun.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Another Brooks/Pabst success
25 March 2020
Another classic from Pabst with Louise Brooks in the same year as Pandora's Box, and it is a stunning film again. Very different, but there are some overlapping qualities.

For one, Brooks once again shows she is more than just 'sexy', her naivety and sweetness shine even more here, and it is hard not to root for her as she undergoes many troubling times due to others taking advantage of her.

It is a tragic story - or it seems to be, for most of the picture - but there are moments of hope and light. Beautifully shot and played, I did feel it really came to life in the second half of the movie.

As an aside, I found it pretty fascinating to see that the prostitutes were portrayed as being a pretty positive influence, I guess I did not expect a 1929 film to show them in such a light.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pandora's Box (1929)
9/10
Charismatic overload
10 March 2020
Wow, this is the movie that makes you see why Louise Brooks was such an icon.

Her charismatic playfulness - or playful charisma does not let up for a long time. It is sexy, yet innocent (or rather naïve). She really demands your attention, and it is believable how the men in the movie go crazy for her.

The story itself is sad, certainly as the story progresses it becomes a melodramatic tragedy which might be a bit too unsubtle even for the genre. Even so, the film remains beautiful and did not bore me for one second.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Tour de Force
10 March 2020
This movie is such an intense experience, and if you are in the mood it can have a lasting impact.

There are two sides to this. First there is the intense performance from Maria Falconetti. It almost boggles the mind how well she can portray all shifts in emotion with relatively subtle movements - it is not necessarily a subtle performance, in its intensity, but it recognizes limits. This is no American (or German) melodrama from the 20s, the acting makes the movie come alive. A real Tour de force performance.

But then there is the directing and cinematography. It is visionary, honestly, the close-ups not letting up, in combination with interesting camera movements and at times a quick and intense editing style, which adds a kind of nervous atmosphere.

It adds more tension to the movie and almost makes you feel trapped like Jeanne was, it is impossible to escape the very small room that is put in the frame.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Fascinating - Jannings very strong
10 March 2020
This is a fascinating movie, for a multitude of reasons. First of all there's the plot, with the Tsar's cousin and the revolutionaries, one of whom becomes a Hollywood director.

I loved the cinematography - the variance of shots, the use of dark and light, moving cameras, the use of close-ups...

Thirdly, there is Emil Jannings again. Oh, how well he does the discomfited "general" near the end of the movie. Very nicely contrasted with him exuding confidence in the Russian scenes.

It was also fascinating to see Powell in this, of course famous for his Thin Man performances later on. Evelyn Brent was also good as the female revolutionary.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Louise Brooks
10 March 2020
Wallace Beery is very enjoyable in his role, and I understand he was the bigger star. But Louise Brooks is the highlight of this movie for me, her subtle charisma shines through splendidly.

I was not particularly wild about the male romantic lead, perhaps it's just a case of being contrasted by Brooks and Beery, not an easy situation for anyone to be in.

I did really enjoy the direction, it was shot beautifully, with eye to detail for the contrast of black and white. The action scenes towards the end of the movie were quite impressive and very well done.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Metropolis (1927)
9/10
Extravagant ambition
10 March 2020
German filmmaking during the Weimar Republic never seems to stop being amazing, astonishing... this time it's Lang, whose extravagance I had marvelled at when watching his Nibelungen (1924) duology.

But this is something else entirely. No classic Germanic folk story, no, this is science fiction, distopian fiction and simply incredible filmmaking.

The scale, the ambition, the effects, the cinematography, the tension, the way it feels astonishingly modern in parts... it is all very exciting and impressive.

It might be a tad too long, especially the final act got a bit ridiculous. But perhaps it is a fool's errand to expect a Fritz Lang movie to not go all the way. It certainly does, and we have to thank the man for his ambition and innovation.

