Reviews

This movie was okay. It had aspects that I really enjoyed, like the very beginning with the photographs. It reminded me of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and gave off a very horror movie-like vibe. I also liked that the media was crediting Bonnie and Clyde with numerous robberies that they themselves did not commit, yet they were happy to take the credit for. That all being said, certain aspects were far from these, such as the initial shootout with the entire gang. That was just silly, and to have the wife running around in the streets screaming when police are everywhere was just stupid. I also wish there was more conflict in Bonnie prior to joining up with Clyde. She does have difficulty with it at first and at a few points throughout the movie, but I feel these could all be closer together and really show her distress. Separating them so much and having her happily go along with these heinous acts in between just feels off.

I was greatly disappointed after watching this film. It had a lot of potential but became predictable in all of the wrong ways. Ben's awkwardness and honesty was amusing at first, but became painful to watch. I got second-hand embarrassment just from watching him. From the very first mention of the daughter I knew that Ben would fall for her and cause a lot of problems, then the movie would end with them together. It was just too easy and beyond predictable. It almost felt lazy in my opinion.

This movie was very entertaining. The music was utterly fantastic, definitely my favorite aspect of the film. And many of the trial scenes were great, having amusing quips and retorts as well as unforeseen evidence coming to light, just an all-around good experience. My only discourse with this film was that it felt far too long. It seemed to drag on, and I felt many scenes could have been shortened or thrown together with "intermission-esc" scenes cut entirely.

While I would not consider this to be the worst film I have ever seen, this is certainly up there. The lack of a distinctive plot really makes this movie difficult to follow and even harder to enjoy. I understood the gist of what was happening, but all of the points that were attempted to be made were just struggling to be understood. For example, the very first cinematic scene where we see Uncle and his family, that is not necessarily a bad scene but to cut away before showing the Nazi's attack and to immediately show him laying in a lawn chair is just odd. These odd scenes are scattered across the film; every point that was attempted to be made could have done so far differently than what was actually done. It was just an all-around odd experience.

Please don't make me watch this again. I'm begging you.

The roughly five minute prologue including seemingly the entire instrumental soundtrack was odd. Why not just have that at the end while the credits play? But that is not even close to being the worst part. The snapping in an attempt to seem imitating was just stupid. They looked ridiculous. And the ballet dancing through the streets...that was just awful. I felt physical pain watching them prance around talking about how hard life is and how bad they are. It was so contradictory and just downright awful. This was especially true in the "You're A Jet" number. The singing was sub-par and the acting and dancing were ridiculous. I will say, though, that the "America" number was entertaining, but the dancing was, again, ridiculous.

While I am by no means a fan of musicals or films that involve a lot of singing, I must say I did not entirely hate this one. The balance between singing and general conversation/acting in the movie was good, and the songs themselves were not entirely obnoxious. I thoroughly enjoyed the embellishment of Don's past and the simple comic routines in the 'Make Them Laugh" number, but everyone seemed animated and their emotions were overexaggerated. This was the most obvious in Lina. I found her insufferable. Not just because of her voice but because of her overall attitude. I don't understand why the studio owner didn't just fire her but instead put up with her antics and threats. No sensible person would do such a thing, especially someone who is that persons superior.

This film really disappointed me. It looked and sounded interesting, but was very dull. From the very beginning, when we are shown these murders, the lack of dialogue or connection with the deceased and/or the Hitch-Hiker made the killings just an event that happened rather than a tragic or horrific event. There was no emotion, no reason, no anything.

Now on the subject of reasoning, we never truly find out why the Hitch-Hiker kills. He does state that he had a rough life in which his parents abandoned him, but there must be more to it then that. And this lack of reasoning makes the film even more frustrating, because you have a killer who seems to kill for no real reason. He is of relatively sound mind (as in he is not completely mad), he knows that what he is doing is wrong to some degree, but for whatever reason he seems to only kill when he feels like it.

