sallylikesmovies

[sallylikesmovies]

Film Review: Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

Yes! I have finally come around to watching the first entry to the Indiana Jones film series. I didn’t mean to neglect them…It just happened.

Raiders of the Lost Ark is a fantastic example of Spielberg’s flawless storytelling. Everyone nuanced lighting choice has a purpose and every shot adds to the story. Nothing is put in just ‘cause’. The cinematography is gorgeous (Douglas Slocombe), the editing is well controlled and precise (Michael Kahn)—not giving more or less than needed, and the production and costume design (Norman Reynolds, Leslie Dilleyis and Deborah Nadoolman) is extremely well done and believable.

I think the character introductions and characterization in this film are what allows it to be a great movie. Spielberg has a deep understanding of each character and what the audiences first impression of them should be. We are introduced to Indiana “Indy” Jones (Harrison Ford) in the first few minutes of the film. This is normal as most films tend to want the audience to meet the character that the story will be based around. However, although Indy has screen presence, he is faceless for a good 3 minutes before the camera finally decides to show us his face. Spielberg takes advantage of the jungle setting that would have stray rays of light coming through the trees. He uses low-key lighting and backlighting to create silhouettes of Indy, adding a sense of mystery to his character. It also allows for build up of suspense because we just want to hurry up and meet the character in the titular role! When we finally do see his face, it’s lit with chiaroscuro lighting, telling us that he is a mysterious man, and even though he is the protagonist, he could have a darker side to him, and with the accompanying bass-heavy music, Indy looks like an emotionally complex character. Aesthetically, the lighting also makes the revealing shot more dramatic, which is perfect for a blockbuster film such as this one.

The score for this film is astounding. Composed by John Williams, the truly iconic Indiana Jones theme “dun-dun-dun-dun dun-dun-dun dun-dun-dun-dun dun-dun-dun-dun-dun” (you know what I mean) plays for the first time in the first act of the film as Indy escapes from one of the film’s main antagonist, Belloq (Paul Freeman) and the Hovitos. When the main melody of the theme plays through the suspenseful chasing sequence music, we immediately know that there’s hope for Indy in escaping from the chase because of the change in tone of the music. When he gets onto the plane, the theme song blares and it just feels so much more glorious and satisfying with the music playing. This sequence is also a first look at Indy’s death defying nature and his ability to get out of tricky scenarios, telling the audience that he’s cooler than any and everyone else. 

Another notable usage of the theme music is in the third act of the film when the song is played and more bright than the previous times and almost sounds patriotic. I think it was used in this case to help create a patriotism if you’re from the U.S. but mainly just a sense of pride in Indy. This is because as the film progresses, it becomes more apparent that the Nazi party is the enemy, and of course we don’t like the Nazis! So when Indy, against all odds, boards the Nazi ship, we root for him since we want them defeated. We also have the added bonus of getting to know his character and his morals throughout the entire film, and we know what he’s been through before this point, so we want him to succeed more than ever. Seeing Indy climbing up that ship after him hiding for a  few minutes also makes this a ‘wow!’ moment. The theme song, just like the other times, is used to tell the audience “hey look! Indy’s okay! He’s going to make it!”. I think this is such an effective way of telling the audience without directly telling them with dialogue. Because Indy is the main protagonist who has made us empathize with him, when we see the Katanga on the other ship cheering, and we cheer with him.

Nevertheless, something that annoyed me about this film was how Marion (Karen Allen)—basically the only female character of any importance to the story in the film—was portrayed. Spielberg tries to fool us into thinking that Marion is a strong female character through her introduction, but as the film progresses, she strays further and further away from that and that the writers did not create . She turns into the stereotypical damsel-in-distress who is given the role of love interest and person who the main male protagonist needs to rescue in order to make him seem more heroic. I understand that Indy is a very capable man but a lot of his energy and screen time is put into saving her, instead of recovering the ark. Saving the girl from harm might aid in Indy’s character development? But the number of times she's kidnapped in this film is truly unnecessary and gets kind of old.

I am aware that this film was made in 1981 and both Hollywood and society weren’t so aware that women should be equal to men, so I’ll cut it some slack, but to see the only woman in the movie be portrayed as nothing more than someone who needs to be rescued and taken care of by a man is saddening.

All in all, Raiders of the Lost Ark is an all-rounded film. Nothing is lacking (except for what I mentioned above). A thoroughly entertaining and exciting blockbuster—something we need more of these days—that showcases what happens when a group of talented people come together to make a film. Definitely one of Spielberg’s bests.

Rating: 4.5/5

[sallylikesmovies]

Film Review: Amour (2012)

Amour is a French language drama/romance film directed by Austrian director and screenwriter Michael Haneke who is known for his social commentary and the bleak style of films.

The film stars Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva as George and Anne Laurent, who are an educated retired couple both in their 80s. One day Anne has a stroke and their lives drastically change and the bond and love between the two is severely tested.