Some fun over the top acting, especially enjoyed seeing Rufolf Klein-Rogge again, after his role in Dr. Mabuse.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Underworld (1927)
8/10
Great eary gangster flick
10 March 2020
1927, it's important to realize this is almost a contemporary story.

I loved the ridiculous two lead gangsters, who I guess were not told to be subtle! Hilarious at times, and thoroughly enjoyable performances.

I would say the highlight of the movie is the direction from von Sternberg, some nice shots and techniques used.

All the same, the story, suspense and action all deliver in spades which makes this a fascinating early gangster flick which would be much imitated...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It (1927)
7/10
She certainly had 'it'
10 March 2020
This movie is all about Clara Bow. Although I did laugh at William Austin's performance as "Monty". So very silly.

But back to Clara! What charisma did she have - innocent but mischieveous at the same time. Funny, but sexy.

The moodswings in the story and her character are a bit strange, they sometimes seem to kind of come from nowhere. It is a fun movie, but not necessarily a classic. The story is what it is. But worth it for Miss Bow alone, which is I'm sure the reason most people will want to see this more than 90 years after it was released.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Faust (1926)
8/10
Murnau does it again
10 March 2020
After watching Der Letzte Mann (1924) I was looking forward to another of his movies and his famous Faust is a certified classic. I can't disagree with the critics, it's another great movie.

The effects and the techniques are dazzling again, perhaps even more so than in that aforementioned earlier picture, especially in the early parts of this movie. Mephisto was the highlight of the film for me, another great performance by Emil Jannings, showing he has some nice dark humoristic touches as well. His introduction, hovering over the city, was a great visual.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3 Bad Men (1926)
7/10
Sweet early western
10 March 2020
Westerns this early are difficult, as they can't quite shoot the landscapes in all their glory yet.

But this was a lot of fun: a good mixture of action, tension and comedy. The 3 bad men are ridiculously not bad, because of the girl we presume. We are told they certainly were very bad before this all happened. The sheriff, in comparison, seems like a terrible villain.

It's not a classic, but it's very enjoyable.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Interesting early war picture
10 March 2020
It is very interesting to see a movie depicting world war I so close to the historical event, and 5 years before All Quiet on the Western Front. While perhaps not as impressive (or quite as critical) as that masterpiece, it is a very interesting movie from historical perspective. It does not glamorize the war, far from it in certain scenes.

The melodramatic romantic drama is not bad either, I actually really enjoyed Renée Adorée's performance in this. I have not seen her in other movies, but she was very convincing and certainly caught my eye.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Seven Chances (1925)
8/10
Hilarious and insane
10 March 2020
What a ridiculous plot, perfect for a comedy of course.

And what a comedy we get. Many funny scenes, made all the more funny by Keaton's amazing silent comedic acting.

The highlight of the film, though, has to be the extended chase scene(s). I could not stop laughing at the insanity of it all. So well done. One of my favorite Keatons and silent comedies in general.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Astonishingly sad and beautiful
10 March 2020
Wow, this is the film that made me love F.W. Murnau and Emil Jannings.

What a movie. Looking at it in the context of the time, the decision to do away with intertitles and simply focus on the simple human story of the old doorman played so hauntingly sad by Jannings, it is amazing.

While the story is not flashy, the style of filming is, very impressive editing and camera work all around.

The ending was nice, but I'm not sure the film needed it. Even so, this is a masterpiece.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Safety Last! (1923)
8/10
Funny and impressive
9 March 2020
Ah yes, the wall climbing comedy. A genre too often skipped these days...

That scene, or group of scenes rather, is certainly astonishing. Equal parts bizarre, impressive and hilarious.

To be fair, the comedy beforehand is pretty good as well. Some nice laugh out loud moments makes this worth the time for anyone interested in some movie history or just a good time.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Intolerance (1916)
8/10
Impressive
9 March 2020
After seeing Birth of a Nation this is like a breath of fresh air. Some of the techniques seem to have been done even better, and it is way easier to watch due to the differing subject matter.

