Reviews

As Quentin Tarantino's first film this one truly sets the hallmarks for the director which would be used in his later films. The movie is about six criminals who work together to rob a bank but their employer attempts to keep it professional. They all dress in suits and never use their real names so as to keep their real identities hidden. Interestingly the film completely revolves around the robbery but it is never actually shown with the entire movie jumping back and forth from before and after the robbery. It shows how the different men got hired on for the job and how they react to the robbery going completely wrong. Most of the group believes that they were set up so they also must discover which one of them is an undercover cop. So the story is very non-linear which really keeps it interesting and the movie really makes you keep on guessing about who the undercover cop is which is really good storytelling. So overall an excellent plot that works very well in the film.

All of the actors do a stupendous job here in each of their roles. Harvey Keitel plays Mr. White and does a great job at getting sympathy, professionalism, and the ability to do what is necessary without needing to be pushed. Then there is Michael Madsen as Mr. Blonde or your psychopath of the film. He seems incredibly calm and professional around others but once they leave he really seems like a loon which means that he does a good job in his role. Tim Roth plays Mr. Orange who is injured throughout the majority of the movie (all of the after the robbery scenes) and he works really well too with how someone would act when they are injured like that. And we also have Steve Buscemi as Mr. Pink who isn't crazy or very professional either but he is smart and plans everything out. Just like everyone else in this movie he does his job perfectly. So we have some excellent acting here from the entire cast.

When it comes down to the special effects they are quite good for the time period and budget with some very realistic looking injuries and wounds plus some great looking gunshots and just about everything else. The music has a lot of 1970s songs in it and it works surprisingly well for the movie. The soundtrack is iconic and memorable which really helps get the film off the ground.

Overall, this isn't Quentin Tarantino's best film but it is still incredibly entertaining. It is incredibly violent and has some very course language but if you can sit through all of that then you'll really see a skilled filmmaker just beginning to master the craft. The non-linear storytelling is rarely used in films which really keeps the audience thinking and with such an incredible story, stupendous acting, and some decent production values this one is worth a watch. Score: 9/10

Even though this film varies drastically from its source material (Frankenstein (Book, 1818)) it still manages to be both frightening and entertaining. The movie follows Henry Frankenstein who is engaged to a girl named Elizabeth. He leaves his fiancée for four months to work on an experiment with his assistant Fritz. His experiment is to revive a dead corpse but since he is unable to find a perfectly healthy human corpse (they had to have had something wrong with them if they died after all) he ends up grave digging and putting all of the pieces together to create "The Monster". When he succeeds in giving it life the Monster manages to escape and cause trouble throughout the entire countryside, killing at will. Will anyone be able to stop the monster? So basically the story is very good although it hardly follows the novel at all, even changing the main characters name from Victor to Henry (yet they named a minor character Victor to add to the confusion). The Monster's intelligence is also drastically brought down to the point where he can't even speak. The main loss though is the fact that the good guy/bad guy relationship is much more black and white. In the original novel it was open to interpretation but here the Monster is clearly bad with Henry being good. So the story is very entertaining, but also a missed opportunity.

When it comes to the acting in this film I truly feel that all of the actors did a great job in their roles. Colin Clive plays Henry Frankenstein and really pulls off the mad scientist vibe really well. Then there is Mae Clarke who plays Elizabeth but the script doesn't give her very much room as it makes her out as the damsel in distress. Keeping that in mind though she pulls it off well. And next up is Dwight Frye as Fritz, often incorrectly called Igor by viewers. Frye is great as the crazy and stupid hunchbacked character. Most importantly we have Boris Karloff in the film that raised him into star dome. Even though he is covered in makeup and doesn't have a single line of dialogue he manages to be the best actor in this film. He really helps the audience sympathize with his character but at the same time manages to be the angry evil monster. So overall there is some great acting here.

All of the makeup and special effects are excellent here with some realistic looking wounds and decomposition on the corpse of the Monster. In addition there are some great sets in the film which truly set the mood with the exception of the final scenes where the Monster is being chased on a mountain which looks somewhat fake. And as for the musical score it complements the picture tremendously. Frankenstein is a very technically sound film overall.