The film touches on matters such as growing old, illness, death, but also love. I like that Haneke chose not to tell a story about love at its blossoming, which is how it is usually shown on screen, but a story about love when it needs to endure the toughest moments in a couple’s life. I find it that weird that growing old and becoming ill is such a common and natural part of life, but is very rarely put on screen, let alone have a whole feature length film based around it. These moments are accompanied with no non-diegetic music or sound, to maintain the reality of the scenes…because as cool as it would be, there is no soundtrack playing in the background of our lives.

Trintignant and Riva give hyper-realistic portrayals of characters so that they seem plausible enough to exist and blend in amongst us in the real world. Their performances were paired with the phenomenal screenplay by Haneke, making for perfectly flowing dialogue, character development, and plot advancements similar what you would see in any installments in the Before Trilogy. Amour allowed Riva to become the oldest nominee for Best Actress in a Leading Role at 85 years old at the 85th Academy Awards.

The film is composed of mostly just long takes with an often static camera, giving the film a sense of intimacy between the audience and the characters. The very first shots of George and Laurent in their home is almost 2 minutes long. The camera is placed by the front door of their apartment as they arrive home from a concert. The camera stays put and the scene does not have a single cut in it, even when one or both characters walk out of frame. We see Anne and George have a somewhat mundane day-to-day conversation that you could imagine any old couple could have. I think this scene is an effective introduction to the characters and the connection between the two because the camera doesn’t turn away at any point in the scene, because that’s the way life is—we cannot turn away from the mundane things in life or just as we cannot cut out bad things from our lives with a blink of an eye.

This long-take could also be a subtle foreshadowing of what is to come in the story. *SPOILER ALERT* The line “What has gotten into you” said by Anne to George during their conversation is ironic because we later find out that Anne is the one that has something physically wrong with her. Something else I picked up from this scene was that Anne walks out of frame very early on, so that most of her dialogue is said off screen. The loss of her presence in the scene may be a tool to foreshadow her illness that ultimately takes her life and presence away for good.

The color palette meets the mood and tone of the film perfectly. However, as the story progresses, the color palette also progressively becomes more blue, losing the warmth it started out with. This is quite a subtle touch to the film but drastically aids the film in building a tone and atmosphere. This is also used as are reflection of how the characters are feeling mentally as *SPOILER ALERT* Anne becomes more ill and loses more of herself to the illness. However, at the end of the film, the warmth of the scene comes back, and we feel as if a huge weight has been lifted from his shoulders and the burden of his dying wife left his body completely.

Just by looking at a still of a scene, you could tell that the film would tell a bleak story. I like the simplicity of the cinematography, I think that is mainly why it works so well with the story. Everything about this film is about simplicity. I would definitely like to use Amour as a primary influence for a short film in the future.

Furthermore Amour makes me remember why I love film so much because it unflinchingly tells a humane and emotional story. In a world where blockbusters are way too popular, its like a breath of fresh air. The film explores the power of love and the tremendous tolls it can withstand, but also the what happens when its met with inevitable death.

Haneke is an artist and film is his art form and Amour is a masterpiece that deserves all the praise it has received.

Rating: 5/5

[sallylikesmovies]

After watching Mary Poppins (1964) for the first time today, I was curious to find out how the scene in which the characters jump into Bert’s drawing was possible at the time.

A very informative video that taught me of how the modern green screen came to be and how Mary Poppins was a huge turning point in visual effects in film at the time.

[sallylikesmovies]

This video essay points out things from this film that I’ve never noticed, even from my 10,000 watches. I never realized he only cared about how Summer has affected him and did not care about how she felt.

Watch the film if you haven’t, and then watch this video!

[sallylikesmovies]

Film Review: No Country For Old Men (2007)

No Country For Old Men was directed by Joel and Ethan Coen in 2007. The film follows three main characters: The protagonist Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), the antagonist Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) and Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) as their lives revolve around a briefcase of money that Moss found in the aftermath of a drug deal.

The title “No Country For Old Men” refers to the changing of society from it’s traditional ways. In the film, Sheriff Bell is the ‘old men’, and symbolizes the fading traditional society and it’s values. He is unable to understand what is going on around him despite the wisdom that comes with his age. At the end of the film where he decides to retire from being sheriff, his spirit goes with it, conveying that his traditional values are no longer fitting in this new society.

The tranquil ending of this film in which Sheriff Bell tells his wife about the dream he had, turns away from Western conventions, as one would expect the film to end in a violent duel as the resolution to the tension and conflict. Bell speaks of a peaceful place, which is a complete juxtaposition of what the society he has recently experienced, further implying that he longer belongs in this changing society.

Another way in which the film strays away from generic Western conventions is in the third act when *SPOILER ALERT* Sheriff Bell goes to the motel room that Moss was murdered in. He suspects that Chigurh is in the room, making him pull out his gun and open the door, revealing himself to the contents of the room. This scene mimics what could be a dueling scene as it cuts back and forth from the hiding Chigurh and Bell in a painfully long (but effective) sequence. The suspense builds up towards a climax, however, it never comes. I think this straying away from Western conventions further implies that society is changing and is not what it used to be, and is not what Bell is used to.