The men who the Hitch-Hiker essentially kidnaps are foolish. Not only would overpowering their adversary be relatively easy with the two of them, but at one point one of them had a rifle in their hands, meaning one could attempt to disarm the Hitch-Hiker while the other points the gun and, when given the opportunity, shoots him. This is yet another frustrating aspect of the film that makes no sense.

And finally, the end of the movie has to be one of the worse I have ever seen. The police capture the Hitch-Hiker, make a comment to the two men, then just leave them on the dock. Really? That is it? No twist, no scene where the two return home, no scene where we see the Hitch-Hiker questioned or in trial or imprisoned? It just ends? It felt as if I had watched the whole disappointing film just to be disappointed even further.

This movie was very uninspiring. To start off with, it really dragged on. It had scenes that felt more like they were intended to be filler rather than actually deepen or further the plot. But that would not be much of a problem if the plot itself were actually interesting. From the beginning of the movie, when Mildred first says she would do "anything" for her children it was obvious she was involved in Monty's murder in the very first scene. It wasn't clear if she was the one who did it, but she was definitely involved. Now the other problem with the film, and the one I would say made it so awful to sit through, was that the characters themselves were dull and uninteresting. Mildred was trying to do her best to provide her daughters a life without worry, Monty was a selfish con who truly only cared for himself, Mildred's oldest daughter was a selfish, entitled, spoiled brat who cared only for money and wealth, Wally is a disgusting man who simply wants to make Mildred his and constantly pursues her in various foul and pathetic attempts, and finally Mildred's first husband begins as a frustrated and angry man who takes out these emotions on Mildred, but after the death of their youngest daughter he becomes more sincere, caring and kind, even gentle. He was the only character that was somewhat interesting, but he had a small portion of screen time and thus we are not really able to relate to him. I truly am not sure why this movie was so successful.

This film is the definition of plot holes. There were so many scenes that did not make sense. For instance, how did investigators figure out there was gasoline in the fire extinguisher? Forensic Science was nowhere near advanced enough to figure that out. I suppose you could argue that they would have came to that conclusion after realizing that upon being engulfed in flames, it did not explode and release the compounds used to put out fires, but again to come to the conclusion that it was replaced entirely with gasoline and not that it was simply faulty or out of date does not make a lot of sense. And to come to this conclusion so quickly makes even less sense.

Another scene that did not make sense was when Barry found out the wealthy ranch owner was a conspirator in the fire. Why didn't Barry just simply attack and/or kill him? Yes, we found out a little later that his maids were armed, but at the time the only thing standing between them was the little girl. It did not make any sense. This man was one of the people involved in the death of his friend and the framing of his own life, it seems like the most understandable action would be to lash out and seek revenge but Barry simply stands there and continues his formal but tense discussion.

Another thing that made very little sense in the same scene is when Barry is attempting to escape the Ranch, why did he not keep the incriminating letters for himself? Not only could it have been used to potentially save himself from the police, or at the very least get them to question his guilt, but if he did get away he could use them to continue to track down Fry. So it simply makes very little sense for him to deem the letters as unimportant.

And finally, one of the things that I still cannot wrap my head around, is the fact that so many citizens deem Barry innocent, or at least innocent until proven guilty. Why on Earth would they ever believe that? They have no reason to. In fact they have plenty of reason to believe the exact opposite. Take, for example, the blind man and the circus employees. Barry had handcuffs around his wrists. The radio hosts were calling him a criminal and responsible for burning down the factory and for the death of his friend. The public only knew the crimes he was accused of and he even escaped capture from the police. So to almost immediately assume his innocence is unbelievable. Any rational human being would see this situation and either walk as far away as possible, as to not get involved, or to contact authorities to apprehend this supposed murderer.

I enjoyed the first half of this movie far more than the second. Rick's lack of empathy to anyone but himself is entirely justifiable. He had been betrayed by the woman he loved. And upon finding out the truth as to why only made it more understandable. And upon her returning into his life by chance, she again used him to get what she wanted; her and her husband's safety. You can see how much pain he is in when Rick finds out the truth. He is a complete mess, drinking ungodly amounts and weeping/wallowing in his bar. She did not deserve redemption, even if it were for a higher cause. It was selfish and it truly broke Rick.

