Though they were made almost a century a part, both of these films tell the story of Edmond Dantes, a young man who is wrongly accused of treason and sent to a merciless prison. After several years painfully spent there, he manages to escape and discover the treasure of "Monte Cristo". He then enters society once again, this time as the Count of Monte Cristo, and avenges himself against those who sent him to prison.
Between the two movies, I enjoyed Kevin Reynold's 2002 remake more than the original. Firstly, I found the second movie much more enjoyable because the Edmond Dantes' character was much more driven by revenge, which made the motivations for his actions much more obvious. I say this because in the first one, he rarely shows emotion or the extreme anger that an actual person would have felt after they'd been betrayed by their best friend among others. This made it unclear and seemingly pointless that he should get revenge upon his enemies, for he barely seemed driven to kill them or satisfied once they were dead. In the 2002 version, the Count's fury and resentment is portrayed much more clearly as he goes on to fight, imprison, and murder his enemies.
Secondly, I preferred the second version because it goes more in-depth while explaining Edmond Dantes' transition into his "Count of Monte Cristo" identity. Unlike in the first film, it shows him learning to sword fight in prison, found a loyal companion among pirates that he encountered, stole the treasure, and established a life for himself back in civilization.
Lastly, the second version of the film contained more scenes in which Dantes murdered the men who and done him injustice in his life. The first of these would be the man who ran the prison and annually whipped Dantes, whom he drowned in the ocean surrounding the prison. This did not happen in the original version. In the first film, Dantes does not always kill his enemies himself. In some cases, he guilt trips them so that they kill themselves. In the second film, the only occasion in which he does not perform a murder is when he imprisons the man who originally sent him to jail. I found the second film to be much more satisfying, because Dantes is more ruthless whilst seeking revenge.
Wednesday, 30 November 2011
Thursday, 10 November 2011
Blade Runner
Directed by Ridley Scott, Blade Runner (1982) is a science fiction/ film noir distributed by Warner Bros. Prictures. I would like to start off by saying that I probably would have enjoyed this movie more if I were more fond of the "film noir" style. The film noir techniques in this film consisted mostly of dark, dingy lighting, an over-all dirty looking city and dark saxophone background music. This style of film suited the decaying, post-robot apocolypse, feel of the movie, but I still didn't like it. The combination of intense pollution, constant darkness and the grubby, over-populated city made me feel unhappy and uninterested by what was going on in the story.
I finished watching this movie with an unsatisfied feeling because I had not fully comprenhended all aspects of the story and could not entirely grasp the message behing its events. The ending where the replicant lets Harrison Ford live felt right to me, but I still could not decide on a solid reason for why he did it. This sense of not being able to find closure bothered me.
Even though I am not a huge fan of it, I would still recommend this film to anyone above the age of 14 becuase it is said to be one of the greatest films of all time. I figure that other people will watch it and interpret it differently than I did. This way, they will be more capable of enjoying this confusing sci-fi classic.
I finished watching this movie with an unsatisfied feeling because I had not fully comprenhended all aspects of the story and could not entirely grasp the message behing its events. The ending where the replicant lets Harrison Ford live felt right to me, but I still could not decide on a solid reason for why he did it. This sense of not being able to find closure bothered me.
Even though I am not a huge fan of it, I would still recommend this film to anyone above the age of 14 becuase it is said to be one of the greatest films of all time. I figure that other people will watch it and interpret it differently than I did. This way, they will be more capable of enjoying this confusing sci-fi classic.
Pan's Labyrinth
Produced by Esperanto Films, Guillermo del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth is a Spanish fantasy-thriller realeased in 2006. Set right after the Spanish Civil War, it tells the story of a reincarnated princess and her pregnant mother who go to live with her mother's fiancé, a spanish captain, at his military camp. Mysterious events begin to take place when the young Ofelia, played by Ivana Baquero, discovers the labyrinth containing the portal that leads back to the magical world from which she escaped centuries ago.
