My Journey Into Classical Films.

[Deexan]

I got no beef with Legos!

It's more the aspect ratio that gets my goat.

[Justin]

True, Ian needs to fix that. Then again, if he didn't rebel against the norm, would he be Ian? We all know he doesn't play by the rules.

[IanTheCool]

I do what I want.

[MasterChief117]

--On Golden Pond--





As a part of my adulthood psychology class, we had to watch Henry Fonda's On Golden Pond. A two day class watching experience that ultimately left me with mixed feelings. The film movies incredibly awkward, with jokes and moments that feel incredibly harsh, yet try to seem 'happy'? Henry Fonda is pretty awesome in the movie, and if anything, definitely scares me for the future of being old.

Jane Fonda was hot as life itself in this movie. She made for my second favorite part of the movie. Any time she got into her bathing suit, yummmmmmmm.

Regardless, I thought it was a good movie on getting old, Henry Fonda did well (not sure if Oscar well) and I was mildly entertained. Just mildly.





B-

[PG Cooper]

From letterboxd:

My Fair Lady (1964): An egotistical phonetics professor attempts to turn a low class flower girl into a proper lady.

I know my score is very low, but honestly I didn't get much from My Fair Lady. I found the story very uninteresting and ultimately unworthy of cinematic exploration. Very little drama can really be taken from the film and the "dramatic" moments presented are forced. I also found the characters one-dimensional and the professor character is particularly unlikable. A lot of the story elements feel underdeveloped and I hate the messages in the film. That said, the film is competently put together on a technical level and flows much better for a three hour film with no substance than one would expect. I also like seeing Audrey Hepburn play something different than from what she usually does. Granted, her character can be a little annoying and I hate that she was dubbed (especially since so much of the movie revolves around how the character sounds) but Hepburn herself is still commendable. Still, on the whole I'm far from impressed.

D

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966): A bickering middle-aged couple use a younger and happier couple in order to spite each other.

I haven't been so split on a film in a long time. On the one had, Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor give incredible performances that will stick with me for a long time. There's also some great scenes. On the other hand, the movie amounts to little more than two horrible people arguing. That's fine for a bit but becomes tiresome quickly. This is also a very stage-bound production and the film's attempt to reduce that feeling actually accentuate it. I suppose the extreme highs and the extreme lows cancel each other out and the result is a film of average quality.

C

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927): I actually thought this film started out pretty interesting with a depressed husband contemplating drowning his wife. That's hardcore. Then the movie becomes about the couple bonding in the city, which is far less interesting. Not terrible but pretty boring.

C-

A Hard Day's Night (1964): A Hard Day's Night is a hard film to talk about. There isn't really a story and most of the film is just The Beatles hanging around. If you love The Beatles I imagine the film is a great time but I don't. That's not to say I think The Beatles are bad, they just aren't a band I listen to often. The film itself, I don't know. There's definitely a lot of charm here and the film is a historical curiosity, particularly in how it captures "Beatlemania". There's also some good music as one would imagine but overall it amounts to very little.

C

Harvey (1950): I have a lot of issues with this film. First off, its depiction of mental illness and institutions is offensive. I know this came out in 1950, but still. I wouldn't mind if the comedy was stronger, but this movie isn't very funny either. In fact most of the characters were either boring, stupid, or flat out annoying. The only thing I like about this film is Jimmy Stewart's performance who is incredibly charming and likable. But even his talents can't save this.

D

Killer of Sheep (1977): There's a lot I admire about this film. The fact that it's an independent film made in the late 70s for $5000 and the film is as competent as it is is, in my opinion, amazing. I also like how the film tries to tackle bigger topics and themes and I suspect that plays a role in the film's strong reputation. The backstory of how the film was unable to be released for almost thirty years is also really interesting. Too bad the film itself is insanely boring. I see what director Charles Burnett was going for, but quite frankly, I didn't care. I can't say the film was bad in anyway, I was just extremely bored.

C-

The Battle of Algiers (1966): Extremely relevant, well-made, shocking, fast paced, and engaging. The Battle of Algiers is a great film which is just as important today as ever. I really enjoyed the film, but I will say I think the film doesn't really develop its characters and I was left a bit cold. Some of this is the film's intention and I realize that, but it still left me at a bit of a distance. Great movie none the less.

A-

The Gold Rush (1925): This is my first Charlie Chaplin film and I liked it quite a bit. Chaplin himself is great, there's some good comedy, and the film feels sincere. It's a good film. That said, I never really saw it as a great film. It was very amusing to be sure, but overall nothing substantial.

B+

The Fugitive Kind (1960): I stumbled across this at my library without ever hearing about it. "Sidney Lumet film with Marlon Brando," I thought to myself, "this has to be awesome!" I truly thought I had stumbled across some hidden gem. But I found it watching it why I'd never heard of the film; it's not very good. It's never bad mind you, but the story isn't very compelling. Lumet's direction is fine and I like the cast but at the end of the day I just didn't care for this film. It's never unwatchable, but it's never memorable either.

C+

Lolita (1962): Lolita is a good film. The acting is very good, the story moves in unexpected and surprising ways, and Kubrick employs some subtle tricks which work well. Unfortunately the film has some issues too. For one, you can really feel the censorship of the day holding the film back. I also feel like the film drags. I just found myself bored in parts. In fact, this might be my least favourite Kubrick film. While I probably enjoyed watching this more than Barry Lyndon, I also acknowledged that I would have to eventually revisit Lyndon to reassess it. I still feel compelled to go back to that film. But I don't feel any such desire with Lolita.

Keep in mind, Lolita is still a good film which is well worth watching. I don't think it's quite up to Kubrick's standards, but that likely says more about how good Kubrick's films usually are.

B+

The Conversation (1974): The film follows Harry Caul (Gene Hackman) a professional surveillance worker who gets sucked into a dangerous situation. I was really excited to watch this film. It was directed by Francis Ford Coppola when the man was in his prime; right in between the first two Godfather films. The film also stars the always reliable Gene Hackman and is generally held in very high regard. While the film is definitely very good, even great, there is a part of me that's disappointed.

First, the good stuff. Gene Hackman is great in the lead role and delivers a powerful yet low key performance. Coppola directs with masterful skill, setting up striking imagery and using a haunting score. The film also touches on a lot of very interesting themes, the twist in the third act is nice, and I love the ending.

So all that, and I'm still disappointed? Well, there are moments where I felt the story dragged so that held the film back. More importantly, the film never quite blew me away like I was expecting it to. Perhaps I had expectations of this reaching Godfather heights which of course was unfair. Granted, I didn't think I went in expecting so much, but it's possible I did.

Still, this is a great film, and one that I will eventually revisit. Coppola's direction is fantastic and Hackman delivers one of his finest performances. If nothing else, it's great to watch and think on when Francis Ford Coppola was the man.

A-

The Goonies (1985): This is one of those movies that people watch when they're kids and end up loving later on out of nostalgia. I never saw it as a kid, my dad thought Stand by Me would be more beneficial. I'm glad he did because this movie kind of sucks.

The plot follows a young group of boys who stumble across a treasure map and go on an adventure to find it. Not a bad set up, but the execution is sloppy. Some of the kids are very annoying, especially Chunk. I know the character is suppose to be annoying, but I can't help but wonder why the boys are even friends with him. I also found their adventure uninteresting, the comedy unfunny, and for the most part I was just bored. Also the stuff with Sloth was weird, awkward, dumb, and unnecessary.

There were some things I liked though. Director Richard Donner does give the film some energy and I liked two of the kids (Mikey and Data). It's also interesting to see so many talented actors in bit parts.