As a classic of the horror genre at the time and one of the most famous monster movies ever made I was slightly disappointed with the film. I am a huge fan of the original novel and was disappointed that so few elements transferred over to the movie but nevertheless it is still an excellent monster movie and one that is worth your time. It is very good technically with excellent special effects, sets, and music plus it has some great acting especially from Boris Karloff as the Monster. So give this film a try if you have any interest whatsoever in monster movies, horror, or Frankenstein. But don't expect it to be anything like the book. Score: 8/10

When people first hear the title of this film they often think that it is either pornographic or a very violent film involving mutilation of some sort. Let me clear the air by first saying that it is as far as you can get from either of those things. The movie is really about two warring families: the Hillcrists and the Hornblowers. The Hornblowers are attempting to urbanize a particular area and to do such they are purchasing every piece of land in the area but the Hillcrists who has lived in the area for generations do not want the last area of land to be bought up. So a bidding battle begins at the auction house and the battle between the families becomes fiercer than ever. The story is actually pretty interesting and worthwhile with neither family being shown as being right or wrong. It's really up to the audience to decide which family is correct which is good storytelling. So overall a pretty interesting and entertaining story even if the film does end really abruptly.

The acting in the film is underrated but still not anything amazing. C.V. France plays Mr. Hillcrist and Helen Haye plays Mrs. Hillcrist. France does a standup job in his role and really seems like a fierce old man with a firm belief in protecting the land. Helen Haye on the other hand is a weak actress who really doesn't bring anything to the role and really doesn't make the character seem like she cares about what is even going on. Edmund Gwenn plays Mr. Hornblower and he is probably the best actor in this picture. He seems like a real businessman who knows his goal and how to get there. And as for the other actors and actresses in the film, they are all mediocre with no real standouts. So a mixed bag of sorts but not as bad as most people seem to think.

As for the special effects here, you have some pretty decent ones for 1931. All of the sets look really good and the drowned corpse at the end looks really realistic for the time. Now the sound doesn't have nearly the same level of perfection. It cuts out constantly and some parts seem nearly muted which is really bad for any movie of any time period! So great special effects but mediocre music and terrible sound.

To sum up my thoughts on The Skin Game I'll say that it adapts the original play very well especially since plays rarely work in movie format. The story is incredibly entertaining and well done although it has a very abrupt ending which makes me wish that the movie had gone on a little bit longer. One major problem here is the camera which will often chop off people's heads at the top of the screen or keep jittering around which feels really unprofessional. And as for everything else the acting is a mixed bag, the special effects are great, and the sound is abysmal. So a lot of positive and negative qualities in this movie really make it a mixed bag of a film. Check it out if you are a fan of the original play or Alfred Hitchcock's work but don't go out of your way to see it. Score: 5/10

Juno and the Paycock is about a group of people in Dublin sometime during the Irish Civil War (1922-1923). Two of them are alcoholics who have grand goals and plans but never do anything to realize these dreams due to them being incredibly lazy. They are told that they are to receive a large sum of money from a dead relative so they go out and spend a lot of money to celebrate early. However, they spend it before they actually receive the money plus both sides in the Irish Civil War start to gain distrust for the group so who knows what could happen. Basically the film follows the plot of the 1924 play of the same name and the problem is that it doesn't work very well in a movie format. Almost the entire film takes place within a single room which can get incredibly boring and not very much really happens throughout the movie that is even mildly entertaining when it comes to the plot.

The acting in the film is abysmal. Edward Chapman plays Captain Boyle who is always grumpy and mean which makes him an incredibly unlikeable character. He isn't very well acted either because he comes off as more annoying to the viewer than anything. Maire O'Neill plays Maisie Madigan, another uninteresting character without any depth whatsoever. All other actors in the film are also pretty unspectacular and aren't entertaining in the slightest. The script doesn't allow for any characters to have any depth plus they are badly acted anyway.

When it comes down to the special effects I shall reiterate that the whole movie is pretty much in the same room so it's mostly just one set. And this set is a simple apartment without anything interesting or exciting. And there are no noticeable special effects throughout the movie. As for the musical score: it is lacking and really makes my ears bleed! The worst part with this would have to be the few sections in the film where characters attempt to sing which is truly some of the worst sounds that I have ever heard coming from anything at any time.

In conclusion, this is one of the worst films that I have ever seen in my entire life and there isn't a single redeemable quality in it. The storyline is incredibly boring and doesn't work well outside of being in a play, the acting is atrocious, there aren't any special effects, and the music makes me want to mute my television. Some movies are bad but have a cheesy factor to them which can make them entertaining when you are in the right mood. And some movies are so bad that it actually makes them entertaining, but this film is truly at the rock bottom of cinema. No matter what way you look at it there is no possible way to get any entertainment out of this movie. Avoid it at all costs. Score: 0/10

This movie is about a woman named Alice White who ends up going to an artist's house. The artist, Mr. Crewe, attempts to rape her but she defends herself with a knife which ends up killing the man. So her and her boyfriend (a detective by the name of Frank Webber) attempt to cover up the murder of Mr. Crewe. That is until another man named Tracy has evidence that Alice did it so he tries to blackmail them. The question is how Alice and Frank will deal with this blackmailer. So I find this film as having a very entertaining and interesting plot with lots of twists and turns. It kept me entertained throughout the entire film.

