Reviews

Awesome; concise; influential. Basically, a woman-hating preacher learns of a pair of kids who know the secret location of stolen money, seduces their mother, and terrorizes the children. This movie is fast-paced; it doesn't waste a second on worthless plot points, or slow scenes. The actors are pretty good across the board; some of them were duds, but Robert Mitchum and Lillian Gish were both at the top of their game. The score itself wasn't anything special, but the use of biblical hymns throughout was well done by Laughton. I liked the theme of this movie (the corrupted religious evil) as well as the slightly-unpredictable ending and pacing which still managed to stay fast. I especially liked the german-expressionism-inspired camera-angles, scenes, and makeup. Overall, one of the best film-noirs I've seen, and worthy of the horror genre too.

Good - definitely Spielberg-influenced. Basically, the spirits on the land under their house come out of the TV set and start haunting this suburban, middle-class family. The special effects look pretty goofy today, but considering that it's an 80s movie I wasn't too bothered by them. None of these actors were big names, but the performances were stellar across the board. The little girl especially was equal parts creepy and cute; she would have been a masterful actress. The score was nice, and of course it's the ever-fantastic Jerry Goldsmith. I thought the plot was good, but the last 15-20 minutes of the movie were literally just there to show off the director's WaCkY SpEcIaL eFfEcTs. It was pretty pointless. Overall, I enjoyed the movie; I never once forgot that Spielberg was behind it, but that's not a bad thing. The guy knows how to make a good flick.

Better than I remember - probably one of John Carpenter's best; behind The Thing, Big Trouble in Little China, Escape from New York, maybe Prince of Darkness. The score might be his best overall; the main theme isn't as good as some of his others, but there aren't any did tracks in this one. The plot is extremely tight - no wasted time, and the special effects are his usual, top-of-the-line, practical style. There are a few downsides. Jamie Lee Curtis's character had no purpose in this plot, and Jamie herself gave a pretty lackluster performance. In fact, the performances overall were pretty B-movie across the board. Adrienne Barbeau and Janet LEigh did a good job, but the rest seemed like they were reading off a script sheet. I did like the New England fishing town setting and the theme of ghost-pirates better than some of the supernatural plots in other movies. Overall, top marks.

Not bad, though the plot was dry for my taste. Basically, a murderer murders, and investigators investigate. Like I said, not memorable. This is basically an Italian slasher film in the style of Halloween. The special effects were good (they usually are in italian cinema), although the setting seemed more "british-horror" and drab than what I've come to expect out of over-the-top italian cinema. At times, it was almost like they were filming on a limited budget. I didn't think the acting was anything special either - I can't decide if the line-dubbing helped or hindered the performances in this cas. The music was the standout part of this movie. Same band that did Suspiria (Goblin) with another killer (pun-intended) score for this movie. Some of the death scenes were memorable, and it's cool to spot places where this movie affected later horror/slasher films like Saw. Overall good, except for the plot getting boring in spots.

Better than I expected from the average rating - the 70s were the golden age of movies. Basically, a writer and his family move into an old mansion for the summer, and they begin to feel the house affecting their moods. Very similar to The Shining in plot, characterization, and setting; except the mother is the real one who is influenced in this movie. The actors each did a stellar job, but the kid was the breakout star among the three - he really sold the "child who loves his parents and wants them all to be happy" vibe. The staging/camerawork could have been nicer - sometimes it had the look of a direct-to-dvd film. I don't remember any music; there probably was some, but it wasn't any good. I did like the pacing overall, but there were a few beats that weren't necessary (the dad losing his mind, for example, when it was the mother who was the main "victim" of the house). I did like the way the movie ended - very tragic, and with a twist I didn't see coming (though it was obvious). Overall, well done.

Good, though not as good as The Wages of Fear. Basically... the exact same movie, but with a Friedkin-esque, Exorcist-like tone. I know the director has said he wasn't inspired by the older 50s adaptation, but the plots and characterizations are so close to each other that it's impossible to tell the difference. Obviously this 70s movie has more production value than the 50s one, but I felt The Wages of Fear had more tension, and better characterization. Two things that this movie definitely did better on: acting and score. Even if the characters were a little "not fleshed out", the people playing them did an amazing job. The synth score is also a huge improvement of The Wages of Fear (I can't actually remember that score, which says a lot). Overall, entertaining, and maybe worth a rewatch someday.