Furthermore, I find it interesting that the Coen Brothers chose not to use music in this film since modern films usually take advantage of it. However, I think they made the right choice because similarly seen through Rear Window (1954), the use of silence is just as effective in creating suspense and tension as sound.

The Coen brothers and writer Cormac McCarthy created complex and fascinating characters, including Llewelyn Moss and Anton Chigurh. Moss is somewhat of an anti-hero, as his values aren’t pure or heroic, but greedy and selfish. In the first act of the film where he finds the case full of money, his first instinct was to look for the money and not help the dying men. *SPOILER ALERT* His greed ultimately kills him, and his wife too. We see him as the protagonist in this story because he is put up against the ultimate baddy, Chigurh. Chigurh is an assassin who has no morals and finds joy in killing people. He allows a flip of a coin to determine whether he takes a life or not, which shows just how psychopathic he is. Javier Bardem won himself an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for this role, which is rightfully earned because I don’t think I’ve seen such a believable portrayal of any character in a long time.

There’s much more to say about this movie but here are some of the things that stood out to me. I probably should have watched more Western movies before seeing this one but oh well! I enjoyed it just as well.

I’m ready to see more Coen Brothers movies!

Rating: 4/5

[sallylikesmovies]

Film Review: Mary and Max (2009)

Mary and Max is a stop-motion animation film directed and written by Adam Elliot. The story follows a lonely 8-year old girl called Mary (Toni Collette), who one day decides to randomly pick out a name from a phone book and write a letter to them. Max (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a man who suffers from Asperger’s Disease living alone in New York receives the letter and a 20 year long friendship begins. The story is loosely based on the true story of Elliot and his pen-pal who has Asperger’s disease, living New York.

Colors in this film are used to separate the two different worlds that Mary and Max live in. Mary lives in a small town in Melbourne and Max lives in New York. In an interview, Elliot stated that he used the brown color scheme for where Mary lives because as an Aussie, he personally felt that Australia in the 70s revolved around the color brown, so he chose to tint everything brown. As for Max’s New York, the black, white and grey color scheme represented the concrete nature of New York and also represents the rigidity of Max’s mind. Both scenes are de-saturated because there is not much metaphorical “color” in either of their lives as there is not much happiness in the world for either of them, apart from their friendship. The only things that are saturated are the items that Mary and Max send to each other. The items are vibrantly saturated with an intense color, such as red, in order to show the importance of these items to the receiver. This further expresses how significant the friendship between them means to one another, and the happiness and comfort it brings them both in a world that doesn’t understand them. I like that Elliot chose to do use this as a stylistic choice, it works really well with the aesthetic of the movie too.

Adam Elliot’s writing in this film is phenomenal. He creates two of the most interesting and complex characters I have come across. My favorite line from the movie is: “The reason I forgive you is because you are not perfect. You are imperfect, and so am I”. I think this line just perfectly conveys the moral of the story as well behaving as Max’s character arc. He’s realized that nobody is perfect and has come to terms with it. He also knows that he isn’t perfect so he shouldn’t expect anyone else to be. This is some Oscar deserving screen-writing if you ask me, I think it’s worth much more recognition.

Mary and Max is about friendship, the acceptance of oneself, and the acceptance of others. It also touches on subjects that aren’t usually brought up in animated films, including mental-illnesses, suicide, substance abuse, and many others. I respect Elliot’s decision to make an animated film about such serious topics, conveying that animated films shouldn’t just be made for the likes of children. He’s pushing the boundaries of animated films, which I think is important for any film-maker to do—question the limits of their respected genres.

To conclude, I thoroughly enjoyed this film because of how unafraid it is to portray mental illness. I like that it doesn’t glorify it, which many TV shows and movies do nowadays, but realistically shows what people that suffer from mental illnesses such as “homophobia” go through (watch the movie to understand this!!). I love it’s bleak sense of humor but also that warm fuzzy feeling you get after watching it. This movie is severely underrated and that is why I recommend everyone to go watch it! Right now!

Rating: 4.5/5

[sallylikesmovies]

Here is the video essay I reference in my film review on Shaun of the Dead. Edgar Wright’s way of visual comedy is so modern, yet so timeless and always hilarious. One of the greats of modern film-making!!

Another great video done by Every Frame a Painting on YouTube!

[sallylikesmovies]

Film Review: Shaun of the Dead (2004)

Shaun of the Dead is a zombie horror/comedy/slightly romantic film directed by Edgar Wright (who also made the recent Baby Driver). Since it’s release in 2004, it’s popularity has not withered but has become a cult classic and loved by fans from all over the world. It is also known as one of the movies that ‘rebooted’ zombie films in the 2000s.

There is a lot that I love about this film, so bear with me through this super positive, complimentary film review!!