The acting in the film is a weird case because all of the actors do a great job except for Anny Ondra who happens to be in the lead role as Alice. She had a strong Czech accent so she ended up lip synching to another actress who was speaking next to the camera which really makes Anny's performance seem a little awkward. And other than just that she really doesn't display her emotions very well. Thankfully the other actors seem to pick up most of the slack. John Longden plays Frank Webber and he gets the emotions of being concerned and nervous across very well. And finally there is Donald Calthrop plays Tracy and really seems like a creepy guy and a criminal which means that he did a great job in his role.

When it comes to sound this is Alfred Hitchcock's entry into sound cinema Blackmail ends up being a little bit of a hybrid. It was originally going to be a silent film until it was later changed into a sound one, at which point the small amount of already finished footage was dubbed and the remaining footage was filmed with sound. This makes the original silent parts seem a little awkward with only a few things having sound in these scenes while everything else is silent. During the parts where there is dialogue and things like that it works out well but music rarely overlaps with dialogue which is a shame that they couldn't have figured that out yet with these early talkies. The music seems to work very well though which is good. And the special effects are great for 1929 as it makes a lot of the scenes look pretty real for the time.

So in conclusion this film is really an experiment with sound and a lot of the technical aspects of the film certainly show it. However, the story is good enough where it shines through the problems of early sound plus the acting is top notch (with the exception of Anny Ondra). Sound may not blend seamlessly into the movie but it definitely enhances one of the better Hitchcock films. Score: 8/10

The Manxman is Alfred Hitchcock's last silent film before he switched over to sound with Blackmail (1929). This movie is about a fisherman named Pete Quilliam and his childhood friend Philip Christian. Pete is in love with a girl named Kate but Kate's father disapproves of their marriage so he goes off to Africa to first make some money. He tells Philip to look after her while he is gone but Kate and Philip end up falling in love. Since Kate promised she'd wait for Pete she still ends up marrying him upon his return but she also has an affair with Philip and things start to turn ugly as Pete starts to learn more and more about what is going on. The film is based off of a novel and the story is very good and interesting although it seems to follow Hitchcock's typical theme of a love triangle which he has in many of his films.

The acting in the movie is very good overall with Carl Brisson as Pete. He pulls off happiness, sadness, anger, and concern all very well which is a wide spectrum of emotion for one actor. Malcolm Keen plays Philip who does a less spectacular but still decent job. And then there is Anny Ondra who plays Kate and she does a worthwhile job at showing love for Philip but not for Pete. So while all of the actors do a good job it is really Brisson who steals the show.

All of the special effects in the film seem pretty good with each of the sets looking nice. The courtroom, dock, house, and just about everything else looks right. And during a drowning scene it also looks pretty real. The musical score is mediocre and feels like it's just a lot of recycled music from earlier Hitchcock films but at least it gets the job done.

Overall this film isn't perfect by any means but it does have a lot of positive qualities which make it worth watching. The plot is really interesting and entertaining if you aren't already sick of Hitchcock's love triangle theme and the acting in the film is overall pretty good. And the special effects here are great even if the film does have some mediocre music. I'd say that this is one of Hitchcock's better silent films so give it a watch if you get the chance. Score: 7/10

This film is a real mixed bag of sorts. The film follows a woman named Betty who is in love with her rich boyfriend. However, Betty also has a substantial amount of money and Betty's father believes that her boyfriend is a gold-digger. Betty takes her father's plane and goes after her boyfriend anyway who is on a ship heading to France. Betty attempts to get married to her boyfriend but they get in an argument and separate after they reach France. After getting back together Betty's father tells her that they have lost all of their money in the stock market which causes Betty's boyfriend to leave again. Will her boyfriend return or is he really a gold-digger? The story isn't very interesting when it comes down to it although I did enjoy the twist at the end of the film.