A disjoined 80s movie. Basically, bad guy Nazis and one good guy Nazi unearth an ancient evil at some ruin with the help of a jewish scientist, and some mysterious guy has to show up to fight the monster (except they don't actually fight?). The acting and score of this movie were great, and the set pieces were pretty good overall (except that some of the CGI was pretty bad). The downfall of this movie is the plot/pacing. Basically, the studio cut it down so much that it's almost unwatchable. I'd love for a director's cut to come out someday, but it seems unlikely. Overall, easier to look away from than to follow along.

Not bad... for a silent movie love story. Basically, a man considers murdering his wife to be with a city girl, but changes his mind at the last moment and falls in love with his wife again over the course of the day. Murnau has a good eye for special effects in this movie, from the storm when they are on the water to the traffic when they are in the city. The use of sound at point and the musical score were integrated well with each scene (Side note: silent movies, in general, always make better use of the score than almost any modern movie I've seen - it becomes "part of" the movie, instead of being relegated to background ambience or - in the most egregious use - general hums/drones). I also thought the acting was stellar in this movie; both leads did a good job of showing emotion without being able to speak or make sound. The drag for this movie was the plot. On the plus side, it made use of interstitials very sparingly (which is my preference for silent films). On the downside, the scenes in the middle were brutally slow (the wedding, the city traffic, basically everything between the attempted murder and the storm at sea). If the middle hour of the movie had been cut down to 10 minutes, I'd give this a 9 - which is a lot (from me) for a love story. Overall, entertaining, but with a sizable midpoint lull.

Good, but way too long. Basically, haves-and-have-nots, bourgeoisie vs proletariat, etc, with your bog-standard love-story between two members of opposite classes thrown in there, along with a complexity of an inventor and his doppleganger robot. The best part of this movie was the special effects; the huge set pieces, the lighting, the number of extras, the flooding in certain scenes, the robot - all these were incredible, and it's no wonder that sci-fi movies down the line have drawn influence from this film. The score was great, and the acting toes the line between over-expressive german expressionalism and real pathos in a good way. The problem is the length - there are huge sequences of nothing-but-action where the city is being destroyed or the people are being riled up, and my eyes just glazed over as these went on forever. There's 3 or 4 of them, and if they were cut down the movie could be 30 minutes shorter. Overall a good movie, but probably not one I'd watch a second time.

Much more of an art-film than I was looking for, and about as engaging as I would expect for a pseudo-documentary. Basically, the story of witches, told in essay-form with short reenactment-style scenes cut in throughout the essay. The special effects were good (for the time), and I always love a good score of classical music over a silent movie. I actually didn't mind the essay portion either; there's something relaxing about reading text, with occasional graphics or images popping up, set to a sweeping orchestra. The part that dragged this movie down for me was the main plot. Most of the "reenactment" stuff concerning witches revolved around inquisition-style persecution by Christians. I'm about the opposite of a religious fanatic, but I just don't find that general theme (Christian zealotry / inquisition / superstition) to be very interesting or compelling. Overall a well-made movie, but not at all for me.

Not the worst silent film, but not the greatest. Basically, the leader of a jewish community uses an ancient ritual to bring life to a golem. The golem proceeds to turn against the community, but is stopped in the end by playful children. I went into this expecting a certain amount of antisemitism, but this was pretty clean considering it's germany. The expressionism was there in this movie, but not as prevalent as Caligari or Nosferatu. There just wasn't as much style with this one as with other movies. Having said that, the plot, acting, and music were all fine - if it weren't a silent film (and had a little bit more production to back it up) I'd probably bump it up to a 7 or 8. Overall didn't keep my attention, but it didn't truly bore me either.