This was my second time watching this film, and I loved it just as much as the first time, if not more. First of all, the story in itself is incredible. Guillermo del Toro does a phenomenal job of parallelling fantasy and reality between the eery magical tasks Ofelia must complete and the atrocities of war that occur at the military camp around her. With these contrasting themes, the viewer is constantly enticed by either violent, creepy, thrilling or wondrous scenes. Between Ofelia's challenge to return to her kingdom, her mother's struggle to give birth to her baby, the Captain's battle against the remaining soldiers from the war, and the servant Mercedes's efforts to secretly betray the Captain by aiding the troops, there are numerous compelling stories to follow throughout the movie that maintain the audience's attention.
The acting in this film was fantastic and helped the quality of the story sky-rocket. All of the actors were extremely convincing in their roles and provoked the exact emotions that were expected from the audience. For instance, Ivana Baquero as Ofelia maintained her role of youth and innocence over the course of the film and often made the viewer feel either scared of hopeful when necessary. The Captain, played by Sergi Lopez, always provoked an immediate tension and elment of fear as soon as he entered a scene because of his intensity and dedication to the mean-spiritedness of his role.
Although this film contains quite a bit of gruesome violence and scary scenes, I would strongly recommend it to anyone above the age of 14 because of its terrific acting and unforgettable story.
This was my second time watching this film, and I loved it just as much as the first time, if not more. First of all, the story in itself is incredible. Guillermo del Toro does a phenomenal job of parallelling fantasy and reality between the eery magical tasks Ofelia must complete and the atrocities of war that occur at the military camp around her. With these contrasting themes, the viewer is constantly enticed by either violent, creepy, thrilling or wondrous scenes. Between Ofelia's challenge to return to her kingdom, her mother's struggle to give birth to her baby, the Captain's battle against the remaining soldiers from the war, and the servant Mercedes's efforts to secretly betray the Captain by aiding the troops, there are numerous compelling stories to follow throughout the movie that maintain the audience's attention.
The acting in this film was fantastic and helped the quality of the story sky-rocket. All of the actors were extremely convincing in their roles and provoked the exact emotions that were expected from the audience. For instance, Ivana Baquero as Ofelia maintained her role of youth and innocence over the course of the film and often made the viewer feel either scared of hopeful when necessary. The Captain, played by Sergi Lopez, always provoked an immediate tension and elment of fear as soon as he entered a scene because of his intensity and dedication to the mean-spiritedness of his role.
Although this film contains quite a bit of gruesome violence and scary scenes, I would strongly recommend it to anyone above the age of 14 because of its terrific acting and unforgettable story.
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
2001: A Space Odyssey
Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey is a film that was originally released in 1968 by MGM Inc. that both confused and frustrated me. A Sci-fi film set in the future (hence the year in the title), it tells the story of a team of astronauts in space who's ship gets taken over by its computer, Hal-9000. There is much symbolism and many metaphors weaved in throughout the movie, which at the same time impressed me and only further confused me about what was going on in the film.
An element that I was not fond of throughout the story was the pace at which everything seemed to unroll. From my perspective, scenes would drag out for much more time than needed to get the message across, and the introduction seemed like an unnecessary compilation of events that lead to nothing. In retrospect, there was much explained about the themes of the movie within these scenes, but that still does not make something at such a gruelling pace intriguing to watch. This was also an occurrence when the story began to take place in space and all of the scenes seemed over-extended and dull, like in the part when the camera ran along the length of the spacecraft. I appreciate that this was probably a technique used to express the vast and slowness of space, but, once again, it did not make for a very captivating scene.
An aspect of the film that I did enjoy was how they incorporated the character of Hal-9000. Even though the true stars of the film were Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, and William Sylvester, my favourite performance by far was that of the computer. I am always intrigued by the idea of a seemingly flawless machine who appears to develop human characteristics, such as emotions, and use them against the humans that initially had control over it. It is an eery yet compelling thing to see human feelings produce slowly inside of a lifeless machine, and Kubrick captured the underlying evil of Hal-9000 perfectly.