Ultimately, this movie is just way too silly for my tastes. At the beginning of this I compared the film to Stand by Me. The reason that film works so well is there is a mature story that adults can latch on to, but is not so mature it alienates kids. On the contrary; the story is just mature enough that kids know they're watching something important but still accessible enough they can have a good time. Goonies is pure silliness. If you're a kid I'm sure it's awesome, but any older and the film loses its appeal.

D+

The Big Red One (1980): I expected a lot from this formerly lost World War Two film and it's fair to say I was let down. The film doesn't say much about the nature of war, we never find out much about the characters, and the battle scenes don't have the authenticity I'd have expected given the film was made by a real WW2 veteran. On the plus side, the battle scenes are fairly entertaining and there are several throughout the film. It's never boring, but it never really delivered in a major way either.

C+

Who's That Knocking at My Door (1968): Who's That Knocking at My Door is an important film in that it's the first one from the great Martin Scorsese. The film itself is very flawed. The story has no real focus and the whole thing feels like a lesser version of Scorsese's 1973 film Mean Streets. Still, there are some brilliant moments which show the early beginnings of Scorsese's genius. Not a great film, but an important one and I'm glad I saw it.

C+

The 39 Steps (1935): I really loved The 39 Steps after finishing it. A few days has lowered my opinion of the film a bit, but this is still a great movie. The plot follows an innocent man who is sucked into an adventure of spies and murder. It's a constantly entertaining and exciting film and Hitchcock shows a powerful grasp on suspense. Leading man Robert Donat is very good and the rest of the cast is good too. Plus there are some very fun scenes. Perhaps the film's biggest weakness is that Hitchcock would eventually direct North by Northwest, a film with a very similar set-up but one that blows The 39 Steps away in every regard. Still, the 39 Steps is a great film from the Master of Suspense himself.

A-

Throne of Blood (1957): Throne of Blood is an adaptation of Macbeth sent in feudal Japan and directed by the great Akira Kurosawa. It's a great film but one I feel could have been better. Certain parts are omitted from the film and I felt their absence. The film just had a feeling that elements were missing. Plus I feel like other Kurosawa epics like Seven Samurai and Ran put this to shame. Still, there's a lot to love. Toshiro Mifune is great as the Macbeth stand in as is Isuzu Yamada as his wife. The dynamic between the two is great, I love the witch, and the film has an awesome ending. So while I do think Throne of Blood could have been better, the film is still pretty damn awesome.

A-

Lawrence of Arabia (1962): (Second viewing) What can I say about this film that hasn't been said a million times before? It's a masterpiece, a true epic, one of the greatest films blah blah blah. You've heard it all before. But the thing is, it's all true. The film is a grand accomplishment in every sense of the word. A staggering epic large in scope and scale, but also with a very deep and introspective look at the main character T.E. Lawrence, played marvelously by Peter O'Toole. David Lean's direction is phenomenal and it amazes me just how many levels this film succeeds on. Perfect filmmaking.

A+

Blood Simple (1985): The Coen brothers debut film is a good one but I can't say it's a great one. I like the plot and I like how the seemingly simple story becomes so complex thanks to the characters. I also love the climax. But at the same time, I thought there were long stretches where this dragged. Overall, it's a very good film and a strong debut for the Coens, but it isn't one of my favourites.

B+

High and Low (1963): High and Low follows a business man who's family becomes the victim of a sadistic kidnapper demanding a huge ransom. It's a simple premise, but one that succeeds on several levels. The film works as a thriller, a procedural, and as a statement on class in Japanese society. The film so effectively balances these elements so well one can't help but be impressed. Toshiro Mifune also delivers another great performance. Still, this film never blew me way in the way other Kurosawa films had. Even Throne of Blood, while on the whole inferior to High and Low, ultimately had higher highs. Still, High and Low is without a doubt a great film and another win for Akira Kurosawa.

A

[Justin]

Shame. I love both Killer of Sheep and Sunrise. KoS being a huge contender for one of the best American independent films ever.

