The Farmer's Wife (1928)

 

The Farmer's Wife (1928) 

A comedy/romance, though I didn't find it too funny. Most of the humour seems to revolve around the protagonist having his marriage proposals rebuked and then insulting the women until they fly into hysterics. The bumbling servant was a little better. So the main character was kind of a douche, the comedy wasn't all that funny and the romance part was pretty predictable. Watchable, but probably near the bottom of the Hitchcock silents I've seen.

**½/****

The Ring (1928)

 

The Ring (1928)

This Hitchcock silent is actually a boxing story mixed with a love triangle. It was a bit slow to start, but I found it pretty enjoyable as it carried on. As in the previous Hitchcock silents I've seen there are some experimental camera tricks and visual effects here that are usually effective and interesting to watch. The boxing scenes are intense and more brutal than I expected. I can't say the story itself is very original or interesting, but the way it was done made it worthwhile. Unfortunately, this was also the first silent Hitchcock I've seen that's contained some openly racist elements including stereotypical acting and use of the "n word" in a title card.

***/****

Downhill (1927)

 

Downhill (1927)

Alfred Hitchcock's fourth movie. Stars the same guy from the Lodger, though unlike the Lodger, this isn't in the suspense/thriller genre at all. It's about a young man, star of his school's rugby team and on his way to a good scholarship, who is expelled for something he didn't do (getting a girl pregnant) and has his life begin a downward spiral (or go "downhill"). There isn't much story here, seeing as I essentially summed the whole movie up. What makes it worth watching is decent acting by the lead and Hitchcock's atmospheric visuals and directorial flourishes, such as some interesting point of view shots and a cool dream sequence. Other than that, it's a bit dull.

**/****

The Lodger (A Story of the London Fog) (1927)

 

The Lodger (A Story of the London Fog) (1927)

Hitchcock's third feature (the second is lost) and the second of his early British silents that I've seen. An enjoyable and fairly suspenseful story, but my enjoyment was affected pretty seriously by the version I watched having no sound whatsoever. I could have watched an inferior archive print that has a soundtrack, but it would be at the cost of the extra 20 minutes running time that was restored in the better quality but mute print that I viewed. Other than that, a good movie with plenty of atmosphere. Hitchcock had to change the ending so the lead character was innocent (as opposed to being the killer) because having a big star play a villain/killer was against some sort of rule at the time. Has been remade a few times.

***/****

Hostel (2005)

Hostel (2005) 

Based on what I'd heard of how it was received, and the little I'd heard of the plot, I went into Hostel expecting a lukewarm, by-the-numbers modern horror with little to no creativity, one that I'd forget five minutes after it ended. I'm glad to say that wasn't the case: it was surprisingly well made and performed, and I found myself enjoying it quite a bit. It's violent, of course, and the much-touted torture scenes can be cringe-worthy, but less of the movie is focused on that than I thought, and it contains what many newer horror movies lack: some actual suspense. 

The movie, in a fashion similar to some of my favourite horror movies from the 70s and 80s, also contains an element of humour, which took me pleasantly by surprise and had me smiling at a couple points. Without spoiling anything, the ending was satisfying but also left me wanting to know more about the secret organization. I'll be sure to watch the second Hostel. There is an alternate ending, but the original works best. 

***/****

The Pleasure Garden (1925)

 

The Pleasure Garden (1925)

Not much to say about this. Hitchcock's first movie, but not one typical of him at all. A drama/romance about some chorus girls who work at a theatre and the men they're involved with. Despite the story being pretty much completely unremarkable, it was fairly entertaining, though some of that might have just been the novelty (and some interesting scenery - it was shot almost entirely in Germany). The cut I saw (from a UK DVD; it's never been officially released on DVD in North America, as far as I know) was only about an hour long, though apparently some historians have recently uncovered an extra 20 minutes. I wouldn't be all that excited to see it again, though.

**½/****

Highlander (1986)

 

Highlander (1986)

 When, within the first 5 minutes, this movie paralleled an epic battle in 16th-century Scotland with a wrestling match, I knew I was in for something special. This movie should be on a double bill with the Beastmaster. All in all, a pretty fun dose of schlock. While fairly entertaining all the way through, I thought the second half was somewhat weaker than the first, and Sean Connery could have used some more screentime throughout.