I would recommend this film to anyone who enjoys the sci-fi genre, movies with a twist in the plot, or thought-provoking works of cinema.
An element that I was not fond of throughout the story was the pace at which everything seemed to unroll. From my perspective, scenes would drag out for much more time than needed to get the message across, and the introduction seemed like an unnecessary compilation of events that lead to nothing. In retrospect, there was much explained about the themes of the movie within these scenes, but that still does not make something at such a gruelling pace intriguing to watch. This was also an occurrence when the story began to take place in space and all of the scenes seemed over-extended and dull, like in the part when the camera ran along the length of the spacecraft. I appreciate that this was probably a technique used to express the vast and slowness of space, but, once again, it did not make for a very captivating scene.
An aspect of the film that I did enjoy was how they incorporated the character of Hal-9000. Even though the true stars of the film were Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, and William Sylvester, my favourite performance by far was that of the computer. I am always intrigued by the idea of a seemingly flawless machine who appears to develop human characteristics, such as emotions, and use them against the humans that initially had control over it. It is an eery yet compelling thing to see human feelings produce slowly inside of a lifeless machine, and Kubrick captured the underlying evil of Hal-9000 perfectly.
I would recommend this film to anyone who enjoys the sci-fi genre, movies with a twist in the plot, or thought-provoking works of cinema.
Night of the Living Dead
The independent film Night of the Living Dead (1968), was directed by George A. Romero stars Duane Jones, Judith O'Dea and Karl Hardman. It is the story of an oddly matched group of people who spend a night trapped in a house out in the country, hiding from man-eating zombies and fighting for their lives. Although over time it has become a cult classic, I myself did not particularly enjoy this movie. I found that the beginning jumped too quickly from a brief introduction of a couple driving in the countryside to the rising action of a zombie attack. This transition was too abrupt in my opinion and didn't focus enough on the background information and story, thus making the viewer less attached to the characters and, in my experience, uninterested in the film.
Another thing that I did not enjoy about this film was the character of Barbra, played by Judith O'Dea, who is the female half of the couple introduced in the beginning. I understand that her traumatized and often zoned-out behaviour after the zombie attack is a pretty realistic reaction, but I still found myself becoming extremely frustrated watching her as she refused to talk or act quickly when she was in danger.
All in all, as you may have guessed, I did not like this movie. However, if you are someone that enjoys cheesy horror films, fake guts, or just classic cult movies in general, Night of the Living Dead may just be worth your while.
Another thing that I did not enjoy about this film was the character of Barbra, played by Judith O'Dea, who is the female half of the couple introduced in the beginning. I understand that her traumatized and often zoned-out behaviour after the zombie attack is a pretty realistic reaction, but I still found myself becoming extremely frustrated watching her as she refused to talk or act quickly when she was in danger.
All in all, as you may have guessed, I did not like this movie. However, if you are someone that enjoys cheesy horror films, fake guts, or just classic cult movies in general, Night of the Living Dead may just be worth your while.
Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Film Review- "North By North West"
Alfred Hitchcock's North By North West, released in 1959 is a suspense-thriller film that I watched in my Film Studies class. Starring Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint, it tells the story of a middle-aged man (Cary Grant) who is wrongfully accused of being a CIA agent by the name of George Caplin. The movie follows him as he flees from his kidnappers and falls in love with the young and beautiful Eve Kendall (Eva Marie Saint) on the way. Although I did not absolutely love the film, it had solid acting and is one of MGM Picture's films that are worth seeing.
I was very impressed by the acting of all the leading roles in this film. Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint did spectacular jobs of holding the tension that makes the movie a thriller, as well as channelling their emotions clearly to the audience in order to move along the romantic elements of the plot. I found Alfred Hitchcock's classic brief cameo in the beginning of the film, in which he is seen boarding a bus, very amusing. A director who places special things in his films for the audience to notice provokes the viewer to be more attentive.