As to Intolerance itself, it seems ambitious today, never mind in 1916. 6 Storylines weaved together, with gigantic sets being interspersed with more contemporary melodrama. The script, the camerawork, the sets... it is astonishing. The acting overall seems pretty good for the time, with melodramatic overacting that suits the picture.

It is long, to watch this today you need quite a bit of patience. But it's worth it for anyone trying to see the evolution of cinema. And to wonder at all that ambition paying off.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
How to possibly rate this piece of (movie) history
27 September 2019
This is some incredible movie making. The skill involved is simply incredible. But the racism overwhelms it during the second part. It is very hard to watch. It should not be negated or forgotten. Neither its genius nor its abhorrence.
35 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fun movie, from a newcomer's perspective
18 December 2017
I've never read any Agatha Christie books in my life, nor have I ever seen any previous adaptations. The only sort-of previous history I have with the character of Poirot is the parody in Murder by Death (1976).

This movie was ridiculous but fun. I think that's often the case with Branagh, and he certainly raised the ridiculousness for this one. His accent went all over the place, ridiculous jokey scenes and his acting performance, not to mention his moustache.

The shots were lovely and the ensemble cast did a good job. Can't say I'm a big fan of Depp the last few years but the scenes he had he did very well. He also had one of the funniest throwaway lines I've seen in a while. Something about dogs... the rest of the cast, including greats like Judi Dench, Willem Dafoe, Michelle Pfeiffer and perhaps a future great like Daisy Ridley all did very well and showed their chops in the scenes they had.

I couldn't really take it all that seriously but I enjoy that in my movies sometimes. Combine the ridiculousness with a good cast, good performances and quite beautiful cinematography... I can't complain too much.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Underperforming extremely low expectations
18 December 2017
Getting into this movie after Man of Steel, Batman V. Superman and Suicide Squad I was not expecting much, and I've rarely liked any of Zack Snyder's work. I had slight hope after Wonder Woman, but it was worse than I had expected.

The first part of the movie introduces us to a bunch of characters, but the half-assed way the movie tries to gets the viewer to care about new additions to the DC movie universe, The Flash and Aquaman and Cyborg, by introducing some parent issues which have nothing to do with the plot at all for the first 40 minutes or so of the movie was absolutely awful and boring. It didn't help that I knew about these backstories from previous DC knowledge, but friends of mine who have barely any comics/ CW tv show history didn't care either. It's like the filmmakers thought it was just another thing to cross of their list of things that are supposed to be in a movie like this but didn't actually care about. It certainly did not work.

We also get introduced to the villain, Steppenwolf. What a waste. Every single line was laughingly bad, B-movie quality. Nothing original or intestering whatsoever. This is a problem other comic movies have at times, but this might be the worst villain I've seen in a long time.

Then there's the acting. Ben Affleck just simply gave up after the last movie, didn't he? It really seemed like he hated being in this movie. No emotion, no confidence, just apathy. Gal Gadot and Jason Momoa did their best and were fine, but everyone else... although it's tough to be too hard on Ezra Miller when you look what he was given, absolutely awful jokes and no-one to even react to them. No chemistry at all with any of the other main actors, which is pretty important for an ensemble piece like this! I'm not even getting into Amy Adams, Jeremy Irons and J.K. Simmons who were simply wasted and didn't care at all, just getting a paycheck.

Zack Snyder's direction with his usual habits like way too much slow motion for no discernible reason what so ever are present which certainly did not help. Likewise that so much of this movie was obviously shot in front of green screens and Henry Cavill's CGI face and his CGI removed moustache, wow, just atrocious.

Also the OST was really bland and boring compared to the rest of the DCEU movies, which at least had notable scores from Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL.

In summary, it hardly seemed like anyone involved with this cared about this movie. Hopefully Warner Bros either decide to get some people in who do care, for their sakes and the viewers'.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed