Reviews

On the Waterfront has some very compelling moments, the "I could have been a contender" scene is absolutely iconic and Karl Malden's performance alongside Brando's is excellent. In a lot of ways it's reminiscent of many crime and noir films in the 30s and 40s. The story, particularly the climax, is just strange and ultimately leaves too many very important unresolved plot elements completely unresolved and, really, just completely forgotten.

The film introduces multiple murders, including the murder of Terry Malloy's brother, Charlie. Which is revealed through a half-assed attempt on Terry's life. This pushes Terry to finally oppose Friendly and testify against him in court after briefly seeking revenge in an absolutely ridiculous manner. After the testimony, the murders are never addressed again. Terry's primary motivation is getting back to work, not securing justice or even vengeance for his murdered brother. It's really makes no sense from both a character and a story persepctive. The climax of the story is Terry and the longshoremen breaking Friendly's corrupt control of the union, not him being brought to justice for the murders. We never see Friendly arrested, charged, indicted, go to trial, or convicted. For all we know, he murders Terry to stifle his testimony, uses his mob connections to re-establish control of the union, and everything goes back to the way it was. I feel like they really dropped the ball on this one.

Forbidden Games tackles and interesting and challenging premise: children in a war encountering death. The film manages to create some interesting moments, such as when little Paulette's parents are killed or when Michel's father fights with the neighbor after destroying the neighbor's family grave markers. It also has some interesting things to say, especially about the relationship that the country people have with religion and the symbols present that they don't understand. The problem is that as a whole, the storytelling falls short.

First, the tonal shifts don't even work out. We go from dead parents and a dead dog, to Paulette burying and mourning the dog (but not her parents) to Michel losing his brother, to apparent comedic moments between the neighbor families. But the tonal changes aren't smooth and they aren't signaled, so when you see a joke on screen shortly after all of the more somber moments, I was left thinking "I guess that's supposed to be funny". On top of that, the film mostly sidesteps issues of death. None of the characters seem to greatly mourn any of the dead people, especially Michel when his brother dies. Also, everyone seems to miss the moment when Michel kills a chick in order to give it to Paulette. The audience sees Michel take the live chick and the next time it's shown he's handing it to Paulette and promising that he didn't kill it while she comments that it's body is still warm. With this content, the later scenes with the populated graveyard, make you wonder how many Michel has murdered in order to feed Paulette's game of crosses. On the other hand, that tension provides the film's greatest virtue, as the characters barely seem to register all of the death around them and instead raise hell over missing pieces of wood.

But overall, despite it's powerful symbolism, the crosses play no part in the overarching plot regarding what happens to Paulette. Neither does the storyline of the bickering neighbors or the loose ends of the neighbor's children in a secret romance. Instead, Paulette is whisked away to an orphanage by deux ex machina in uniform in order to achieve an end to the story, although with an ending so abrupt that it felt like it came from a Monty Python film. A lot more could have been achieved with some foreshadowing to create a sense of stakes. You also have to look pretty hard to see an arc for any of the characters, Michel's perhaps being the most obvious with his encounter with Paulette unveiling a willingness to steal and kill for entertainment.

It took me a little while to put my finger on what was putting me off about this movie and it's really a variety of things. As far as the plot, there are a variety of major contrivances that really seem like they wouldn't happen. His connection to Thomas Wayne, his history of trauma, and his booking on the talk show just seem like a collection of highly unlikely instances and when combined they are just not believable and take you out of the movie. It's also a bit of a stretch that a whole movement would spring up after one incident of a clown killing rich guys. It seems like there would need to be a pattern in order for it to really drum up that kind of attention and message.

There's also a series of twists built on top of each other that are both very predictable and distractingly unnecessary. In very short order you find out that Thomas Wayne is Arthur's father, and then that he isn't Arthur's father, and that his mother isn't his mother because he was adopted, and then also his mother ended up in Arkham because of her own mental illness associated with horrific abuse that she allowed him to suffer. And then his female friend turns out to be the result of a delusion. One or two twists is plenty, when you get to 5 it starts to lose it's impact. They also open up a wide variety of plot holes. How did his mother retain custody of him after the abuse and committal? He should have ended up a ward of the state and in foster care, why didn't that happen and why could he remember any of it? How was his mother able to financially support them after coming out of a mental facility? Why did his neighbor's story line abruptly end when he found out she was imaginary? Even if it was going to be ambiguous, you would expect it to have some impact on him whether he's still angry at her or feels guilt or shame or something. Instead, he just seems to forget her and the movie does too. Why doesn't he have any other delusions? People who are delusional tend to have a variety of them but he just seems to have the one centered around this person so that we can have a plot twist.

The movie lifts heavily from other movies like King of Comedy and Taxi Driver. Someone also pointed out Fight Club and 12 Monkeys. But really, movies and storytelling have been around long enough that a little thievery is to be expected.

The acting is a strong point, particularly from Frances Conroy and Zazie Beetz, who both do a great deal with relatively small parts. Joaquin's performance is good in the quiet moments but the over-the-top bits detract from it. He also over-uses the dancing and the twisted and emaciated body. The first few times you see it, it's disturbing but by the 8th, you're pretty used to it. Personally, I found Conroy's depiction of Arthur's mother as a decrepit, delusional, frightened woman who's son is losing his mind and murdering people to be the most touching and disturbing aspect of the film.

Along with the acting, the cinematography, editing, and sound design are very strong. They build creeping senses of dread and foreboding that really make the movie sing in it's best moments.