Although I sometimes found the plot confusing, the ending tied everything up nicely and left me satisfied. I was very intrigued by how the director so sneakily dropped a clue to how the main mystery of the story developed in the beginning of the film. I would recommend this film to anyone above the age of 12 who enjoys thrillers, romance, suspense or action.
I was very impressed by the acting of all the leading roles in this film. Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint did spectacular jobs of holding the tension that makes the movie a thriller, as well as channelling their emotions clearly to the audience in order to move along the romantic elements of the plot. I found Alfred Hitchcock's classic brief cameo in the beginning of the film, in which he is seen boarding a bus, very amusing. A director who places special things in his films for the audience to notice provokes the viewer to be more attentive.
Although I sometimes found the plot confusing, the ending tied everything up nicely and left me satisfied. I was very intrigued by how the director so sneakily dropped a clue to how the main mystery of the story developed in the beginning of the film. I would recommend this film to anyone above the age of 12 who enjoys thrillers, romance, suspense or action.
Monday, 10 October 2011
"Plan 9 From Outer Space"/ "Ed Wood" Film Review
Released in 1959 by Reynolds Pictures , the notorious Plan 9 From Outer Space is both a waste of time and a must-see. All acting in the film, including that by Gregory Walcott and Mona Mckinnon who play the lead roles, is absolutely terrible. Half of the characters in the film do not even speak and just walk around poorly pretending to be dead. The alien characters are cheesy and unbelievable. They never let the viewer believe that they are anything more than regular people in smocks who do bizarre 'alien" handshakes. The set in this movie, which consists mostly of cardboard pieces and phony UFOs, is equally to blame for the film's lack of realism and credibility. Although it is a complete failure on director Ed Wood's part, I would highly recommend seeing it for two reasons: to get a good laugh at its pathetic attempts at movie making and to learn everything that you should NOT do when making a film.
In director and producer Tim Burton's 1994 film Ed Wood, Johnny Depp stars as the talentless director previously mentioned in the above paragraph. Unlike Ed Wood's actual films, this one had great acting. Johnny Depp played the failing director perfectly, mastering both his attractive naïveté and disturbing qualities. The film provided an easy to follow plot and realistic sets (also unlike Plan 9). As a viewer, I stayed entertained by the film because I wanted the character of Ed Wood to succeed in his film making, although I knew he would not. His determination and obliviousness to his own lack of talents makes him a likeable character. I would recommend this movie to anyone who wonders how and why Ed Wood's films were always so terrible or to anyone who enjoys Johnny Depp or Tim Burton films.
In director and producer Tim Burton's 1994 film Ed Wood, Johnny Depp stars as the talentless director previously mentioned in the above paragraph. Unlike Ed Wood's actual films, this one had great acting. Johnny Depp played the failing director perfectly, mastering both his attractive naïveté and disturbing qualities. The film provided an easy to follow plot and realistic sets (also unlike Plan 9). As a viewer, I stayed entertained by the film because I wanted the character of Ed Wood to succeed in his film making, although I knew he would not. His determination and obliviousness to his own lack of talents makes him a likeable character. I would recommend this movie to anyone who wonders how and why Ed Wood's films were always so terrible or to anyone who enjoys Johnny Depp or Tim Burton films.
Sunday, 25 September 2011
Film Review- "Citizen Kane"
Director and lead actor Orson Welles' 1941 classic Citizen Kane is considered by many to be the greatest film of all time, and although this may be true, I feel as if I am almost not mature enough to have completely appreciated all of the elements of the film. There were many parts in the movie where I couldn't concentrate and came close to boredom. However, there were still quite a few things in this RKO Pictures release that impressed me.
The acting by Orson Welles', who played Mr. Kane, and Dorothy Comingmore, who played Mr. Kane's second wife Susan, was superb. The actors did a phenomenal job at portraying their emotions; the camera could remain fixed on Welles' wordless face and the audience would know exactly how he was feeling. In the scene where Kane has a tantrum after Susan leaves him, i was very intrigued and sucked in to the idea that a man had actually just lost his wife.