It is also clear that this movie is a representation of America in World War II. Like Rick, America did not want to be involved and wanted to remain an isolated nation. But, through circumstances they had no control over, they were left with two options; either allow these powers who seek total obedience to trample over them, or to fight back. And seeing as doing nothing would cause more death, there truly was no other alternative.

This film gave me conflicting feelings. Though I thoroughly enjoyed seeing Lincoln's passion for reading despite his lack of education and his charismatic ability, the dialogue was beyond poor at times. The scene where he is talking to Ann and says, "I like red hair" was so awkward and unrealistic. It made me involuntarily cringe. And the pie contest was utterly ridiculous. Seeing him stand there with two slices of pie being shoved into his face was just unnecessary. And the scene where he is on horseback visiting the family he is defending and playing the instrument was also unnecessary. There was no point to it. This movie would have been much better if these scenes were either redone, replaced, or entirely cut out.

This movie was very entertaining. The theme of "don't judge a book by it's cover" is clearly present in this film. Ringo, an outlaw and criminal in the eyes of the law, is seeking revenge and is apprehended. Though he attempts to escape, his realization that he and those he is traveling with are surrounded by Native American's who are known to kill all who are not them fills him with a sense of honor and integrity, as he voluntarily stays with them and helps fight back the tribal warriors. Dallas, a former "lady of the night", is harshly judged by her companions. They view her as less of a person because of her past. But she is one of the kindest of the group, and helps Mrs. Mallory's baby and tend to her. And one of the seemingly upstanding citizens of the group, Mr. Gatewood, turns out to be a criminal who robbed a bank prior to making the journey. So, as stated previously, this film clearly sends a message to the viewers as to not judge someone prior to getting to know them. The kindest may turn out to be the most sinister, and the harshest may be the most trustworthy.

Oh my, this was definitely an...interesting movie. I have come to realize that some of the early films of the 1900's are good, or at least entertaining. This, however, was not one of those films. To start off, the acting was just so obnoxious. I understand that this movie was attempting to portray the rich as selfish, ignorant, and apathetic because they could simply buy whatever they needed, but Irene and her mother were just awful. Irene's childish behavior was just obscene and entirely unnecessary. Every time she caused a scene I struggled to continue watching. And her mother's ignorance was almost just as bad. Anytime Irene was having an episode her mother would come up with any and every excuse as to why she was acting so insufferably. She was an awful parent; she could not see that her children did not appreciate the life they have and just wanted to satiate their desires. The father was the only sane one of the family, continually attempting to bring the women down to Earth, but it was quite obvious he had no real authority over them and they would simply disregard his pleas and rules. Godfrey's role in the movie is to put this irresponsible family in their place and show them humility, generosity, honesty and passion. Though his rapid employment as a butler is extremely unnerving and unsafe. To simply find a homeless man and say "would you like to be my butler?" is just not something that would ever happen, or if it did then there would be many more steps before he is able to start working. Regardless, Godfrey was rather clear-headed and honest, but his reluctant acceptance to Irene's proposal felt extremely forced and wrong. Godfrey took on this job as a form of self-redemption; to prove to himself that he can achieve more and be better. He talks about his previous struggle with marriage and tells Irene that he wishes to remain friends. I think that the movie would have been much better if Godfrey stuck to this ideal. Although there is a possibility that he will develop feelings for Irene (or develop them further), he still seemed hesitant to date her, let alone marry her. He was not ready and she forced him into a relationship. It was just so disheartening seeing the spoiled, rich, child get everything she wanted and not learning a thing.

The Invisible man was certainly an interesting film. I cannot say that I would categorize it anywhere near a horror film, but I did enjoy aspects of it. Jack's whole maniacal and borderline insane demeanor was what made the movie fun to watch. His various antics and hysterical laughter was very entertaining. The scene in the bar where Jack is in only a shirt and is being chased around the table laughing was amusing. And going back to his laughter, it was very similar to that of The Joker in his various iterations in film.

