General Film Review/Discussion Thread

[DeepSleeper44]

Here you can post reviews and random thoughts about any film that you'd like to talk about.

I'll start it off with my review for The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938).

The Adventures of Robin Hood (Curtiz+Keighley, 1938)

The Adventures of Robin Hood is not merely an excuse to showcase the gloriousness of Technicolor, rather, it is an extremely satisfying action-adventure picture with a lot of heart and energy. The story, of course, is based on the widely-known legends of Robin Hood (Errol Flynn), the sympathetic outlaw of Sherwood Forest whose well-intentioned exploits lead to conflict with the authority figures of the region, namely Prince John (Claude Rains) and Sir Guy of Gisbourne (Basil Rathbone). Along the way, he gathers a group of like-minded followers, most notably Little John (Alan Hale Sr.) and Friar Tuck (Eugene Palette) who aid him in his crusade for righteousness.

What jumps out at me the most (Visually) in the film, is the broad use of bright colors which add some excitement and lightheartedness to the story. The costumes, the sets, the props- all of these things exhibit nearly every color in the spectrum and this works very well. Had the film been shot in black and white, I think the mood could have been affected a little, because in my mind, this is the type of film that calls for this kind of vibrancy. The colors are just one contributor to the feeling of The Adventures of Robin Hood, though. Even more colorful than the costumes, are the characters who wear them. Just about every principle character has a specific persona and each one is given a moment to shine. There’s the amusing, yet, evil Prince John and his enforcer, Sir Guy of Gisbourne, who holds Robin Hood in withering contempt. And, on the other end, Friar Tuck and Little John spice up each scene they’re in with an ongoing banter. Probably most charismatic of the bunch is the title character of Robin Hood, and Errol Flynn plays him with just the right amount of enthusiasm.

Another aspect of this film that has to be addressed is the rousing action that takes place in it. There are many, many swordfights, staff-fights and escapes throughout and they are all directed and cut perfectly. Whether it’s the archery tournament held by Prince John or Robin’s liberation from the gallows, directors Michael Curtiz and William Keighley always seemed to know how to choreograph the action. This brings me back once more to what I think is The Adventures of Robin Hood’s most defining aspect, which is its admirable energy and enthusiasm. Erich Wolfgang Korngold’s score adds a lot to this feeling and without it, Robin Hood just wouldn’t be the same. I can’t say enough about how well this vigor is maintained. There isn’t a dull moment in the movie and nothing is done to gross excess. For, as lavish a production as this obviously was, the film never dipped into self-indulgence. It’s 100 minutes of excitement and adventure and I loved every minute.

The plot never gets off track and there were certain times that I was afraid that it would. When the subplot of Richard the Lionheart returning was introduced, I feared that the film would steer away from the conflict at its center, but I feel that in the end, Richard’s return fit quite well into the film as a whole. There had to be a conclusion consisting of Prince John’s defeat and the triumph of justice, and the film did just that. Also fitting well into the story was Robin Hood’s relationship with Maid Marion. Lots of times, I find that the addition of a love-interest in an action film tends to tear down the movie’s potential. There are several instances of writers shoving a romance into a story that has no need for it, but here, it works. The always great Olivia de Havilland does a good job in the role of Maid Marion and her relationship with Robin feels somewhat organic. It’s not forced or rushed. Nor is it an immediately obvious connection. In the scene in Sherwood Forest, where Robin Hood speaks with Maid Marion after showing her the poor, love is never spoken of between the two, but there is a hint of a future togetherness in the love theme playing in the background.

The Adventures of Robin Hood carries out the structure of an action-adventure film in a completely satisfying way. Everything about the film seems perfectly crafted and it hits all the right notes at all the right times. There isn’t anything profound in it, but at the same time, there doesn’t have to be with a story like this. We’re talking about Robin Hood- a character whose legend is comprised mainly of daring adventures and schemes rather than spiritual meditations or philosophical implications. What the story demands is compelling action and clever dialogue and the filmmakers accomplish these two things wonderfully. While the film may not be entirely accurate (With regards to the history behind it), it is still very entertaining. For a few days after watching The Adventures of Robin Hood, I thought that I’d give the film four and a half stars out of five, but after considerable reflection, I am hard-pressed to find much of anything that could justify such a rating.
5 out of 5 stars

[DeepSleeper44]

Just wrote one for a film I recently revisited:

North by Northwest (Hitchcock, 1959)

In North by Northwest, Alfred Hitchcock presents a handsomely-crafted chase film with tension and smarts to boot. The main character of the story is a New York advertising exec named Roger Thornhill (Played with quick wit by a middle-aged Cary Grant). Within the first ten minutes of the film, he is abducted in a restaurant by two shady men after an unfortunately-timed hand gesture. He is taken to a large estate where he learns from the boss of the abductors, named Phillip Vandamm (Played with cool malevolence by James Mason) that he was taken on the belief that he was a man named George Kaplan who- unknown to his captors- doesn’t exist. From there on, we are held in the grasp of the Master of Suspense as he spins his complex web with equal parts verve and amusement.