First off, the music!! And most notably the way actions are synchronized with the music, which is a technique Wright often uses in his films, including in sequences in Baby Driver and The World’s End. My favorite of these scenes must be the one where the main character Shaun (Simon Pegg) and his friends beat up the zombie bartender with pool sticks. It’s one of my favorite parts of the movie because of it’s absurdity, but that’s what makes it so fun and funny. It’s also a fantastically creative way of making a song look like it’s meant to be diegetic, but in actuality “Don’t Stop Me Now” in the scene is a non-diegetic mood conveyor, because the characters are pumped up and adrenaline filled, ready to fight their way to survival. Besides, who doesn’t love a bit of Queen?

Shaun of the Dead is an excellent example of how enormously successful Wright’s way of visual comedy really is. I found a video on Youtube that summarizes what I think makes it so successful, so I’ll post the link to that right after I post this review, but here are the main ways I think he does it: He exaggerates the way things happen to make humor, including sound effects.  Wright uses sound effects to demonstrate a transition, jump scares, as well as to dramatize actions to create humor. In the scene where Shaun and Ed (Nick Frost) are trying to defeat two zombies in their backyard and resorts throwing random objects they had gathered in the house defend themselves from the zombies. Every time they picked up an object, an unrealistic “whoosh” sound effect would be added, and each time they threw the object, another louder “whoosh” would be used. I think this just makes their actions look much more dramatized and silly, creating humor in the process. I’ve explained it very unfunnily, so if you really want a laugh, go watch the film!

The foreshadowing of the zombie apocalypse is so clear and obvious to the audience, but seemingly so inconceivable to Shaun. The first 25 minutes or so of the film (and of most films) was for the introduction of characters and their relationships, but here, it is also filled with pieces of foreshadowing. The most obvious way Wright did this was through the TV. Whenever a TV was part of the mise-en-scène, a news broadcast surrounding some sort of virus outbreak, or when flipping through the channels, a perfectly comprehensible message is spoken, most noticeably right before Shaun and Ed finds Mary the zombie in their backyard: “Although no one official is prepared to comment, religious groups are calling it ‘Judgement Day’. There’s panic on the streets of London as an increasing number of reports of serious attacks on people who are literally being eaten alive. A witness reports a sketchy, one unifying detail seems to be that the attackers in many instances appear to be dead—”. Shaun appears to be slightly dumbfounded by this, which is his reaction to most of the more obvious foreshadowings. This is such an incredibly clever and creative way of creating dramatic irony, I wish more comedy filmmakers could learn from Wright, and his attention to detail.

A visual foreshadowing of the apocalypse how the extras in scenes are made out to seem. For example, when Shaun takes his normal commute to and from his job, the other passengers on the bus seem like they are partially zombies already. Apart from Shaun, the passengers are all super pale, and have a blue tinge to them. While some passengers are sleeping, others stare into space, as if they are already brain dead, and some passengers cough uncontrollably, which is a nod to the biological contamination and sickness that is widely known to be connected to a zombie apocalypse.

Another notable foreshadowing is in the line “You’ve got red on you”, which brings me to the screenwriting. Simon Pegg co-wrote the screenplay with Edgar Wright, as this was their first film together as creative partners. They wrote an authentic screenplay that shapes each character perfectly, creating some interesting and compelling characters. The first use of “You’ve got red on you” is when Shaun puts his red pen in his shirt pocket and it leaks and leaves a red ink stain on his white shirt. This was a sign that blood will be shed, as the color red is commonly analogous for blood, therefore the meaning of “you’ve got red on you” is that the red on his shirt will soon no longer be pen, but blood.

The genuinely amazing performances from the cast just pulls the the movie together (not that it needed pulling together). Simon Pegg in particular gives a gripping performance, which can be seen through the entire movie, but most riveting during *SPOILER ALERT* the death of Phillip (Bill Nighy), Shaun’s stepdad. He gives a heart wrenching, realistic performance, making all of us cry along with him as he finally realizes that Phillip only ever wanted to be good father to him, making the scene one of Shaun’s best character arcs. *ANOTHER SPOILER ALERT* Furthermore, his acting capabilities really shine through when he finds out that his mother Barbara (Penelope Wilton) was bitten by a zombie and will inevitably die and turn into one of them. This makes his character all the more lovable as he conveys just how much he loved his mother and the closeness of their relationship, making the audience weep as she dies. These moments in the film make the movie more respectable as it shows that it is not just a ‘zomedy’ movie, but can include realistic and emotional characters, absorbing the interest of the audience and giving the film the capability of executing effective ‘drama’ scenes.

Lastly, there are innumerable parallels between Shaun’s monotonous and joyous life and the zombie life. In the beginning of the movie, Shaun cannot even realize that a zombie apocalypse is upon them because of way he sleepwalks through his tired daily routine. And because Shaun is a metaphor for people living that standard life with a mundane daily routine, the film is basically calling us zombies, which I understand because I often feel like a zombie walking through life because of my repetitive life, waking up each morning similarly to the way Shaun does.

I know I’ve said a lot about why I think this is such a great movie, but there’s so much more!! Please go watch this movie, or go re-watch it if you have seen it already. Truly one of the best movies of the 21st Century, and one of the few movies that I’ll never get sick of watching because it never fails to make me laugh and put a smile on my face. A timeless piece to say the least!

Rating: 5/5

P.S. Sorry for attaching two movie posters. I think they’re both great and are pieces of art in themselves so I couldn’t pick between the two.

[sallylikesmovies]

Film Review: Casablanca (1942)

Casablanca was directed by Michael Curtis and is still one the most beloved films of all time because of it’s innovation in the film genre of romantic dramas at the time of it’s release and it’s timeless love story that no one gets sick of. 

Even though the black and white was not an artistic choice but a limitation, it gives the film a timeless feel, and also plays a role in the cinematography as well as enhancing the tone and mood of the film. Furthermore, the editing in this film is simple but effective. The transitions from one scene to the next were smooth and doesn’t break the movie illusion, which just comes to show that fancy and complex transitions aren’t always necessary.

A scene that was memorable to me was when Ingrid Bergman’s character Ilsa Lund listens to Sam (Dooley Wilson) play “As Time Goes By”, which is a symbol for Rick and Ilsa’s past romantic relationship. A continuous close-up shot of Ilsa is shown as Sam plays and sings this song. Ilsa’s facial expression evolves into one that shows her reminiscing her past with Rick, even though the film doesn’t directly tell us that she is, we can tell by her glossy-eyed, staring-into-space expression. The minuscule changes in her face and eyes is truly an art. She goes from intensely poignant to happily reminiscent in a second and then balances poignant and happy on her face, making us unsure about whether she feels sad or happy. At this point in the movie, the audience doesn’t know what the song means and why she’s so deep in thought, so this gives them something to question, most likely intriguing the audience. Just from this scene, I can tell Bergman was an amazing actress.

Another scene I really liked was when Ilsa and Victor (Paul Henreid) get up to leave the café and Rick and Ilsa have a short conversation before saying their goodbyes. They speak about Sam playing “As Time Goes By” but the underlying meaning is that they are telling each other that they both remember what it was like between them before. We see that Ilsa stands closer to Rick during the conversation than she does Victor, thus making Ilsa feel ‘closer’ to Rick both metaphorically and physically, allowing us to learn more about the connection and relationship between Ilsa and Rick. As we see the quick conversation play out, the lens focus stays on Victor instead of Ilsa even though she’s the one speaking, which plays as a reaction shot for Victor as he realizes that Ilsa and Rick had a romantic history together. I think this is a very clever and subtle way of creating a reaction shot.

Casablanca pushed the boundaries of the Hays Code (The Motion Picture Production Code) as it showed woman in marriage having an affair. The film also follows protagonists who are anti-Nazi, which opposes the avoiding of showing other countries in a negative light, especially bold as in 1942, the Nazi regime was still in power. However, the Code still had to be enforced in the film’s ending, where Ilsa and Rick’s love story had to come to an end in order to not glorify adulterous love.

I was hoping to like this film more than I did, but by having to do research for this film review, I’ve come to realize more of why people love it now, just as much as they did when it first came out. Casablanca is a classic that isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.

Rating: 4/5

[sallylikesmovies]

The greatest influence of so many modern comics, I applaud Buster Keaton for all the laughs he’s given and the legacy he’s left behind.

Truly one of the bests.

[sallylikesmovies]

Absolutely loove this video. A fantastic video essay on the presence of color in storytelling. I come back to this video every once in a while just to remind myself of the power that color has in visual storytelling, while also reminding me what an effective video essay looks like.

[sallylikesmovies]

Film Review: Titanic (1997)

*Spoiler Alert*

I had the privilege to watch this on Friday at the Shanghai Oriental Art Center with an accompanying orchestra playing the soundtrack whilst the movie played on the big screen. However, this still couldn’t conceal the fact the movie just isn’t as good as I remembered it to be.

First of all, the screenplay. James Cameron writes a mundane script for the actors to work with, making characters seem hollow and fake. We see this in Kate Winslet’s character Rose. In so many scenes of her with Leo (Jack Dawson), her sides of the conversation are dull and empty, not allowing her character to develop into anything more than the shallow, snobby rich girl.

I’m not going to talk about Titanic without mentioning Leonardo DiCaprio! Who do you think I am? But I’m sad to say that his performance in this wasn’t all that good. There were moments where his talent shone through, like when after the ship hits the iceberg, the third class passengers try to get out of the lower part of the ship to the deck, where people were escaping via life boats. A locked a gate and ship crew stood in their way and when they continually declined the passengers’ access through the gate, Jack expresses his outrage and with his friends, they tear a bench off the floor and use it to break down the gate. I think that might be one of the very few scenes in the movie where the audience can tell he is a good actor, but other than that, it’s been concealed by James Cameron’s awful screenwriting.