The reason I cannot categorize this movie as a horror movie is due to the fact that it is not terrifying and there are no attempts at making it so. Yes, Jack murders for seemingly no reason and terrorizes nearly everyone, but he does it while laughing and this creates a sort of light undertone, making it feel like it is not as serious as it needs to be. And there are characters like the wife of the bar owner who are insufferable and whose reactions are very far from that of reality. Her hysteric episodes and screaming were irritating and unnecessary. They felt theatrical rather than genuine and I unconsciously rolled my eyes during these scenes. There were times I considered even stopping the movie because these scenes were so poor.

Were it not for Jack's entertaining performance, I would not have enjoyed this movie nearly as much. The story itself was okay, but Jack's God complex and lack of empathy for others made a horrid movie a decent one.

Frankenstein is a entertaining movie, but I feel the acting and dialogue is a bit overexaggerated and ridiculous at times. Maybe this was done to convey emotion in the characters, but compared to today, it comes off as cheesy. The scene where Frankenstein's assistant steals the brain is one such scene. The assistant is extremely clumsy and even drops one of the brains. He is also startled by a model of a skeleton hanging beside the table where the brains are located. Keep in mind, this skeleton was not hidden or disguised in anyway. It was simply out in the open, hanging there. The assistant should have clearly seen the skeleton earlier, or at least known of its existence, so it makes no sense for him to be startled when he bumps into it. Despite this minor issue, it is easy to see that this film has clearly paved the way for countless other horror movies. The concept of raising the dead had not been captured in cinematography the way that Frankenstein does. To have a hulking beast made of pieces of cadavers dug up in a grave is certainly morbid, but to have this creature then come to life and carry out simple tasks is terrifying. Seeing a gigantic man with sewn-together body parts being struck by lightening an "re-animated" is not only frightening, but defies the beliefs of most religions. Man does not, and should not, have the power of the Gods.

The 'power of the Gods" as stated earlier can be seen in many different ways. The ability to essentially defy death is something that is usually attributed to the Gods. No mortal being has the inherent power to do this, but Dr. Frankenstein shows that we humans should not be restrained by the bonds the Gods placed upon us. Frankenstein's defiance for death only proves that we are not lesser beings to the Gods, but with the right technology we can be equals, if not their superiors. When Frankenstein gives life to the corpse he has before him, he uses lightening to shock the body and jumpstart it. Lightening is a symbol of power, and the Greek God Zeus wielded lightening as his weapon. The use of lightening in the film is again a sign that we humans are but equals to the Gods, not their lesser. But this film also warns of the dangers when attempting to become a God; Frankenstein's monster kills many throughout the story, even severely injuring Frankenstein himself at the end of the movie. This film serves as a warning and a message to those who seek the path of the divine: be prepared for a reckoning.

The point is this film was the first to put the undead on stage, and its creation has forever changed the world of cinematography.

What I find to be the most intriguing aspect of this film is the public's misconception of who Frankenstein is. Many assume Frankenstein to be the monster, when in fact it is the scientist who created the monster who was named Frankenstein. I attempted to find a distinct answer as to why this had occurred, but the only conclusion I came to was that it is common for films to be named after a main character, and in the horror genre this usually ends up being the antagonist, such as Dracula, The Invisible Man, and countless others. So because of this unintentional conditioning, the public wrongly assumes that Frankenstein is the monster.