I swear, no one knows how to take a good concept and make a boring movie out of it like swedish directors. This movie had the exact same effect as Ingmar Bergman movies have on me - it made me want to quit when there were only 15 minutes left. Basically, the last person to die on midnight on New Year's Eve has to drive the carriage and horse of Death for the next year. Sounds exciting, right? Well this director clearly though, "Why not take that exciting concept, and make the whole story about a man's drunkenness tearing his life apart?" It's like alchemically fusing gold with lead to make slag. Some of the special effects were pretty good (for the time; this is a 1920s movie we're talking about), and the music that I listened to fit the scenes well. The acting also wasn't the worst. But... the plot was a complete borefest; I couldn't name a single character 5 minutes after finishing this slog. Overall, a humongous waste of time - I'm just about ready to blanket-statement refuse all future Swedish films based on my experiences so far.

The best movie I've seen in the past year - which I never would have guessed I would say about a 1920s silent film. Basically, a hypnotist uses a somnambulist to commit murders. There are about a million layers/elements to speak of in this movie's favor. The german expressionist aesthetic (eyeshadow, costumes, painted backdrops, etc) is realized in this movie better than in any other film of the genre I've seen; the set pieces especially are absolutely gorgeous with the sharp angles and cartoonish setting. The plot/pacing are incredibly well executed too; the use of a framing device perfectly sets up the suspense of the plot, and from the moment Cesare opens his eyes there is a sense of dread for the main characters. Then there's the themes/subtext about post-WWI/Nazi germany which this movie represents, COMBINED WITH themes of POV/perception. Also, as far as I know there's no official soundtrack, but I listened to snippets from a few and all of them were fantastically designed to fit the movie beats. The one I listened to was by some guy named Rainer Viertlbock (mix of synth/jazz) and made the movie come alive. Overall, I was sucked into this movie in a way I haven't been for ages. I'm giving it a 9/10 now to account for the novelty-factor: if it remains in my esteem a few months from now, this is a potential 10/10 for me.

This movie makes me realize that I like silent films (with music) just as much as their non-silent counterparts. Basically, the story of Faust: man makes pact with devil, but it turns against him. The german expressionist movement creates imagery that is absolutely iconic: the deep eyeshadow, the over-expressive faces, the contrasts of white and black, the huge costumes and painted backdrops - all of it creates an aesthetic that (while mirrored or borrowed in parts for later movements) is impossible to find in any other movie. The pacing in this one was a little dull; sometimes I couldn't tell where the movie was going, or why it was spending so much time with faust in a particular scene. Otherwise, I liked it; especially the symphonic use of music.

Great foreign horror movie about witches. Basically, a priest has to stay up three nights over the body of a witch, praying for her and resisting her attacks. The plot definitely felt like it came from an older tale/fairy-tale (the use of #3 as a motif, the plain-spoken way of the dialogue, etc). The special effects were pretty considering the time; alright, they looked a little dumb in places, but I enjoyed that most of them were practical. The monster designs and design of the witch were great. The score was forgettable, but not distracting. The acting was the same as the score, with the exception that the main character did a pretty good job portraying someone "out of their depth". Overall, better than most witch movies I've seen.

Pretty great horror flick, and one of price's better ones. Basically: man tries to transport matter, man tries to transport himself but does so with a fly, man combines with fly, man meets tragic death as he slowly loses his mind. Overall, this felt more like a Hitcock movie than a generic 50s/60s B-Movie horror flick. There weren't a lot of jumpscares, but a general build of suspense. Having the main character cover his head with a cloth, having him use no dialogue and tap out yes/no with his hand, having the framing device of the woman telling the story at the start and end; all these were well executed. The downside is the pacing. This movie is slow to start, and spends a lot of time one people searching for flies. Also, the child actor is annoying. Overall, still enjoyed it.