As for the acting, it's actually pretty good. Betty Balfour plays Betty and does a stupendous job at it. She seems to fit into the role very naturally and does a good job at not exaggerating emotions like in most silent films. Gordon Harker plays Betty's father Mark and seems to do a good job at seeming unpleased with his daughter's decision. And finally Jean Bradin plays Betty's boyfriend and he also does a good job in the role. While the acting is good, it doesn't save the film.

The special effects in the film are flawed and some of them seem obvious which isn't very good at all. However, the music is stupendous here and does a great job at creating emotions which you don't normally get from films of this time period. The camera angles and shots being used are truly ahead of their time which helps the film.

Even though I praised many aspects of the film the plot just feels so basic and uninteresting plus the poor quality of the special effects really hurt the atmosphere and immersion of the film. So while it has many positives it also has many negatives which causes it to equal out to a very mediocre film. Score: 4/10

Easy Virtue is one of Alfred Hitchcock's best films. It follows Larita Filton who at first is married to a drunk but starts to fall for a painter. When they get filed for divorce her husband brings her to court for adultery, believing that she was cheating on him with the painter. She eventually goes to France and marries a man named John Whittaker but she also attempts to hide her past from him. But when John's family starts to find out a few things about Larita's past her relationship with her new husband starts to become strained. Does her relationship survive? So basically I find it a very interesting and entertaining plot which keeps the viewer entertained all the way until the end where the film seems to end very abruptly. This makes me wish that the film had a little bit better closure and had gone on for just a little bit longer.

All of the actors in the movie do a great job with Isabel Jeans playing Larita with true excellence. She seems to act very naturally instead of the typical exaggerated expressions that you see in most silent films. John's disapproving and unhappy mother is played very well by Violet Farebrother who gets her anger and disapproval across very well. Robin Irvine manages to do a nearly perfect job as John so basically all of the actors are great including minor ones.

Each and every one of the sets in this film are great and the only noteworthy special effects shot, a man firing a gun, is done very well for the time. The soundtrack for the film fits it very well even if some of it has already been used in earlier Hitchcock films.

This is a movie that really caught me off guard with its high level of quality and entertainment value. The plot is based off of a 1925 play and it ends up working very well here in the movie, the film is a pretty good length although it could have used a little bit more footage at the end, the acting is stupendous, the music is great and fits the movie well, and finally the special effects are great. So this is an excellent film from the silent era and a classic that should be watched and enjoyed by everyone. Score: 9/10

For me Alfred Hitchcock has always been a hit or miss director and in this case he is definitely a miss. The film is about a farmer named Samuel Sweetland whose wife dies so he starts looking for another wife to take her place. Throughout the film he ends up asking five different women to marry him which really makes the viewer feel like Samuel is simply looking for a wife just to have a wife rather than him actually having any genuine feelings for the women. The story is really boring and extremely predictable. For the movie being around one and a half hours it really feels like it drags on with a lot of unnecessary parts.

The acting is another flawed part of the film. Jameson Thomas plays Samuel but he really doesn't create enough emotions for the character. He just seems like a guy who keeps trying to go after one lady after another so you really don't feel that he has enough feelings for these people for you to care. He also insults every woman that turns him down which really doesn't help you sympathize with Samuel. Lillian Hall-Davis plays Araminta Dench (a housekeeper) and she does the best acting job in the movie but not as good of a job as she did in The Ring (1927, Hitchcock). All other actors in the film with the exception of Gordon Harker as Churdles Ash (a handyman) do a horrible job which doesn't help this movie at all.

There really aren't any special effects shots in the film. As for the music, it is really bad and is hard to listen to. None of the music seems in the right place and even when it is the music is truly horrible and hurts my ears beyond belief.

Even though Alfred Hitchcock has provided so many movies that I have enjoyed over the years this is one of his biggest duds. The story is predictable and boring, the film feels far to long, the acting is really bad, and the music makes me want to mute the television. So this film really isn't worth your time no matter what your interests are. For a worthwhile Hitchcock silent film check out The Ring (1927, Hitchcock). Score: 2/10

The Ring is a silent film about a love story shaped around boxing. 'One Round' Jack Sander is in love with a woman named Mabel and the two of them decide to get married. Jack is a very skilled boxer but one day he loses a fight to a man named Bob Corby at which point Mabel also starts to fall for Bob. As Jack learns more and more about Mabel's affair he attempts to work his way back up to the top in a boxing tournament. And in the end he believes that the fight with Bob will determine Mabel's love. So it's actually a pretty decent story about love which surprisingly works very well with the boxing aspect of the film.