I had never realized that Scarface (1983) had been a modernized remake of this movie. From the very beginning you can see the clear similarities, not just in the story but in the characters mannerisms as well. While I can spend all day talking about the similarities, I think it is much more interesting to discuss the differences between the two movies, because that is what ultimately makes them two very different movies. For starters, this movie deals with prohibition and the illegal manufacturing and distribution of alcohol, whereas the 1983 version focused on the distribution of cocaine. This immediately sets a very different tone. Prohibition was something that many across the country greatly disagreed with and was so disregarded that it was eventually appealed. But something like cocaine has been illegal for a long time, and has been associated with violence and greed. Alcohol is something that hundreds of thousands of citizens do across America and only when consumed without moderation does it severely affect your senses, but cocaine is something that immediately affects your senses upon consumption. This lack of control is what makes cocaine so vilified to the public. So going back to the film, the tone is immediately different between the two, even though the acts are similar. In this version, Tony is shown as a leader, but he leads by example. In the 1983 version he leads more like a boss. In this, Tony goes and kills, threatens, and beats people himself. While the 1983 version of Tony does this occasionally (especially at the beginning), he seems to prefer to have others handle the dirty work. That being said, this version of Tony had a secretary who took care of all of his calls, and his incompetence really demonstrated a significance between the two. You see, this Tony kept trying to teach his secretary how to do his job, despite his inexperience. The 1983 Tony would not have a secretary to begin with, and absolutely would not put up with this level of incompetence. And the way that this Tony comes to power is through power, but he uses violence to kill his opposition and have ultimate control, whereas the 1983 Tony killed his boss and assumed control in all of the areas that his boss has once filled, then also began expanding upon them. So although similar, the two movies again show just how different they are.

This movie is definitely a product of it's time. All of the stereotypical 1920's gangster tropes are seen. Now that is not inherently a bad thing, I am sure that at the time this was not seen often, but I have seen this done hundreds of times. Unfortunately the predictability of the movie made it a bit dull for me, but it did have some entertaining moments. The scene in the very beginning where the boy gets hit in the face by a swinging door really made the movie for me. There was just something so amusing about a cocky little boy getting smacked in the face by a door after attempting to gain the affection of a young girl that really put a smile on my face. And while the liquor robbery with the gasoline truck was rather short and simple, it was clever and amusing to see. On the other side of the spectrum, however, there were a lot of scenes that just made me take a deep sigh and roll my eyes. During the robbery of the fur clothing warehouse, when the taxidermized bear was shot was a shining example of this. The scene was not done properly. The bear was shown to the characters and the viewers for enough time that the reaction to shooting it felt as if it was intentional sabotage or stupidity rather than an accident due to fear and surprise. And at the wake of Lenny, the two protagonists looked as if they felt no remorse. In fact, it looked as if they did not really care about their friend's death that was their own fault. They showed no anger, no guilt, they just looked at one another and shrugged their shoulders. As I was viewing this movie, I felt no real connection to any of the characters. There just wasn't anything...different or unique or even interesting about them. Well, all but Nails Nathan. His charismatic attitude made him an exciting character, and I enjoyed just about every scene with him in it. Although he was the one being hired, he had a way with taking power from his employer that made them feel like they were either still in control or doing it willingly, as if it was their idea. When he took a job he made sure it was done, but done in his way. After Tom's brother returns home and they quarrel with each other, Tom becomes erratic and unstable. He belittles and threatens his significant other, Kitty. After seeing Putty Nose, he takes Matt to confront Putty and beat him, then kill him after Putty proves yet again that he is untrustworthy and lies. And after Nails is killed by a horse, Tom buys the horse just to execute it. But after Matt gets killed, Tom breaks and seeks revenge. This is one of the only times I felt his feelings are shown, and displayed accordingly. His anger makes him reckless, and he robs a gun store in broad daylight without even attempting to disguise himself. And his rampage against the rival gang was foolish, with his only plan being to kill. The ending of the movie leaves a lot to be desired. While it is fitting to have Tom return home dead, it feels like the movie was building up to something more. I don't think an entire rescue scene full of explosions and blood would be necessary, but to just have Tom arrive at the doorstep dead...it feels cheap. At least they could have a scene with Paddy and his men telling the family the news, or having them all mourn the loss together. It again shows a lack of connection between the characters that needs to be there.