Indeed, the web of intrigue is what makes this film what it is. Throughout, we are taken from one location to another, encountering twists and picking up plot points along the way. The script was written by Ernest Lehman who cleverly draws up countless scenarios which successfully move the story forward while developing the characters in the meantime. As the story builds, the stakes are raised as Thornhill goes on the run after being framed for murder at the beginning of the second act. He gets on a train headed for Chicago and encounters a woman named Eve Kendall (Eva Marie Saint) who becomes integral to the plot as a whole. It is around this time, however that the story slows down and a romance begins to bloom between the two. But the romance is not without a reason for it is later revealed that she is working with Vandamm who is staying in another compartment with his right-hand man named Leonard (Martin Landau). In North by Northwest, every scene serves a purpose and its director makes sure that those scenes are executed in the best possible ways.

Alfred Hitchcock was a director with a very distinct style, and North by Northwest is not lacking in all the aesthetics of his unique vision. Probably what I admire most about his direction in this picture is the way in which he gradually reveals things to the audience. Nothing is obvious. Nothing is immediate. Throughout the film, there are instances of him introducing an object early on and giving us no reason to assume that it is of any importance, and then using it in a major way later on. This is the case with Thornhill’s initialed matchbook, which is first seen on the train, but takes on a new significance when it is used to alert Eve at Vandamm’s mountainside home. This is the case with Mount Rushmore, which is first shown at the beginning of the third act and is used as the setting for the (Big) finale. But, of all these instances, I think it’s in the iconic cropduster sequence where this technique is done the best. In this scene, Hitchcock proves why he is the master of suspense- giving us a scene without any music in which we wait on the side of the road, right there with Cary Grant’s character. We see the cropduster off in the distance. A car passes. Another car passes. We see the cropduster again. A third car passes. A car pulls up on the other side of the road and a man gets out without addressing Thornhill. Roger chats with him for a moment before the man leaves on a bus. By this time, Thornhill is seemingly alone again, but it is also at this time that Hitchcock reintroduces the cropduster, which takes on a menacing personality when it begins to target our protagonist. All of this is paced and edited in typically outstanding fashion and it’s moments like these that define North by Northwest as a classic.

Despite the film’s prolific status and its many admirable traits, I do not think that it’s without faults. I would say that my main issue with the film is the romance that I mentioned earlier between Thornhill and Kendall. While it is initially justified (As something important to the plot), as the film progresses, I find their relationship increasingly exaggerated and unrealistic. There’s no reason why she should fall in love with him, but she does anyway, and although the relationship helps the Eve character to become less distant from the audience, it still feels unnecessary in the long run. In the film, Eve is presented as a strong and sophisticated female character rather than a helpless, flimsy damsel-in-distress type, which was so often portrayed in classic Hollywood cinema. However, her falling for Roger goes against character and while it doesn’t ruin her character completely, I feel that it is a slight detriment to the film’s credibility- a film that isn’t quite able to escape every cliché. Grant’s character mentions his past marital failures, but his objective is not to find love. His objective is get free of the trouble he’s gotten into, and a side romance doesn’t need to play a part in that, in my opinion. The ending- with the two newlyweds presumably speeding off to a honeymoon on a train- causes me to spitefully roll my eyes at the long-time habit of Hollywood making nearly every pair of leads of the opposite sex end up in each other’s arms, surrendering to love’s pull. Such a thing makes sense in the context of a romance film, but North by Northwest is a suspense-thriller first, and this kind of relationship feels distracting when forced into these circumstances.

Aside from my reservations concerning the romantic relationship between Roger and Eve, North by Northwest is an endlessly entertaining and timeless film. On second viewing, Hitchcock’s film revealed many new interesting factors which went unnoticed the first time. From the dialogue to the production design, it is clear that North by Northwest was meticulously made and Hitchcock’s dedication to the craft makes the film worthy of its acclaim- even if this reviewer finds it less than perfect.
4.5 out of 5 stars

[jojo]

Would take requests for reviews? Hunger games when it gets released, if you are interested in seeing that movie. thanks.

[DeepSleeper44]

Would take requests for reviews? Hunger games when it gets released, if you are interested in seeing that movie. thanks.

Sorry, but I don't plan on seeing The Hunger Games. I'll try to post reviews of different movies every once in a while, though.
Thanks for the interest.

[DeepSleeper44]

Just because it's been awhile, I'll post a review that I wrote a few months ago:

Singin' in the Rain (Donen+Kelly, 1952)

The musical is not the type of film that’s made too often nowadays, and when it is made, it’s usually met with lukewarm reactions. If there was to be some kind of swell in movie musicals, though, Singin’ in the Rain would be the film to look to for points on how to make the musical the right way. The film does everything that a classic Hollywood musical should do and more. There’s splendid set design, effectively upbeat tunes and wonderful direction. Singin’ in the Rain retains all the energy that makes this type of film memorable and never gets lost in showy, grandiose dance numbers (Which were prevalent in that era). That particular aspect might be what impresses me the most about this film. It keeps its head about itself and doesn’t forget that there is a good story at the heart of it. It’s these reasons and others which make Singin’ in the Rain one of the best (If not the best- I don’t think I’ve seen enough musicals to judge) musicals ever made.