[iv3rdawG]

I say it every time it's brought up but it's in hopes to get more people to see it, and that's that Lolita is still one of my favorite Kubrick's.

[JBond]

I really liked Sunrise.

Also, at least keep in mind "A Hard Day's Night" was actually pretty progressive filmmaking at the time. You didn't see too many movies where people were all of the sudden inexplicably riding bicycles outside of a moving train.

[Doomsday]

Originally Posted by PG Cooper

From letterboxd:
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966): A bickering middle-aged couple use a younger and happier couple in order to spite each other.

I haven't been so split on a film in a long time. On the one had, Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor give incredible performances that will stick with me for a long time. There's also some great scenes. On the other hand, the movie amounts to little more than two horrible people arguing. That's fine for a bit but becomes tiresome quickly. This is also a very stage-bound production and the film's attempt to reduce that feeling actually accentuate it. I suppose the extreme highs and the extreme lows cancel each other out and the result is a film of average quality.

C

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927): I actually thought this film started out pretty interesting with a depressed husband contemplating drowning his wife. That's hardcore. Then the movie becomes about the couple bonding in the city, which is far less interesting. Not terrible but pretty boring.

C-

A Hard Day's Night (1964): A Hard Day's Night is a hard film to talk about. There isn't really a story and most of the film is just The Beatles hanging around. If you love The Beatles I imagine the film is a great time but I don't. That's not to say I think The Beatles are bad, they just aren't a band I listen to often. The film itself, I don't know. There's definitely a lot of charm here and the film is a historical curiosity, particularly in how it captures "Beatlemania". There's also some good music as one would imagine but overall it amounts to very little.

C

Harvey (1950): I have a lot of issues with this film. First off, its depiction of mental illness and institutions is offensive. I know this came out in 1950, but still. I wouldn't mind if the comedy was stronger, but this movie isn't very funny either. In fact most of the characters were either boring, stupid, or flat out annoying. The only thing I like about this film is Jimmy Stewart's performance who is incredibly charming and likable. But even his talents can't save this.

D

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[PG Cooper]

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[Doomsday]

[PG Cooper]

A Passage to India (1984): David Lean's final film deals with 1920s India and the colonialism from the British. This seems like idol material for Lean but there's a lot of issues here. For starters, this is a pretty long film, which isn't unusual for David Lean, but what is unusual is how dull stretches are. A lot of his other films are long too but they're also constantly engaging. Passage to India on the other hand doesn't really pick up until about the halfway mark, and even then it isn't really worth the wait. Still, the film is never bad. The actors are all good, the overall themes are good (though not explored as thoroughly as I would have liked), the music is good, and the film is competently put together. The problem is the film is never great, in fact it never comes close.

B-

The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985): Set during The Great Depression, a down on her luck waitress named Cecilia (Mia Farrow) finds escape in the movies. After repeatedly seeing one picture, one of the main characters (Jeff Daniels) leaves the film to get to know Cecilia, which causes an uproar for the rest of the characters, the theater goers, and the movie studios. What follows is a light comedy of Cecilia getting to know a fictional character and everyone else trying to figure out how to deal with the situation.

I've greatly enjoyed all of the Woody Allen films I've seen and this film continues that tradition. The cast is great, particularly Mia Farrow and Jeff Daniels who are both extremely likable and charismatic. The high concept here is creative and I think it leads to some interesting ideas about the nature of escapism, the relationship between viewer and film, and what movies and reality can learn from each other. These ideas aren't presented in a boring or preachy way either. The film is delightful and fun, but it never ignores reality either. Overall, the film doesn't quite go as far as I'd like with the ideas it has and there is one scene I feel could have been better, but this is still a great film and definitely one of my favourites from Allen.

A

[Deexan]

Does 'Manhattan' count as a classical film yet? Because I watched it last night for the first time and it was sensational. I think it may contain the funniest scene from any movie, ever:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[PG Cooper]

It definitely counts. I love Manhattan. It's my second favourite Allen film after Annie Hall.