In I Am A Fugitive from a Chain Gang, You cannot help but feel pitiful for James Allen. He returns home from a war, hoping to seek out a job that he is passionate about, only to immediately have those hopes crushed. Seemingly everyone simply wants him to return to the way life was prior to his departure. His attempts at voicing his feelings fall upon deaf ears, until his mother encourages him to seek out his desires. But after traveling across America, he cannot seem to find anyone who is hiring. And things only get worse when he gets caught up in a robbery and arrested. James seems cursed to live out the rest of his life as a "soldier", in one form or another. After his escape, he changes his name by simply flipping his first and last name. I find this to be a bit comical, as if something like this happened in today's world (which would be very difficult with all of the employment laws and requirements such as a social security number) because it is almost as if James is unintentionally mocking the police. He thinks he has escaped and that he is finally free. To his credit, he has no reason to suspect otherwise as his simple name change has only brought him higher and higher in the ranks of his workplace and society in general. But as soon as things are looking good, after telling Marie his feelings towards her (or more precisely, his lack thereof), its almost as if karma had flipped a switch, which seems unfair. Unfortunately we do not know the whole story, but from the argument it sounds like he tried to love Marie but for whatever reason couldn't. It is not that he had cruel intentions, but he just did not feel the same way, and to have her blackmail him was just unfair. Yes, it seemed terrible for him to say the things he did, but he was being honest rather than stringing her along or putting them in a position where they are unhappy. I would also like to point out that he missed the perfect opportunity (yet again) to change his "last name". I understand that it was common for the wife at the time to take on the husbands surname, but the change in name would still have made James a whole lot safer. What's even worse is that she is using up all of his money and cheating on him. James is rightly frustrated. To sever ties with her will only bring the police down on him, but to keep her around will tarnish his reputation and drive him mad. When Marie finally shows James that she was never bluffing, James reaches out to the public, stating he is an honorable citizen and that he is an asset to them, and that the chain gangs are a cruel and unreasonable punishment. His outcry was brilliant, with the public divided on what to do it puts officials in a uncomfortable position. No matter their decision, the public will be unhappy. But James is foolish enough to take a deal with the attorneys and serve 90 days and pay a fine. He does this in an attempt to show his honor and commitment to do what is right, but is shown that there truly is no such thing. The state refused to pardon him despite his effort and denied all allegations of the chain gang system being brutal and inhumane. James' anger is soothed only by his brothers affirmations that he will only serve 9 more months. In an effort to break James, the prison officers tell him his pardon was suspended indefinitely, and they succeed. James later breaks out again and after a year, visits Helen and confides in her. He tells her how he has been surviving and why he couldn't see her sooner. It is extremely heartbreaking, but as he is leaving she asks how he has been surviving, and he says "by stealing". The irony is that it was the prison system that turned him into a criminal. Although today's criminal system is much different, the injustice seen in this movie is still occurring in todays world.

After viewing this tragedy, I can see many aspects that are still seen in a lot of entertainment today. The model citizen who is wrongly accused, the court/prison system that failed the citizen/criminal, and the irony that the same system that is supposed to protect us only harms us. This movie was absolutely brilliant, and while it is not one I would have gone out of my way to watch (or even seem interested in it at first glance), it was very entertaining and now a movie I highly recommend to those interested in crime movies or movies about injustice.

Scarface is one of my all-time favorite movies. I actually own this movie myself and have watched it countless times. Tony Montana is such an iconic character in cinematography, and his story of his rise to power and fall from glory shows what greed does to a man. While the characters are exaggerated and scenes are made unrealistic, it is still entertaining nonetheless. While watching the film and seeing Tony's slow decent into madness, I felt pitiful for him and while I wanted him to get better, I also wanted karma to catch up to him. That being said, when he meets his fate at the end of the movie I was a bit upset. I disliked Tony's actions and behavior but I still loved him as a character. Watching him push everyone that he loved and cared for away, trusting nobody but himself, it was all disheartening. He was a bad guy but his goals and desires were only what we have been told is the American Dream; to be wealthy, get a beautiful wife, have a enormous mansion, and do pretty much whatever you want.