Overall, the movie is a bit sloppy and uneven (and the Batman stuff is largely shoehorned in) but at times it also generates powerful moments as it barrels toward a theme of mistreatment of the mentally ill by society.

Cocteau's film is an interesting watch but I wouldn't recommend it unless someone is studying film. The costume design is perhaps the most compelling aspect with the acting (obviously inspired by pantomime) and the score somewhat over-dramatic. The sets seem cheap, the effects inferior to older movies like Wizard of Oz or Cat People, and the theme focuses more on the affect that love has on men and women ( "Love can make a Beast of a man. It can also make an ugly man handsome.") rather than the tale of deeper beauty that we've gotten accustomed to after the Disney adaptation. The entire film has an obsession with wealth, nobility, and superficial beauty that is never subverted and informs everything from the narrative to the art direction to the cinematography.

The character development is lacking and the relationship between Belle and the Beast is superficial at best. It's a struggle to feel any kind of romantic connection, even after the Beast is transformed into a handsome and wealthy prince who was punished because of disrespect of the spirits rather than any meaningful character arc. Similarly, Belle, her family, and every other character are motivated by wealth and beauty and are generally the same at the beginning of the film as they were at the end. Nobody seems to overcome anything by their own actions and nobody seems to learn anything; even the resolution seems more like an accident than anything else. There's beauty in the film, but it largely seems to reinforce this superficiality rather than dive a level deeper. It's the beauty of a cold piece of jewelry rather than heart and emotion.

In almost every way, this film is outshone by films of the time period; including films from Renoir and Carne like Le Grande Illusion and Les Enfants du Paradis. Enfants was even shot while still under German occupation with Jewish producers and crew members who had to dodge Nazis and the Vichy government to get the film made. I'd recommend seeing that movie for a better example of the era in French film.

I really struggled with this film. The cinematography is some of the best and most compelling that I've ever seen. The opening shot of the train at night is absolutely gorgeous and you could hang a print on your wall. The genius slide into Dutch angles at the climax hammer home the subject's emotional state in an unforgettable moment . However, the plot is as fairly mundane and the characters uninteresting and underdeveloped.

The script was developed from a 1-act play and it shows. There are many unnecessary shots and scenes seeming to pad the running time by detailing how the female lead spends her mundane days. Perhaps the point, to make the viewer feel the character's boredom. If so, it works. The character's motivations are never adequately portrayed and there's never any real understanding of why they are drawn together other than the idea that they are both bored and lonely.

The film relies heavily on voice-over narration to somewhat clumsily exposit plot details, character emotions, motivations, and background in order to avoid having to show them to us. As a result, I never felt any kind of emotional bond with the characters or cared about their situation. The narration claims that they are desperately in love, but not so much as to even consider the idea of divorce. The social norms at the time frown heavily on divorce, but it hardly seems rational to consider suicide as an alternative to social judgement and alienation, especially when one of the characters seems content to relocate to a different content.

The beautifully filmed climax at the train station is at once amazing and confusing. It's never really developed or set up by the film, it seems to come out of no where and the idea of committing suicide over a lost love that someone has kissed a handful of times and no more than that seems like the worst kind of melodrama. I wondered if this was really a story about a woman struggling with deep depression and trauma who was able to find respite in a short love affair. It's not, but that would have been a much more interesting story.

I've watched this while on a binge of silent-era films and I knew I would come to this film eventually. I expected the racist propaganda, but I was still a bit shocked by how overt it was. Regardless, I knew that it had been praised for its technical and artistic brilliance so I knew it was a must watch. Honestly, I was severely disappointed.

The characters are paper thin with little explanation of their motives. This is especially true of the antagonists such as Austin Stoneman and Silas Lynch, who seems to want to do what they do just because they are bad people who need mustaches to twirl.

The acting is also pretty atrocious, even making allowances for the theatrical nature of acting at the time. It sometimes looks like some actors are smiling or laughing while in peril or under attack and supposed to be showing fear and terror.

The story structure is also pretty poor and different events in the narrative seem to be very loosely connected. Large swaths of the film could have been removed in order to tell a better story. This is even true compared to contemporary films like Les Vampires, released in the same year. Pacing suffers, particularly in the first half of the film in which it languishes introducing characters that won't be relevant for another 2+ hours.

The themes are unclear or appear contradictory as well. Griffith's opening intertitles point out that the film is meant to show the horror of war, but the treatment of Ben Cameron's actions during the war are glorified and shown as heroic. Likewise, the final intervention of the KKK is shown as heroic and glamorous rather than horrifying, complete with trumpet fanfares. It's not subtle. Aside from that, there are several references to insidious plans and evil agendas of "carpetbaggers and scalawags" but it's never clear what those plans are or what makes them so insidious. I was left to assume that this evil agenda was equality between the races. In the final minutes of the film there's a reference to "Aryan birthright" without ever explaining what that birthright would be, leaving me to assume that Griffith meant White Supremacy.

My research has shown that the film is notable for it's advancements in cinematography, but it doesn't really show. Griffith has gotten credit for introducing intercutting, tracking shots, and close-ups but there are earlier examples of each, several more effective than Griffith's in this film. Intercutting, tracking shots, and close-ups were used in The Great Train Robbery in 1903. 1903 also had a famous example of a close-up in Little Doctor and the Sick Kitten. All of these techniques already existed.

Even aside from the horrific racist propaganda, it's just not a good film and there are much better films from the time period. For example, Buster Keaton's silent film The General features a Confederate soldier protagonist with clear motives, amazing shot composition, and a tight story.