As a follower of Robert Eggers' work, I had high expectations for his short film "The Tell-Tale Heart," based on the famous Edgar Allan Poe story. However, upon witnessing what unfolded on the screen, I found myself surprisingly perplexed, as instead of a faithful and terrifying adaptation of the master of horror, it appeared more like a parody in the style of Wes Anderson.
Anyone familiar with the original tale knows the significant emphasis placed on the old man's eye and the nights. Yet, in this interpretation, for some reason, the focus shifts to the elderly man's "physiological habits" rather than his eye. Furthermore, during the night of his death, the old man's eye fails to become a crucial element, contradicting the original story, in which the protagonist's paranoia stems from the belief that he is being watched.
What's even more bewildering is the absence of dialogue and detailed shots, resulting in a narrative that feels concise and lacking in nuances. In my opinion, this lack of visual and narrative exploration fails to distinctly align with either the style of German expressionism or modern filmmaking.
I find it truly fascinating how the film's almost total absence of establishing shots does not prevent us from understanding the plot. Bresson, as did Carl Th. Dreyer and other filmmakers, has shown that narrative and direction can be just as effective, if not more so, than an abundance of situational shots. It is a shining example of how cinema can tell a story in a unique and memorable way.
It is also worth noting that Bresson believed in an austere, minimalist style of filmmaking, far from pompous sets, where traditional acting, with professional actors, often came across as artificial and affected. For him, the camera and its ability to capture reality were essential to telling a story. Or to put it another way, if the world is a shadow on the wall of the Platonic cave, the cinematograph allows us to go back to the reality of the Idea, because it captures that shadow; it does not imitate it.
Curiously enough, there is an interview with Jean-Luc Godard in Cahiers in which he talks about cinema in relation to spectacle. In this interview, the filmmaker says that he would like to film people reading and, after a pause, he adds that even in a wall there is spectacle: "We look at a wall and end up seeing things."
Curious medium-length film. My respects.
It's such a tender and touching footage... I think it's something everyone should see.
Let's start with something that all or almost all of us will agree on. "1917" if it is not the best visual experience of 2019, it has been very close to it, because technically it offers a very detailed vision of how it must have been lived during the battle of Passchendaele, although, of course, it would have to be analyzed to what extent it is truthful.
However, there are certain aspects that do not convince me. For example, the lack of continuity in the story makes the sequences look like independent plots, isolated events (although they have a connection) that juxtaposed together make up the footage. On the other hand, the story lacks a climax, and for this very reason, there is no memorable scene that differentiates it from other war films (not to mention that this film is more of a road movie than a war film). The most striking, to say the least, is when William Schofield arrives at the trench of the 2nd Battalion of the Devonshire Regiment, due to the photographic similarity it has with Stanley Kubrick's "Paths of Glory".
I know that for many this work is just a pseudo remake of King Kong, and that, because of this, its flamboyant splendor withered prematurely when it was ignored. One only has to compare the cultural impact between the two: only a few nostalgic vestiges of this film remain in popular culture. Needless to say, many elements are similar and the script is not new in many aspects. However, I can affirm that it is one of the great works of stop-motion, where this technique is exploited, boasting the different possibilities offered by this method of effects.
To put it in context, this film starts from the already experienced Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, who had worked together on the aforementioned film King Kong, and a young Ray Harryhausen (who would end up being the universal reference of stop-motion) who would take the reins of the special effects, resulting in a unique footage, rich in thrilling and visually powerful effects and a much more professional elaboration than the magnum opus King Kong, where the gorilla had perspective failures and had limited his movements (something totally justifiable, as it was the first film to use these effects).
A lousy script with some supra-topic sentences that delve into absolute absurdity, a hard rock soundtrack that accompanies the ridiculous action scenes amplifying the absurdity of the story, bad acting at the same level of the total conglomerate, laughable gore scenes, etc. Basically there is no other way to sum up this movie.
However, while it may seem an attack on pure reason, for a B-movie these are the perfect elements. And they behave like Euler's identity: no one would ever think that such an insanely absurd mise-en-scene would have such a balance and harmony that seems mathematical.
The story is about a Wall Street guru who talks about his stock market predictions. So far so good, however, in my opinion, the climax of the movie comes too soon. We are put in tension very soon and it is impossible to keep us in that state throughout the film. Because of this, much of the film consists of a tedious back-and-forth between Lee Gates and Kyle Budwell. It was obvious that George Clooney's character was not going to die. On the other hand, without being a bomb expert myself, it seems to me that a frequency jammer could disable the bomb and end the film after ten minutes.