The acting is very good here with Carl Brisson doing an excellent job as Jack. He looks as concerned as anyone ever could about his wife and he truly looks motivated to make his way to the top in boxing. Ian Hunter does a great job as Bob, the rich boxer who also tries to get Mabel. Now Mabel is played by Lillian Hall-Davis who also happens to do a truly excellent job. All of the minor roles in the film are also catered to perfectly.

Each of the sets in the film are done pretty well with the carnival at the beginning and all of the boxing rings looking pretty realistic for the time. The hits between boxers are very good for the most part as it usually looks like they are actually making contact. The musical score for this film is one of the best that I've ever heard in a silent film and it truly leaves the viewer with a wide variety of emotions.

With all of the praise that I just rained upon this film you may think that I'm going to say go out and see this film immediately but in reality it feels like less than the sum of its parts. The story is very good while not perfect, the acting is excellent, the special effects are pretty good, and the music is truly stupendous. So not everything in the film is perfect but there really aren't that many noteworthy flaws. I'll say check out the film if you enjoy boxing, love stories, or Alfred Hitchcock. Score: 7/10

Based off of the 1913 novel The Lodger by Marie Belloc Lowndes, here is a silent film with some positives but also a lot of negatives. The movie is about a serial killer in London who murders blond women and leaves a calling card. The killer goes by the name of "The Avenger". Jonathan Drew is renting out a room but seems incredibly strange so the family living in the house starts to wonder whether or not he is the killer. Without spoiling the ending I'll say that not very much really happens throughout the story until the last fifteen minutes which really makes the film drag on. In addition the film was originally going to have an ambiguous ending where it was never revealed whether or not Jonathan is innocent and I really wish that the film would have used the original ending.

The acting is mediocre with Ivor Novello as Jonathan (the lodger) who seems really wooden in his portrayal. June Tripp seems to just smile a lot without using any acting skills in her portrayal of Daisy Bunting, the lodger's love interest in the film. Malcolm Keen on the other hand seems to do a good job as police officer Joe Chandler but he isn't great enough to be a standout. The best actors in the film are Marie Ault and Arthur Chesney as the landlords and they honestly do a great job even if it isn't spectacular.

For special effects there are very many noteworthy ones. There is a shot where you can see the bottom of Jonathan's shoes as he walks upstairs and the camera looks up through the ceiling but it still isn't that amazing. The musical score seems out of place and repeats far too often without enough variety.

So overall this film is worth watching if you are really interested in Alfred Hitchcock or the novel but otherwise this film isn't worth your time. It is truly a mediocre film and shows that Alfred Hitchcock had to work his way up to his later legendary status as a director for films such as Psycho (1960) or The Birds (1963). Score: 6/10

With the exception of the 1996 Disney version this is the most famous film adaptation of the 1831 novel of the same name by Victor Hugo. The film is about a deaf, half-blind, and deformed man named Quasimodo who is the bell ringer at the church of Notre Dame in Paris. The movie states that it takes place ten years before Columbus discovered America which would place the film at 1482. Now there is also a beautiful gypsy by the name of Esmeralda who has been adopted by Clopin, the king of the beggars. Esmeralda falls in love with the Captain of the Guard, Phoebus de Chateaupers. However, Clopin disagrees with the crossing of the two classes and starts an uprising plus Claude Frollo (the Archdeacon at Notre Dame) attempts to seduce Esmeralda. The story is overall pretty interesting and it follows the novel much closer than the majority of movie adaptations out there although there are still a few key differences.

The acting in this picture is a mixed bag with Lon Chaney stealing the show as Quasimodo. He is amazing and truly looks like he could be a deformed person in that position. Chaney especially does a good job at getting his emotions across without the use of spoken dialogue. Patsy Ruth Miller does an above average job as Esmeralda but with the high budget of this film I expected some better acting with her character. Most of the remaining actors do a pretty good job in their roles but nothing spectacular.

When it comes down to the technical aspects of the film it is very impressive for 1923. All of the sets are grand in scope and truly set the time period and location perfectly. Lon Chaney's make up is extraordinarily good with him doing his own makeup. Also the music is very good and a lot of it goes along with the film better than most silent film scores. Where sound effects are used they are used excellently as well.

So overall there aren't any major problems with this film but there are some flaws. The story is pretty good but not anything amazing. As for the acting you have Lon Chaney who does a spectacular job while the rest of the cast is merely good but nothing great. Special effects and music are really good in this movie though and they all work very well for the time. In conclusion the movie is flawed but does enough right to make it worth watching so give it a try especially if you enjoyed the novel. Score: 8/10