The special effects of Titanic were groundbreaking at it’s time of release in 1997. Although some scenes still had to be primarily captured without special effects, some of the grander scaled scenes, such as the long shots of the ship sinking, or the shots that captured the entire ship, needed to be filmed on and in front of green screens, so special effects could be added in post-production. Cameron chose to work with Digital Domain, which is a visual effects company founded by James Cameron and two others, to continue their work in digital technology in Titanic as they did in the Abyss and Terminator 2: Judgement Day. The effects in this movie still live up to today’s standards (even though there are some questionable scenes), which means the movie can still be enjoyed by audiences today, which is a huge achievement. The brutality of the sinking achieved through the effects and stunt work is also a praiseworthy aspect of the film. It captured how manic the whole situation was for everyone involved, making it the experience all more realistic. Nevertheless due to the grandeur of the movie, the budget grew to $200 million, which was the biggest movie budget ever at the time…BUT THEN the movie’s initial release grossed over $1.84 billion, making it the highest grossing movie of all time in 1998.

There are scenes in this movie that I actually really like. The last hour of the movie is so much better than the first two hours in my opinion. One of my favorite scenes not only in this film, but in all films, is the scene where Rose decides to jump back onto the ship after getting on a life boat so to not leave Jack to die alone. As the life boat is lowered down, we can see that the physical distance between Rose and Jack increases. Jack is smiling because he wants her to be safe, but of course deep down, he doesn’t really want her to go. She looks up at him, not knowing what to do, now knowing if what she’s doing is right or wrong, or if leaving the sinking ship is what she wants. At this moment, we see flares being shot up by the ship crew to send help signals, but behind Jack, it looks more like fireworks. As we look at him from Rose’s point of view, the fireworks signify her realization that she’d much rather spend the rest of her life, even if that means dying on the ship with Jack than to go back to her life of oppression and unhappiness with her mother (Frances Fisher) and her Fiancee, Cal Hockey (Billy Zane). This shot could also signify the beauty of all that Jack is to her, as well as the beautiful time they had together. Through this realization, she jumps back on the ship to reunite with Jack. A profound and gorgeous use of cinematography.

The very last sequence is undeniably the best, if not one of the best parts of the entire film. Present day Rose lies on her warm bed as she dies, just as Jack said she would, and the camera pans to her photos by her bed side table. The non-diegetic “My Heart Will Go On” begins to play very softly. We see her experiences after the sinking of the RMS Titanic, which also shows us that she lived a full life, which Jack wanted her to. Her experiences include her learning how to horse ride, since Jack told her that he would teach her. This just tells and reminds us how much Jack really meant to her, as she carried down his memory through doing the things he had hoped she would do in her life. The scene cuts to footage of the wreckage of the ship but then smoothly transitions into the grand staircase/clock room in the still afloat Titanic.Through this, we can confirm that she is no longer in the living world, but life after death, as the people in the sequence are in actuality all dead. We walk through the room through Rose’s perspective, revealing all the people on the ship that had some sort of impact on her. Here, both first class and third class passengers stand together in unity, on either side of Rose, as if on either side of the aisle at her Wedding. All the while the music slowly builds up towards the climax. We then see Thomas Anderson (Victor Garber), the ship’s maker standing before Rose just before she arrives at Jack. Mr. Anderson played as a father figure for Rose on the ship, representing her father sending her off to Jack, however instead of a marriage here, it’s the reuniting of her and Jack. Jack stands waiting by the clock, which is a reference to an earlier scene where Jack tells Rose: “Make it count. Meet me at the clock”. So in this scene it seems as if he has been waiting by the clock for her arrival so that they can spend the after life together. Both this and the music here (as it reaches a climactic point) creates a sense of nostalgia, making the scene more impactful, thus making audiences everywhere more susceptible to being emotional. I think this is just the perfect ending for this movie. If this weren’t included, the ending would have been too tragic (for a love story), emotionally unsatisfying and lacking of a resolution. Honestly, I cry every time I watch this sequence…I mean, how can you not??

I can’t lie and say I didn’t enjoy the experience but I just wish I could have enjoyed it more. As I have mentioned before, the last hour was a great, but the movie altogether was just too long and dragged on for too long in some places. However I can see why people love this movie, and why I loved it for so long. And if you want to watch this movie, please just be aware that you may contract Leo-mania.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you!

Rating: 3.5/5

[sallylikesmovies]

Film Review: Frankenstein (1931)

“IT’S ALIVE! IT’S ALIVE!”

All I knew about this film before viewing was that it follows a scientist who creates a monster out of human corpses, and of course the iconic line “IT’S ALIVE! IT’S ALIVE! I had no pre-existing opinions or thoughts on the film, since I feel like this is one of the few classic films that don’t have a modern cult following (that I know of) and so I rarely see it mentioned in reviews or hear people talking about it. This might also be due to the fact that I’ve been avoiding the horror genre, just because I’m not a fan of the modern jump-scary movies.