As I previously stated, I sometimes drifted in and out of the plot or became confused, but I did enjoy the whole mysterious concept of "Rosebud". I thought the ending where the meaning of Rosebud was revealed was both satisfying and thought provoking. I would recommend watching this movie to anyone who appreciates an enticing plot, creative camera angles, and an ending that will stay in their mind for a long time after watching the film.
Film Review- "Bringing Up Baby"
Bringing Up Baby did nothing more than under-whelm it's audience when it was first released in 1938 by Warner Brothers, and I could see why when I watched it in Film Studies Class. The film revolves around a sensible paleontologist who makes the mistake of meeting an out-to-lunch woman and her leopard. The story follows them as they face countless unnecessary conflicts and wrap themselves up in more trouble than they need be in. Throughout the movie, I found myself constantly irritated by the "screwball" style that it followed and the frustrating plot line.
A major reason why I did not enjoy this movie was the acting. In particular, I found Katharine Hepburn's character, Susan, extremely irritating because she kept causing trouble with her air-headedness and clumsy behavior. I do not believe that it takes great skill as an actor to act annoying, so I was not impressed by Ms. Hepburn's performance. Cary Grant, who played Dr. David Huxley, was probably the best actor in the film because he was convincing as a somewhat shy, intelligent man of science who wanted nothing more than to rid Susan from his life.
I would not recommend that anyone watch this movie unless they are a fan of quick, somewhat comical banter between two helpless adults and easily avoidable situations in the plot that somehow always take place anyways. The only mildly impressive aspect of this film is how the director, Howard Hawks, was able to keep up he up-beat pace and mishaps throughout the story. This movie is not worth seeing on the big screen because it is simply a waste of money.
A major reason why I did not enjoy this movie was the acting. In particular, I found Katharine Hepburn's character, Susan, extremely irritating because she kept causing trouble with her air-headedness and clumsy behavior. I do not believe that it takes great skill as an actor to act annoying, so I was not impressed by Ms. Hepburn's performance. Cary Grant, who played Dr. David Huxley, was probably the best actor in the film because he was convincing as a somewhat shy, intelligent man of science who wanted nothing more than to rid Susan from his life.
I would not recommend that anyone watch this movie unless they are a fan of quick, somewhat comical banter between two helpless adults and easily avoidable situations in the plot that somehow always take place anyways. The only mildly impressive aspect of this film is how the director, Howard Hawks, was able to keep up he up-beat pace and mishaps throughout the story. This movie is not worth seeing on the big screen because it is simply a waste of money.
Sunday, 18 September 2011
Film Review- "Singing in the Rain"
Singing in the Rain, a classic film from 1952, stars Gene Kelly, Debbie Reynolds, and Donald O'Connor. It was directed by both Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen and was produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios. I was fortunate enough to watch this movie in film studies class in September of 2011.
In this timeless classic, Don Lockwood is a handsome and extremely famous silent film actor who co-stars frequently with the vain, selfish and often intolerable Lina Lamont. When Mr. Lockwood meets a stubborn yet kind dancer, Kathy Seldon, he falls in love with her. This angers the obsessed Lina Lamont (who is under the false impression that she and Don are in love), and so begins the fight for Mrs. Seldon's fame as an actress/dancer and Lina Lamont's battle to keep her rise to stardom and relationship with Don from happening. Also, Lina and Don's production company struggles to create the first film with sound. I enjoyed this plot because it made the viewer excited by the fact that the "humble, talented actress/dancer" has the possibility of defeating the snobby famous actress. It is amusing to get involved in the story and root for Don Lockwood and Kathy Seldon as they attempt to over-come their obstacles.