Oh, and apart from this, at the end, when they start interrogating Walty Camby, the IBIS director, you can see several continuity errors in Kyle's gun.
The film is entertaining and at times it manages to make the viewer nervous. But Chekhov's weapons and some key elements are very obvious. The cell phone flash, the work of the protagonist's best friend, etc. I mean, when he discovers what happens with the flash, also when his best friend starts to investigate, when the protagonist is tied up and looks at the cotton of the chair..., I already knew how the story would end.
Herzog's masterpiece. The truth is that the mise-en-scéne in the film is very powerful and has a choice of very daring shots that manages to disturb and even terrify the viewer. However, in my opinion, the soundtrack is not memorable and perhaps it detracts a little from the final result, but it is a personal opinion. On the other hand, this film is not entirely faithful to Bram Stoker's book and that can be seen it in some points of the story, where it is somewhat more abstract and personal. Another point I see where the story is weak is in supposed Chekhov's weapon, at the beginning of the film: When Jonathan arrives in Transylvania, at the inn he is given a Bible and a cross, however, Dracula manages to bite him even with the cross around his neck.
In short, I have enjoyed this film as much as the original 1922
Yes, it is a mystery movie. To get started, it is an entertaining movie although I was hoping for a kind of mindfuck that would make it more transcendental. The story is not very solid and there are certain gaps in the plot.
What the hell… This looks like a movie to a childish 10-year-old audience. There are incompatible ingredients like Hitchcockian cinema with fantasy… and this is an example.
What the hell…!! If this movie was made now, I would have called it "Grand Theft Auto: The Movie"
A very interesting movie. The characters are very cartoonish, I mean, they are bohemian in their own way. The plot is not completely unpredictable, and that's very good, as it allows the viewer to play detective. It is not a complex film but it is not obvious either.
The only thing that has aged a bit may be the end, but it still remains a magnum opus.
The story is interesting but the end result has not convinced me. In my opinion, the script does not reflect at all the anxiety that journalists experienced, staying many times in presumptuous and pedantic dialogues. On the other hand, the film lacks a notable soundtrack; It only has the typical orchestra that is in the background for typical pro-America soliloquy. A true topic. And finally, what could have been an interesting outcome, ends quickly, without explanation, with a scene jump. I mean, the monologues last longer than the ending itself.
The truth is that I will never understand this movie. There is no introduction, middle and end ...
One of the best mystery movies I have ever seen. Watching this movie, you can't doubt - or so I think - that Lynch was influenced by Kubrick's The Shining: The surreal pastel colors notorious in Dorothy Vallens' room, the room where the child is being held, Detective Tom Gordon's yellow suit ... The symmetrical planes and frontal perspectives that Kubrick abused throughout the career and that proved to be useful for creating tension due to the feeling of unreality they generate… In short, a masterpiece, above Eyes Wide Shut also by Kubrick.
But what the hell is this ... It's the sickest, weirdest and grossest movie I've seen in a long time, however, it has something that made me stick to the chair ... I no longer know whether to consider myself a fair and sane person.
The first thing I thought when I went into the film was that it was an imitation of Ingmar Bergman's cinema: A noisy silence, the expressionism use typical of European cinema (for example, "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari"). However, this is not the case. It is a unique film of its own, with a totally terrifying dystopian setting. The sets are dingy, dark, and set in some gnawed and sick 1920s.
The story, in a nutshell, deals with the delusions of a man upon learning that he is the father of a "worm" son. A Kafkaesque story.
For me, although I may not have understood the film, or the nightmares of the protagonist, I am totally enraptured by the aesthetics of the film.
It is a science fiction movie very different from the others. It almost looks more like a Dalí or Bosco painting animated with psychedelic touches. In that style, to tell the truth, it shares a certain abstraction with Russian animation 'The glass harmonica' (1968).
I can not say too much. I am not an expert in this style of movies.
The beginning of the film has a humorous style that he would share next year with 'The Young Frankenstein': silly (in a good way), rogue, coming to black humor. But when we get to the end of the movie ... the plot twist turns in such a way that it looks like a movie featuring Leslie Nielsen, but even better! I mean, I think it's the craziest ending to all of Hollywood comedy.