The story of Singin’ in the Rain is about Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly), Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen) and Cosmo Brown (Donald O’Connor)- two silent film actors and a musician struggling to stay relevant at the advent of talking pictures. Along the way, Don meets an “actress” named Kathy Selden (Debbie Reynolds), and after a rocky start, they build a romantic relationship. The film’s ensemble is excellent all the way around. Gene Kelly and Donald O’Connor have great chemistry, Jean Hagen is hilariously sassy and Debbie Reynolds does a good job playing someone a little beyond the typical love interest type. I appreciate how each character was written to give a certain effect, and no one ever went past their degree of usefulness. For instance, O’Connor plays a quick-witted sidekick to Kelly’s Don Lockwood. Had he been inserted into more scenes, making more wisecracks, his shtick would’ve gotten old very quickly and he would’ve become more loathsome than lovable. The same goes for Hagen’s character who is humorously annoying, but not so annoying that she takes over and ruins an entire scene, which could’ve easily happened had the script been mishandled- which, thankfully, it isn’t.

The star of the picture, though, is the music. The numbers in this are absolutely fantastic. Not one of them, however is overdone or bigger than it needs to be. Many well-written songs are sprinkled throughout the film to emphasize the sentiments of a scene or to draw attention to the direction that the story is moving in. I think the most perfectly executed song-and-dance sequence in the whole film is the “Broadway Melody” scene. Gene Kelly’s scene for which the film is named is wonderful and iconic, but it doesn’t grab me quite like this one does. It’s dazzling, but not over-the-top. It’s cheerful, but not in your face. And it’s very creative and well-paced. The sequence didn’t have to be there, though. It could have easily been struck from the film and the completed transformation of “The Dueling Cavalier” could’ve been explained in a very short scene. Instead, Directors Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly decided to go for it and create what is in my mind to be the greatest musical piece of Singin’ in the Rain. It’s the only time that I think of in which they stray temporarily from the main story, but I think the filmmakers earned that liberty and they pull off the scene beautifully.

Ultimately, Singin’ in the Rain is about finding happiness when times are rough, and discovering the joys of life when up against daunting odds. It’s also a lovely tribute to the era it’s portraying- demonstrating the triumphs and the quirks of films from that time. Everything about it is sharply executed. From the striking dances to the funny dialogue, no room is left for excess and in its 103-minute runtime, the film manages to tell an endearing story that continues to inspire and capture the imagination of audiences today, all while subtly injecting a bit of nostalgia into our hearts.
5 out of 5 stars

[gargoylegoil]

DS
Your reviews are much too long and boring. A newspaper would never print something that long and I think most DM'ers won't have the patience to read them.
If you shorten them up, perhaps it may be better. And add a rating also. That's more interesting.
But good idea for a thread though.

[gargoylegoil]

Sidelines
A true inspirational movie covering the life of a poor teenager living in poverty until a well to do family takes him in, helps him graduate highschool and go on to play football in college.
A great family movie.

Rating 1-10
9+

[DeepSleeper44]

DS
Your reviews are much too long and boring. A newspaper would never print something that long and I think most DM'ers won't have the patience to read them.
If you shorten them up, perhaps it may be better. And add a rating also. That's more interesting.
But good idea for a thread though.

I think my reviews fully encompass all aspects of the films I'm criticizing and they're as long as they need to be...and they were assigned to me by my media issues teacher (So I had to write at least two pages worth of material and be detailed).
And I do have a ratings...

[DeepSleeper44]

...And you don't think a newspaper would publish something as long as this? Have you read any of Ebert's reviews?
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... 70301/1023
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... 80301/1023

Or A.O. Scott?
http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/mo ... hedon.html

I'd say the length is fine.

[gargoylegoil]

Hehe, then I don't have the attention span for such lengthy reviews.....

By the way, I mislead you on my movie, it was called Blindside

[Justified]

Nice reviews, DeepSleeper. I have only seen North by Northwest, do you have a favorite Hitchcock movie? I think I like Rear Window the best out of all of them.

[gargoylegoil]

Nice reviews, DeepSleeper. I have only seen North by Northwest, do you have a favorite Hitchcock movie? I think I like Rear Window the best out of all of them.

Birds, is my fav.

[DeepSleeper44]

Nice reviews, DeepSleeper. I have only seen North by Northwest, do you have a favorite Hitchcock movie? I think I like Rear Window the best out of all of them.

Thanks! My favorite Hitchcock film would be Psycho, although I think Vertigo is his best work.

[orionfoxgibson]

cool