Login
Home
585 Lists
7789 Reviews
Collections
“Since I’m a big fan of ‘Breaking Bad’, of course, I was really eager to see this sequel. Well, I thought it was a decent watch but not much more than that, to be honest. I mean, like anyone else who followed this massively popular TV-show, I was wondering what happened afterwards to Jesse Pink” read more
Notes: Since I’m a huge fan of ‘Freaks’, it was really neat to see another movie directed by Tod Browning. This movie had even more in common with Browning’s classic since it was mostly taking place within a circus and focusing on a (supposedly) armless man. There was also something quite fascinating regarding this movie and it could have been a real masterpiece but I’m afraid it was slightly ruined by a really annoying soundtrack. That’s the issue with such vintage movies which are now in the public domain, people can do whatever they want and then put them online. Anyway, it was quite a strange movie with a rather half-baked story but with some fascinating characters. The best one was obviously the character played by Lon Chaney. I’m well aware of Chaney’s legendary status but I have to admit that I’m not familiar with his work but, after watching him for 5 mins in this movie, I understood right away why he was, and still is, so highly regarded. I mean, it was such a complex character and, obviously, some scenes didn’t make much sense physically speaking and, yet, Chaney always nailed it. The other strong character was the one played by a very young Joan Crawford. I’m not sure if Crawford herself was great but there was something really intriguing about this woman who was completely frightened by the idea of being touched by a man. It’s too bad that this phobia seemed to be solved too easily so they could wrap everything up at the end. Anyway, the damned thing was actually quite spellbinding.
“Since this movie had won the Best Picture Academy Award, I was quite eager to check it out. Well, to be honest, I’m surprised the damned thing reserved so much praise. I mean, sure, it was a decent watch but not really much more than that, in my opinion. As pointed out by many people before me, it” read more
Notes: Well, it’s the 3rd movie I watched directed by Sergei Eisenstein and it was probably the most difficult one I have seen so far. While watching this movie, I tried to remember what I did learn at school about the 1917 October Revolution but it was more than 20 years ago and this movie certainly didn’t give any background information. Eventually, the end-result was some kind of endless feverish dream dealing with the uprising that took place at the time in Russia. Seriously, the damned thing was quite relentless and I don’t think they took a minute to breath and provide the viewers with the opportunity to absorb what they just watched. By now, I got pretty much used to the fact such Soviet propaganda movies actually never focused on the characters individually but, still, it was interesting that Lenin was mentioned only a couple of times (Vasili Nikandrov was a stunning look-a-like though). For Trotsky, the situation was even worse as, even though he did show up a couple of times, his name was never mentioned and, in fact, Eisenstein had to remove most of the footage dealing with him which shows how things can change in only 10 years. Eventually, what impressed me the most with this movie was the frenetic editing. Eisenstein’s idea was to edit together some shots of various things which apparently had nothing to do with each other to create an intellectual comparisons between them which was quite intriguing.
“To be honest, I wasn’t expecting much from this flick but since it was available on Disney+, I thought I might as well check it out. First of all, I have to admit that I’m not a huge fan of Christmas movies but, even though this movie was not the worst one I have seen in this genre, it still had” read more
Notes: It is considered as the first ‘talking’ movie so it was pretty huge when it was released at the time. Well, I was rather surprised by how little dialogue was actually involved in the damned thing after all and they still used intertitles for most of the duration. Basically, the sound was mostly used for the songs performed by Al Jolson. The songs were actually all pretty good by the way. And, yet, during these songs, Jolson did improvise some dialogues and it was basically the first time ever that you had some audible dialogue. Well, I thought that even when you watch this movie almost 100 years later, the effect was still really neat. Concerning the movie itself, well, to be honest, the story is not really strong and you might wonder why it has been remade twice already (the Neil Diamond version has especially a really lame reputation). There was also the issue that Al Jolson was in his 40’s and at least 20 years too old to play this character, even if he was a great performer (it's quite incredible that they made exactly the same mistake with the Neil Diamond remake). There was also the fact that he kept performing with some blackface and, even though it was apparently a common practice at the time, it is still really unsettling to watch it nowadays. The weird thing, at least to me, was that Jolson didn’t sound like a black guy at all when he was singing so I didn’t really see the point of this make-up.
“I wasn’t sure what to expect but since this movie had been a success at the box-office and since it seemed to be a decent comedy, I thought I might as well check it out. Well, to be honest, I was surprised by how lame it actually turned out to be. Seriously, right from the very first scene, I was ” read more
Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...
“To be honest, I have never been a huge fan of ‘Mary Poppins’ (since I have Disney+, I should re-watch it at some point though) but since I have a weak spot for Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks, I was quite eager to check this movie. Well, even though it was a decent watch and easily better than most ” read more