This is indeed a Mortal Kombat tournament!! In this movie I find all the elements that failed in the disastrous Mortal Kombat movie. Here I can say: Liu Kang and Johnny Cage in its purest form! Hahaha
The film has an interesting story from the beginning and its plot is solid. Not like in other movies where they fight hand-to-hand against armed people.
At first I thought it was a badly aged film that tries to portray the life of a people from a fascist Italy. However, little by little, one enters the film and notices that it does not matter the year in which you see them. They are the phases of life, or in other words: how ridiculous our existence is, how we let go out sexual impulses in youth, our absurd ideologies. I don't know how to explain it, however I can see a subtle criticism hidden. I mean, it does not matter when it is recorded, this kind of films will always be "old", because we have the impression of living in the "future", of being the modern generation, but it only changes our environment, because as far as we are concerned as humans ... nihil novum sub sole.
For starters, I think this movie, while not from the classic Hollywood era, is the pure definition of noir cinema. The setting, both climatologically and geographically speaking, is attractive. The protagonist, Philip Marlowe, is very well defined: he has a personality that engages the public, perfect eloquence, an unbeatable look. All of this plus Elliott Gould's facial expressions makes it easy to sympathize with the protagonist. On the other hand, the plot seems simple at first, however, then there begin to be many loose ends. This made me lose easily nevertheless everything is resolved in the end, making the end not so obvious.
Curious fact: In the poster, Philip is seen using a revolver, but in the film he never has one. On the cover of the DVD, he carries a gun, but in the background they have put the beach, something that is not correct either. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm almost sure not!
For starters, the setting does not fail, it is totally the style of Martin Scorsese. The plot at first seems to promise us an excellent movie, however, it is not. As we go deeper into the plot, the plot twists begin to lose balance and correlation between scenes, leaving the viewer more lost than Mark Ruffalo.
Unfortunately, the review was deleted from my smartphone and I do not remember the details that disappointed me. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that among all the ingredients that make up the story, the weakest were the trauma of the Second World War and McCarthyism.
I can only say that I wanted to do a 'Usual Suspects', but it failed.
The film manages to maximize the era of ancient Rome in every way, taking care of all the details. The first thing I thought was that I was seeing a new "Ben-Hur". But it's not like that…, many digital effects were used, but who cares? The important thing is that it would be based on real events, however, many changes caused it to move away from reality. It is a pity that it is the winner who writes the story, in this case Hollywood.
Although the English and Spanish version should not be different, but the truth is that the Spanish version is much better. First, the movie lasts half an hour longer, and they are not leftover scenes.
One of the first differences is that in the English version Renfield is not seen during the car trip to Dracula's castle. Later, Renfield cuts his finger with the papers that Dracula must sign. In the Spanish version we can see the fear in Renfield's face during the trip to the castle and then, he cuts the finger with the knife when he is cutting the bread and quickly approaches the finger to see the cut, however, Dracula tries to approach, but quickly he see the crucifix.
Another notable difference is that we can see the metal bars of the asylum window are bent in the Spanish version. The ship scene and theater scene are more complete too. Finally, in the English version, Dracula uses a knife to kill Renfield, but in the Spanish version he strangles him.
I hate the style of Martin Scorsese (in a good way). Generally his films are long and he show you his characters naked, I mean his day to day, his secrets, and so on. After a long footage, one ends up fond of the characters, however, the plot comes so suddenly, accumulating problems. This generates a clash of emotions, because you know that some characters will gradually fall and the only thing one expects is for the end to assimilate the tragic (sometimes).
In short, unlike Quentin Tarantino, where the characters usually end up coming together and a massacre occurs, In these movies, deaths go one by one being more shocking.
I don't understand how some Spanish newspapers, in the cinema section, they talk about this movie as Kubrick's most boring and pretentious work. I can understand that they don't like it, but say it's a horrible movie, no. I have no knowledge in the matter, but I don't need studies to know what is a MASTERPIECE.
It's one of the prettiest movies I've ever seen: colors, landscapes, clothes... Everything is in harmony, it's like watching a lively canvas. The script is beautiful and the plot is very deep.
The movie is quite unpleasant, in a good way. I mean, the effects of the mutation are very good. The story is quite different from the Simpsons version (my reference), making it more terrifying. It is one of the few films that has disgusted me and made me feel scared by science.
It is one of the best B movie of Science fiction together with Re-Animator (1985)…