**½/****

Chinatown (1974)

 

Chinatown (1974) 

I'm not sure there's much I can say about this. It totally lived up to expectations (and they were high, after all I'd heard). This is a rare movie that I think I could call just about flawlessly made, including the acting. Every character, down to the most minor, was well defined and well acted. Also, if any movie truly convinced me of Jack Nicholson's talents, it was this (not that he's been bad in what I'd seen him in previously -- far from it). The witty dialogue, acclaimed for a reason, works incredibly well coming out of his mouth, which makes sense because he supposedly improvised and fine-tuned quite a lot of it. The score was also very weird and unique, and I'd say it's deserving of being as famous as it is. This is the first Roman Polanski movie I've seen, and I will not only look forward to rewatching it to pick up on more details, but also to checking out his other stuff. One last thing is that it was interesting to watch just shortly after L.A. Confidential (another neo-noir set in L.A., albeit in the '50s).

****/****

Some Like It Hot (1959)

 

Some Like It Hot (1959) 

I had of course heard for years that this was one of the great American comedies, so my expectations were high. I didn't find it particularly laugh-out-loud funny, except for in a handful of scenes, though it was certainly amusing and the dialogue was very sharp. I enjoyed all the actors - especially the two lead men (Jack Lemmon & Tony Curtis) and the eager yacht owner, Osgood Fielding (Joe E. Brown). I was a little bit surprised by Marilyn Monroe - I expected her main function to be a sex symbol, and while she certainly performed in that regard, she also played her role well for what it was (that being a phenomenally stupid character, like most of the characters in the movie) and had nice comic timing. At any rate, I was entertained all the way through. I also want to say that this movie has one of the best final moments and final lines I've ever seen.

***½/****

Freaks (1932)

 

Freaks (1932)

This wasn't exactly a pleasant movie to watch. Directed by Todd Browning (Dracula), it's known for using real carnival/sideshow performers for the majority of its cast rather than actors wearing makeup. I wouldn't call the movie itself malicious (the "freaks" are all kindhearted, without exception) but the "big people" are, cringingly so. The movie takes place within a travelling circus. The main focus is a dwarf who falls in love with a woman performer (of regular stature) who is only using him when she discovers that he has inherited a great fortune. I can't really figure out the point of this movie - it's called a horror movie, but there's no horror in it, only people with unfortunate deformities. It may well have raised awareness, but certain parts of it definitely felt exploitative, namely the frame story/ending.

**½/****

L.A. Confidential (1997)

 

L.A. Confidential (1997)

Movie has great 50s Hollywood atmosphere and I loved the contrast between the lead policemen: Guy Pearce as the sort of straight-laced, moral cop who would rat out fellow officers in order to do the right thing and rise to the top, Russell Crowe as the cop who doesn't necessarily play by the rules and muscles anyone who gets in his way (and has vendetta against anyone who hurts women) and Kevin Spacey as a "Hollywood cop" with lots of connections and a job on a TV show. Very good acting and tons of interesting plot twists. 

***½/****

The Son of Kong (1933)

The Son of Kong (1933)

This is the definition of a cash-grab sequel: they churned it out less than 10 months after King Kong. Obviously it's not as good as its famous predecessor, but I thought it was a surprisingly fun movie - not nearly as bad as I'd been led to believe. I think I actually liked the character of Carl Denham more this time around. Much more light-hearted than the original (I'd almost call it part comedy), though they threw in a "tragic" ending out of nowhere which I felt was done just because of the original movie's famous ending. Weirdly, the eponymous son of Kong doesn't show up until there is only 26 minutes of the movie's run time left.

**½/****

Strangers on a Train (1951)

Strangers on a Train (1951) 

This was my second Hitchcock movie. By now I've seen three, and this was the best by a good margin. Suspicion was very well done, except for the infamous ending. I didn't like I Confess much at all. This one was just about perfect. 

I love movies in confined spaces. I'm not sure why. Planes, trains, submarines. That said, the bulk of this movie doesn't actually take place on the eponymous train. The locations are varied, featuring, from what I can tell, an actual moving train, to various houses and even a carnival (it was very interesting to see a real 50s carnival, which was on an island).

The movie has a great premise, and a great cast to pull it off. Two men meet on a train. They each have someone they could afford to get rid of. An overly friendly and peculiar man named Bruno (Robert Walker) offers a professional tennis player looking to divorce his wife an offer: they do eachother's murders. Bruno offs the wife, and Guy (Farley Granger) kills Bruno's father. 

The two male leads are both strong (and the dialogue snappy), but the standout performance is Robert Walker as the seemingly mentally unsound villain.

What really amazed me was how stunning the movie was visually. This is the kind of movie where almost every frame could be a picture in itself. This is the movie that really made me want to collect more Hitchcock and watch as many as possible.

**** out of ****

In Bruges (2008)

 

In Bruges (2008)

There are some minor and moderate spoilers in this review. I do not give away character deaths or the ending but I would recommend you go into the movie completely fresh, as I did.

First thing's first: The poster, video cover and press snippets for this movie are very misleading. It's made out to be an "action packed comedy filled with thrilling chases, spectacular shoot outs and an explosive ending you won't want to miss!"  Well, there's a total of one (thrilling) chase and one (spectacular) shoot out.