[PG Cooper]

Some Billy Wilder for ya:

Stalag 17 (1953): Stalag 17 is a German POW camp where escape attempts are repeatedly thwarted and the prisoners suspect there is a rat among the prisoners. The first half of the film I wasn't crazy about. There's a lot of comedy that I didn't care for. Not that it was bad, but I was much more interested in the drama of the film. There's also a very annoying duo in the film which are constantly involved in comedy hijinx. Unfortunately they're in the film throughout but more so the first half. The second half starts to pick up though when the film focuses on the paranoia among the prisoners. That stuff is awesome and genuinely had me glued to the film. William Holden gives a dynamite performance in the lead role and as far as I'm concerned earned his Oscar. I've always liked Holden and it's nice to see him in a film where he has the best performance considering in other films he's over shadowed by the likes of Gloria Swanson, Peter Finch, and Alec Guinness in various other films. So overall, while I don't think Stalag 17 deserves to be placed with Billy Wilder classics like Sunset Boulevard, it is a very good film all the same.

B+

Sabrina (1954): The story a chauffeur's daughter who becomes romantically involved with two of the men her father works for. It's interesting that I have similar issues with this as I did the last Billy Wilder film I watched; Stalag 17. Both films have a weak first half but pick up in the second. Here the issue is that most of the first half is just set up for the second. I like that the movie took time to build but the set up is pretty uninteresting. The second half is much better with some fun romance, comedy, and solid performances from Humphrey Bogart, Audrey Hepburn, and William Holden. I also like how there is a bit of social commentary about the nature of the first class' relationship with the hired help. It isn't over done or even overly revealing, but it's there for those looking for it. Overall the film doesn't have the same level of execution, fun, and pure movie magic that Wilder would eventually bring to his romantic comedy The Apartment, but Sabrina is fun for what it is.

B

[PG Cooper]

Some Spielberg,


The Color Purple (1985 People often describe this as Steven Spielberg's first "grown-up" film which I find quite insulting. Just because movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jaws are genre pictures anyone can enjoy does not mean they weren't made for adults. At any rate, I think what people mean to say is that it's Spielberg's first straight-forward drama which isn't a genre film, but I suppose that's more of a mouthful. The film itself is problematic. For a film that depicts racism, sexism, parental abuse, marital abuse, psychological torment, and rape, there are a lot of lighter and comedic moments. Now lighter moments could have worked, but they feel so jarring and out of place and it throw off the movie's tone. The film is also far too long. That said, there is one great scene here and I do really like Whoopi Goldberg's performance. Not bad, but definitely not good. Perhaps Spielberg wasn't ready to make a film with such inherently dark drama hence the tonal inconsistency. Or perhaps the challenge lay in adapting the original drama. Whatever the case, Spielberg had made much better films before and would go on to make better ones since.

C

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977): Strange happenings are affecting Muncie, Indiana that suggest the presence of aliens. I still have a lot of Steven Spielberg films to see, but I think Close Encounters marks the last of the classic Spielberg films I had yet to see. For the most part it completely lived up to the hype. The story is very intriguing, the film is full of imagination, the actors are strong, and the ideas behind the film are fascinating to me. Spielberg also gets some amazing visuals through the cinematography. My only issue is with a decision the main character makes near the end which Spielberg admits he would do differently today. Still, Close Encounters of the Third Kind is an engrossing and powerful picture worthy of its reputation.

Update: This film hasn't left my brain since seeing it and my one compliment has felt like less of an issue as time has passed. I love this movie.

A+

[Max Spence]

I would root for Cleopatra (The old one of course) Ben Hur and Spartacus. Just look at the decorations and costumes in these films! Cant believe we start to forget these....

[PG Cooper]

Bunch of Kurosawa...