The actors in this movie were talented and dedicated to their roles. The characters of this story were often quite stereotypical, and in that situation it is extremely crucial for the actors to never break character or not go all-out for their parts. Each actor and actress portrayed their character strongly, but in my opinion, Jean Hagen (Lina Lamont) did the best job. Although she was probably the least liked character in the film, she was convincingly snobby and played her part well enough to make the viewer's dislike her. I thought that the weakest actor was Donald O'Connor, who played one of Mr. Lockwood's friends on the set. I enjoyed his character, but I believe it took the least amount of effort because he was extremely cheesy and didn't need to show much talent to be convincing as a, for lack of a better word, "goof ball". I would not have replaced any of the cast members for this film, as they all did a great job.
I would recommend this movie to people of all-ages. It would be amusing to a younger audience because of it's bright colours and musical numbers, but also for an older audience because of it's appreciable acting and storyline. It is worth seeing on the big screen. I believe that it would be especially fun considering the positive reactions that the dance numbers and jokes would get from a big audience. Given the fact that it is a musical, this movie would probably attract an audience who is more bubbly, interested in performing arts such as dance, and mostly women. I would go see this movie again because it is entertaining and light-hearted.
The positive aspects of this film include the strong cast, lively performances, and musical numbers. The light-hearted yet intriguing plot remains interesting throughout the film. The sets and costumes are elaborate and interesting. The only negative thing that I can think of is how the character of Lina Lamont is so well portrayed that she angers the audience. Over-all, it was a fantastic film and should be watched by anyone who enjoys anything from dancing to romance to the classic struggle of good vs. wicked.
In this timeless classic, Don Lockwood is a handsome and extremely famous silent film actor who co-stars frequently with the vain, selfish and often intolerable Lina Lamont. When Mr. Lockwood meets a stubborn yet kind dancer, Kathy Seldon, he falls in love with her. This angers the obsessed Lina Lamont (who is under the false impression that she and Don are in love), and so begins the fight for Mrs. Seldon's fame as an actress/dancer and Lina Lamont's battle to keep her rise to stardom and relationship with Don from happening. Also, Lina and Don's production company struggles to create the first film with sound. I enjoyed this plot because it made the viewer excited by the fact that the "humble, talented actress/dancer" has the possibility of defeating the snobby famous actress. It is amusing to get involved in the story and root for Don Lockwood and Kathy Seldon as they attempt to over-come their obstacles.
The actors in this movie were talented and dedicated to their roles. The characters of this story were often quite stereotypical, and in that situation it is extremely crucial for the actors to never break character or not go all-out for their parts. Each actor and actress portrayed their character strongly, but in my opinion, Jean Hagen (Lina Lamont) did the best job. Although she was probably the least liked character in the film, she was convincingly snobby and played her part well enough to make the viewer's dislike her. I thought that the weakest actor was Donald O'Connor, who played one of Mr. Lockwood's friends on the set. I enjoyed his character, but I believe it took the least amount of effort because he was extremely cheesy and didn't need to show much talent to be convincing as a, for lack of a better word, "goof ball". I would not have replaced any of the cast members for this film, as they all did a great job.
I would recommend this movie to people of all-ages. It would be amusing to a younger audience because of it's bright colours and musical numbers, but also for an older audience because of it's appreciable acting and storyline. It is worth seeing on the big screen. I believe that it would be especially fun considering the positive reactions that the dance numbers and jokes would get from a big audience. Given the fact that it is a musical, this movie would probably attract an audience who is more bubbly, interested in performing arts such as dance, and mostly women. I would go see this movie again because it is entertaining and light-hearted.
The positive aspects of this film include the strong cast, lively performances, and musical numbers. The light-hearted yet intriguing plot remains interesting throughout the film. The sets and costumes are elaborate and interesting. The only negative thing that I can think of is how the character of Lina Lamont is so well portrayed that she angers the audience. Over-all, it was a fantastic film and should be watched by anyone who enjoys anything from dancing to romance to the classic struggle of good vs. wicked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)