As I normally have some sort of pre-existing notion of a film, not having one for this one was refreshing, as I could not conform to anybody else’s opinions of the film, forcing me to make my own.

My firsts thoughts were: I’m kinda of disappointed. The acting and screenplay were both underwhelming, starting from the very first line of dialogue we hear between Dr. Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) and his assistant Fritz (Dwight Frye). The line is: “Down, down, you fool!”, which is said by Frankenstein to Fritz when trying to catch a glimpse of the funeral that they want to steal a corpse from. The way Clive delivers the line is so awkward since his actions don’t correspond with what the dialogue wants him to do. He slowly pushes Fritz down where he cannot be seen by anyone, and then he continues to not shrink down with Fritz, but decides to stay there for another two seconds before slowly lowering himself. I know that this is director James Whale’s way of introducing the characters of Frankenstein and Fritz and to show who has the upper hand in their relationship, but the way that it’s executed by Clive just makes the scene slightly comical because of how awkward the scene feels. Even if it was intentionally made to be funny, I don’t see why it needs to be because Frankenstein ultimately is a more serious character and so to introduce him with comedy would be illogical.

Another problem with the acting I have is between Mae Clark who plays the Elizabeth, the fiancee of Frankenstein and Frankenstein himself. All of their scenes together feel forced and unnatural, especially in the scene where they are alone together on their wedding day, and she expresses her unexplained anxiety  that something bad is going to happen. Clive shows no emotion whatsoever when he tells her he loves her, as if he is purposely lying to her, but he shouldn’t be, as his character isn’t having an affair of any sort and they also don’t have any major relationship problems. Also the screenplay does not relieve awkwardness from this scene, but feeds fuel to the fire by making the Frankenstein say “sure, how beautiful you look” after Elizabeth asks him if he’s sure that he’ll always be with her. Again, the dialogue makes us feel that Frankenstein is hiding something from Elizabeth, because it sounds like a lie, but there is no evidence to support this thought from the movie…So why write such a line?

However there is one performance I really enjoyed from this movie, and that’s from the actor of Frankenstein’s monster, Boris Karloff. He gives an incredible and convincing performance under all the prosthetic makeup he was under. From the little movement that the prosthetics allowed him, he expresses just the right amount of emotion at the right times through his eyes, the sounds he makes, as well as body language. He brings out the childlike persona of the monster, and perfectly embodies his innocence, his fearfulness, and his rage. His performance truly overshadows the rest of the cast, and is to continue to go down in history as spectacle to watch.

One more fault I caught in this film was the pacing. This isn’t a long movie, but a mere 71 minutes. But James Whale chose to spend 5 minutes of it to show men running around in the mountains, looking for Frankenstein’s monster and then Frankenstein himself (because the others lost him!). I know that doesn’t sound very long but making Frankenstein become separated from the others makes the search feel like it drags on for ages because that’s just another separate task to complete before they can find the actual monster. By loosing Frankenstein, the townspeople also seem much more incompetent and silly. The audience should want to root for the townspeople, as the monster is ultimately portrayed as the antagonist, but by making them seem less serious and capable of doing something so simple—as opposed to the beginning of the search where they seemed like they knew exactly what they were doing—we don’t empathize and relate to them as much.

Let us move on from the problems I have with this film and toward the more positive aspects of this film. I really liked the scene where the father of the dead girl walks through the town with the limp body of his daughter in his arms, and the partying people all begin to quite down as one by one they see the dead girl. This reminds me of a similar scene from the 2006 Alfonso Cuarón film, Children of Men, in which the first baby in 18 years is born and when (in the middle of a war), people see the baby and immediately stop whatever they were doing and quiet down because they are in complete and utter awe of the baby. Although in Children of Men, the causation of the response is life and in Frankenstein, is death, however the premise of the scene is the same. The long shot of the father was also the first shot we saw of the daughter after she was thrown into the lake, and so the reactions of the townspeople people reflect how the audience is feeling and also allow us to feel how tragic the death of this child is and how important it is to the story, since it causes outrage in the town, ultimately leading to the search party for the monster.

I also like that the film explores the human morality of creating life unnaturally, as if playing God. When Frankenstein succeeds in giving life to the monster, he exclaims: “Now I know what it’s like to be God!” This is still such a controversial and possibly unanswerable question even in today’s society, which makes the topic applicable to any time period. However, the message the film conveys is that consequences will occur if the natural cycle of life is disturbed.