Wonderful; almost as good as Clue. Basically, a spoof of a mansion-murder, where all the greatest detectives (modeled off of famous detectives from old movies, mostly noir) are invited to try to solve the murder. This movie is raw, goofy fun - in the same vein of humor as Airplane/Clue. The jokes don't come as often or land as hard as those two movies, but the movie is short enough and the dialogue is punchy enough that it kept me engaged the whole time. Another plus of this movie is the cast; Peter Falk and Alec Guinness are especially good, but every one of the characters is an actor/actress with a huge career - and the talent shows. Overall, just a funny murder-spoof that you can watch over and over again, picking up on jokes you missed the first time, flitting in-and-out of attention as your available grants.

Good, although the humor of it was a little underplayed for my taste. Basically, a Shakespearean actor starts murdering the critics who refused to give him the award he thought he deserved. The dialogue, acting, and staging in this movie were great; definitely had that 70s, unpredictable, experimental vibe. Vincent price was an absolute titan; probably one of his best performances. The plot/pacing were a little slow at times, but there were no huge lulls that made me want to give up at any point. The tone is where this movie falls a little flat. It tries to be horror comedy, but doesn't really nail either of them. It's not scary - more gory at certain points than anything. There were a few moments where I smiled at the jokes, but most of them were delivered so flatly and seriously - with only a sliver of humor to the situations - that I never really laughed out loud. It's that kind of situational british humor, where it happens so fast and inconspicuously that you miss it until ten seconds later, by which point its not as funny anymore. Overall, entertaining, but misses the mark.

Good - a little trite in places. Basically, a mother and her two photosensitive children live in a gothic manor and start hearing ghost sounds. Anyone who's ever seen a haunted house movie, or read The Turn of the Screw or The Haunting of Hill House, or experienced any entertainment medium related to ghost - basically, anyone - will recognize this movie's influences. Most of the themes are ubiquitous at this point (the suspicious servants, the creakings sounds, the door closing suddenly, the jumpscares). The acting was stellar from Kidman. The pacing was a bit weird in places (the husband turning up then leaving basically had no purpose). The reveal was neat, but again, a little predictable. Overall, entertaining, but not worth a second watch.

A pretty grand horror movie - Italian cinema of the 60-80s was something special. Basically, an american girl goes to a prestigious German ballet, but finds that the leaders of the school may not be all that they appear. One of the things that I love in this movie (wierdly) is the dubbing. It's different from most kinds, in that all the actors speak different languages. They try to mouth the words in english (and then dub it over), but the effect is that everyone's words seem a little off. In the case of this movie, it ads that little extra bit of 'uncanny valley' which adds to the slow dread build. Another great thing is the color. Any time I looked away from the screen, my eyes would be immediately drawn back by some stark shade of blue table, or ornate wallpaper, or hallway in deep red. The plot/pacing were pretty, but I found myself getting a little bored in the second half, until the last 15-20 minutes. The practical special effects were nice - very John Carpenter in placed. The score... what a masterpiece. I'm not sure I'll delve into the whole library of Goblin's work, but the prog-rock/electric/synch score the added is one of the best parts of the whole film. Overall, a top tier horror film, with only some minor shortcomings holding it back.

A movie I've avoided for years, pointlessly it turns out. This was a real joy to watch. Basically, the story of two male vampires and their child-turned vampire, as they navigate the centuries, beginning in 18th-century slave owning America. Lots of not-subtle homo-erotic undertones, if that's your thing. Lots of period costumes and sets, which is definitely my thing. The plot and pacing is one of my favorite parts, it almost feels more like a 70s film than a 90s film, in that you aren't as sure where the story is going to end up. It feels a bit like a Coppola movie in that respect - many similarities to his version of Dracula (and not just because they are both vampire films). The one thing that kept me from really investing - well, two things - was the cast. Kirsten Dunst, Brad Pitt, and Tom Cruise are too ubiquitous from my lifetime for me to not see their faces as actors. To put it another way, I never got fully invested in the movie, because I could always tell I was watching people play roles. That doesn't mean those three are bad actors (in fact, Tom Cruise does a good job of getting into his character) - I've just seen them so many times over the years that I know too well how they talk and laugh. Overall, a great movie, well worth finally not-avoiding.