That's not to say the movie isn't funny - it is. It's a mix of absurdist comedy and black gallows humour. But the tone of the movie is bleak, even depressing at times. I was startled to find out that it wasn't an action comedy - I was expecting a mix of Shoot 'em Up and an Edgar Wright flick.

The first half is very well done, but a bit slow, especially compared to the interest of the second half. When I was watching the first half I was somewhat uncomfortable - thinking "do I even care about these characters?" And then, suddenly, at some point, I realized, I do. I really hope Ray doesn't kill himself. I hope Ken doesn't have to kill Ray once Ray finishes not killing himself. And at the end: I want more than anything for Ray to get away from Harry.

The soundtrack is decent but fairly unremarkable until the final part of the movie. During an emotional moment, the first song on the soundtrack to feature vocals kicks in, adding to a very sad, final scene for an important character. Then during the aforementioned chase, we are suddenly bombarded with heavy rock music. Rather than being cheesy, it adds tremendous excitement to an incredibly well done sequence.

The acting was almost flawless. Indeed, this is more or less a perfect genre movie. It's dark, uncomfortable in places, and towards the end, incredibly violent. But it's damned good. It sets out to do something and does exactly that. Everything, and I mean everything, ties together and comes full circle. 

***½ out of ****

The Ladykillers (2004)

The Ladykillers (2004)

(remake of 1954 film - same title)

One of the Coen Brother's lesser known and arguably lesser (I'll get to that later) efforts, this is a very unsubtle movie about five criminals who deceive an old lady into believing that they are Renaissance musicians so she will let them stay in her house to practice their music, while really attempting to tunnel from her root cellar into the vault of a bank to steal 1.6 million dollars. 

Tom Hanks plays the ringleader of the bunch in a "southern gentleman" role. He is generally amusing, though his mannerisms are occasionally tiresome; for better or for worse, he isn't playing Tom Hanks in this movie. I could have done without the little hyperactive giggle he uses from time to time; his accent also didn't entirely convince me. I actually wish the Coens had devoted more screentime to the supporting characters, though most of the characters seemed somewhat underdeveloped and in some cases not particularly as likeable as they should have been. 

Not to say I didn't enjoy the movie, as I did. It sports a fine soundtrack consisting mostly of gospel music and it made me laugh out loud in places. The most amusing of the bunch were actually Marlon Wayans and usual Coen suspect J.K. Simmons, specifically their interactions together (and Wayans' scenes with bit player Stephen Root, funny as always). I also greatly enjoyed the character of the General with his various cigarette maneuvers.

It was refreshing to see such an un-PC movie, and such an old fashioned slapstick - almost completely unserious except for the oddly poetic and ironic finale. I found this to be quite enjoyable and indeed an underrated entry in the Coen brothers canon.

*** out of ****

The Toxic Avenger (1984)

The Toxic Avenger (1984)

 

A bizarre take on the nerd revenge scenario. A stuttering kid who is always being picked on lands in some radioactive waste and turns into a sort of warped monster/superhero combo and goes around beating up bad guys. He eventually falls in love with a blind girl who doesn't know how hideous he is.

A classic bad movie that I'd heard much about but hadn't seen before, this was also the first I'd seen of Troma, a fairly prolific and notorious horror comedy company. The movie started out as great wacky fun for the bad movie lover: very funny and very violent. Just when you think it won't run out of crazy ideas, it does. The second half was not bad, but it didn't do it for me like the first half did. It was less funny and less inspired, and the finale with the tank didn't do too much for me.

Overall, definitely worth a watch and probably a re-watch. Unfortunately I've heard that TA 2 and 3 aren't nearly as good or even worth watching. I will be on the lookout for other Troma films, however, especially Class of Nuke 'Em High.

*** out of ****

The "G" Men (1935)

The "G" Men (1935)

 

This is a slightly atypical gangster movie for the time. Cagney, then known for playing a gangster, in this movie plays an F.B.I. agent. He starts out associated with the wrong side of the law, then switches over. Hoover was actually involved in this movie, overseeing it for accuracy. 

That said, it's pretty boring in parts. It started out great and the dialogue and acting was good the whole way through, but the middle dragged. Honestly, and this is a fault of mine, I got tired of trying to differentiate the various 30s women with their identical hats and their relationships to the main characters.

The movie is sometimes cited as the first procedural, but overall there isn't a ton of action - it's not too exciting most of the way through. It was my first Cagney movie, however, and he was great. The final shootout at night was very well done. 

**½ out of ****

3

<redacted>

It's on.

2

<redacted>

Let's do this.

1

<redacted>

Welcome.