Sanshiro Sugata (1943): I've loved every Akira Kurosawa film I've seen and was very excited to see his film debut even though I knew it would likely have some hiccups. As I suspected, this film is very problematic. The story telling is a bit of a mess and at times a bit random. Part of this is because a portion of the film has been lost. More importantly though, I had a hard time really connecting to this film. Still, there's some good stuff here too. The beginnings of Kurosawa's style are every present and there are themes here which would become staples of his career. There's also some really solid scenes. Overall, I can't call this a good film but I don't think it's bad either. A decent start for the amazing filmmaker.

C


The Most Beautiful (1944): The second film Akira Kurosawa directed and the first film of his I would call flat out bad. The themes of how war forces maturity is fine and the story has more focus than Kurosawa's first effort, but this is still a dated propaganda film very thinly veiled by an uninteresting story. Not awful, but very weak.

D+


Sanshiro Sugata Part Two (1945): Kurosawa's sequel to his debut film is in some ways a step forward, in other ways a step back. Overall, the film is probably more consistent in its storytelling and more accessible, but overall Part One had more memorable moments which make it a superior product. Part Two isn't a bad film, and I like it more than Kurosawa's The Most Beautiful, but it hasn't reached the level of good either.

C-


The Men Who Tread on the Tiger's Tail (1945): Akira Kuroswa's fourth film and the last one in the "First Films of Akira Kurosawa" box set from criterion. I would also say at the time, this was his best film (even though the date here says 1952 the film was first completed in 1945). The story follows a group of samurai escorting a wanted men through enemy occupied territory. It's a good set up and reminiscent of the types of films I love from Kurosawa. In fact there's a scene here, where the group is being continually pestered by an eccentric character that is very reminiscent of a similar scene from Seven Samurai. The film also looks better than Kurosawa's first three films and features some tense moments. The major downside here is that the film is very insubstantial. The film is only one hour long and not much actually happens. I still wouldn't call this a good film, but one can see Kurosawa becoming better and better.

C+


Dodes'ka-den (1970): If nothing else, this one of the most unique Akira Kurosawa films I've seen. The film follows a few days in the lives of several people living in what is essentially a trash heap. This is a film which has it's moments. There is one genuinely interesting story involving a young girl living with her aunt and uncle that took some nice turns. I also found the mentally disabled character to be very amusing. I know that sounds incredibly offensive and politically incorrect, but please believe me when I say I don't mean it to be condescending. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of segments which I found fairly dull and on the whole I don't think this amounts to much. Kurosawa does an excellent job balancing the stories, but my interest in them was sporadic.

C


Kagemusha (1980): Kagemusha opens in the 1500s with a Japanese lord hiring a former thief with a resemblance to himself as his body double. The film than follows this double through intense trials. I'll leave the synopsis at that since I think the less you know the better. Akira Kurosawa has described this film as a "rehearsal" for his 1985 film Ran and it does show. The storytelling isn't as polished as I would have liked and the film is a little self-indulgent in its runtime. Both substantial problems I did not have with Ran. I also feel like the story here, while interesting, does not have the same impact as Ran or several other Kurosawa films for that matter.

With all that said, this is still a pretty solid movie. Tatsuya Nakadai is great in the lead role and I actually find his character to be very tragic. The production values are also very high, the battle scenes engaging, and there's a very good dream sequence featured. Kagemusha is not in the same class as Kurosawa's great films, but it is very good.

B


Red Beard (1965): Red Beard tells the story of a young doctor who is forced to work at a clinic he initially hates but slowly gains an appreciation for. This is a long film and it felt like it in the first half. Akira Kurosawa has a very deliberate pace to his films where he allows the story to play out slowly and naturally. I love that approach usually, but the first half of the film is kind of uninteresting and hard to sit through. However the film picks up in the second half where it becomes more interesting and emotional. Toshiro Mifune delivers his final performance in a Kurosawa film and he's fantastic. It's amazing to think it's the same actor who played the eccentric and obnoxious Kikuchiyo in Seven Samurai. Overall, while the film takes time to get going, the wait is worth it.

B