Much better than I expected from a silent film - this definitely made me more open to other movies from the period before voice. Basically, it's dracula. You know the story. The appeal of a movie like this IMO is looking at how artists of the period made use of movement, music, facial expressions, etc, and how those compare to the way we make movies today. It gives the film a novel feeling that I don't get from watching any modern movie. The acting was certainly more overdone than anything in a cinema today, and the film was grainy, and there was (of course) no speaking. None of these bothered me - despite it's being a horror movie, I actually found it relaxing to watch. In fact, the lack of voiced lines in this movie bothered me less than the lack of music in the 1931 dracula. Strange, but I'd rather have music and interstitial subtitles, than full dialogue without music. Anyway, a good old movie, opening up the way for others from the period.

A good movie on the whole, but with one big flaw that soured it for me. Basically, two guys commit a murder, then host a dinner party right after to prove they can get away with it. The camerawork is one of the biggest appeals of this movie; Hitchcock stitched together every shot of this movie seamlessly, so that it appears like one long, running take. He went so far as to make the walls of the studio moveable to accommodate this plan. Despite what must have been incredibly long reset times, none of the acting suffers; every one of the characters here is masterfully played, especially the two murderers and Jimmy Stewart's character. The tone of the dialogue and acting is pretty ordinary - it's based on a play, and you can tell it's based on a play. There are no one-liners or snappy, noir-esque exchanges in here, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. There's very little music as well; only the diegetic pieces played on a phonograph or piano. Again, this doesn't detract at all from the movie. The one big flaw I had was the ending. Jimmy Stewart's character basically does a complete theological turnaround on himself in the span of a minute. I get that *spoiler alert* seeing a dead body can be shaking, but the guy was literally saying "intelligent people should be allowed to murder others" an hour before, but now he suddenly goes, "Well, I didn't mean intelligent people should be allowed to MURDER others!" There just isn't enough justification, and it makes the ending feel unearned. Overall, still a good thriller (and with the standard Hitchcockian suspense), but not as justified in the ending.

Not my favorite Hitchcock. Basically... birds attack. There's really not much 'plot' to this unique disaster movie. There's a kind of main love story that feels more like a side story, but otherwise it's just a bunch of attacking birds. It's almost stupid really; if Hitchcock were not using all his directorial expertise to set up tension in the dialogue and camerawork, this movie would be insanely bad; as in scy-fy channel bad. He does a good job (as usual) of making the character believable and adding tension through their choice of topics and words, but the tension in the dialogue rarely relates to the disaster itself. More often, tension between the characters comes from this secondary love-story, and the bird-demic is just a backdrop/setting. It's actually a pretty engaging movie despite all this; again, the camerawork, scenery, acting - even the special effects and use of actual birds - is really well done. There just isn't as much payoff or relationship between the characters and the disaster. Nothing gets explained, and the ending feels pretty abrupt and flat. Overall, enjoyable to watch, but missing the 'neatness' of other Hitchcock movies.

Pretty good, though the ending isn't the best. Basically, a scientist, his wife, and two mediums investigating the haunting phenomenon of an old house of debauchery. The most starts off fast; in a good way. There's one or two scenes of setup, but they're inside the house within the first 10 minutes. Creepy stuff starts happening almost immediately. One refreshing thing is that no one is a full 'doubting Thomas', and they don't need half the movie to be convinced of paranormal activities. The scientist doesn't believe in spirits like the two mediums, but he rationalizes their powers and the haunting effects in a way which is believable; thinking of everything in terms of energy. The acting is pretty good across the board; it's a little melodramatic, but that seems to fit the over-the-top setting of the lavish, dissipated mansion. The mystery is good; one thing that kept me on my toes - throughout the whole movie - was never being sure which (if any) of the four would come out alive. There's no easy prediction with this movie, which is a good thing. However, it gets a little stupid towards the end. Basically, the explanations for "why" all this horror is taking place are a little contrived, and the actual scientific explanations themselves sometimes feel like they were imagined up by a 15-year old with a bunch of buzzwords to use, and never fleshed out. The finale/explanation for the ghost is stupid; really, really stupid. It didn't ruin the movie, but overall I felt like this film needed a second pass from a plot and motivation perspective.