Furthermore, I have to remind myself that this film was made in 1931 and some of the film tropes/archetypes we know of today didn’t exist or was fairly new when this film was made. For example, the angry mob of townspeople chasing the monster with torches, the lab or the evil lair of the mad scientist, as well as having an incompetent hunchback as a sidekick, were all knew concepts at the time. Frankenstein’s monster is one of the most iconic villains/monsters of all time, and this movie is one of the reasons why it’s still so well known today. When it was first released, I can just imagine how freaked out people were of the concept of a resurrected ‘man’ who’s made of sewn together body parts of dead corpses, who also has a brain of a murderer. And the image of a towering man with bolts on the side of his neck, and long, prominent stitches that connect one body part to next is just…terrifying. Even by today’s standards, I was still a little shaken when we first saw the monster, awake and walking.

The black and white also pairs nicely with the tone and mood of the movie, and when added to the production and set design, creates a Gothic, dark and eerie atmosphere which is very practical in evoking fear and unease.

To conclude, Frankenstein (1931) is worth a watch if you are a horror movie lover and is bored of recent horror flicks and remakes of the classics. Although it wasn’t completely my cup of tea, I can still appreciate and understand why it is considered a horror classic.

Rating: 3.5~4/5 (I can’t decide)

[sallylikesmovies]

Film Review: Rear Window (1954)

Rear Window, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, tells the story of L.B. Jefferies (James Stewart), the professional photography who is bound to a wheelchair after an accident whilst taking a photo during an auto race. The plot revolves around himself, his girlfriend (Grace Kelly) and the nurse who is taking care of him (Thelma Ritter), being completely consumed and obsessed by the events that they witness from his rear window of their next door neighbor, Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr).

The film’s plot is quite simple. It is just a man who looks out his back window at his neighbors as he is confined to a wheelchair. But Hitchcock doesn’t make it just that. Writers Cornell Wollrich and John Michael Hayes wrote a quick-witted, clever and comic screenplay, making Jefferies, Lisa, and Stella the nurse (and sometimes detective Doyle) all very likable characters. I also like that we have to play detective along with the protagonists, since it’s always good fun (when it’s executed well, as Hitchcock has), and it also keeps the audience constantly engaged, which is always a positive.

Robert Burks’ cinematography is as gorgeous as his work in Vertigo. One of my favorite shots is early on in the film, when we meet Lisa for the first time in Jefferies’ apartment. She sits in front of the window on the far right of the frame and Jefferies sits on the far left of the frame. Behind Lisa is a deep orange sky, although it seems like night time already. Jefferies on the other hand is wearing blue pajamas and a pillar stands between them also. I think this shot accentuates how polar opposite they are from each other, since blue and orange are complementary colors (opposite each other on the color wheel). Their conversation in this sequence further allows us to realize how truly different they are in personality.

Another aspect of this film that stood out to me was the costume design. Lisa’s outfits were a defining part of her character, as Jeffries described her to be ‘too perfect’, and so the clothing she wears--as they are always perfectly styled and gorgeously designed--reflects that personality trait. I was so astonished by how gorgeous Lisa’s outfit was when we first met her, so I’m not surprised that the costume designer, Edith Head, was also responsible for the masterpiece that is the green dress in Vertigo.

The diegetic music played by the songwriter neighbor of Jefferies plays a role in the plot, such as *SPOILER ALERT* how it prevented ‘Ms. Lonelyheart’ from committing suicide, as well as the tone and the mood of the scenes, and not to mention that it is gorgeously composed by Franz Waxman. It perfectly balances itself between diegetic and non-diegetic, as it is composed and played without making it obvious to the audience that the music evolves into a soundtrack for the scene, as well as continuing as the music that the characters hear from the songwriter next door. An example of this is two thirds into the movie when Detective Doyle goes over to Jefferies’ apartment when Lisa is there too. In the scene, Doyle disagrees with Jefferies and Lisa and so the tension between the couple and Doyle increases and the situation becomes hostile. He gets up to leave but when he does, he has a last swig of his drink. He does this roughly and spills some on his suit. The music coming from the songwriter neighbors’ apartment stays constant, however the guests in their apartment start to laugh just as Doyle spills his drink on himself, and so the ‘diegetic’ laughter acts as a subtle laugh track.

Hitchcock relies more on silence and amplified noises for suspense, such as footsteps to demonstrate that someone (who the protagonist fears) is coming nearer, instead of primarily using non-diegetic sound like the Jaws theme in Jaws to create suspense and fear. Of course using non-diegetic sound effects isn’t a bad thing, as the Jaws theme exhibits, but it is refreshing to watch movies that don’t heavily rely on the use them as much but still make the audience feel incredibly unnerved.

I could probably go on and on about this film, but for now these are the things that really stood out to me. Rear Window was one of Alfred Hitchcock’s earlier films that cemented his name as the “master of suspense”, and now I know why.

Would recommend you guys to go check this out along with the rest of Hitchcock’s works!

Rating: 5/5

[sallylikesmovies]

A Sally that needed answers after watching ‘Synecdoche, New York’ really appreciates this five part series of analysis of the full movie. 

A one time viewing of this film is most definitely not enough for someone to pick up on all of the techniques director Charlie Kaufman uses, let alone explain their impact and why he used them. So here’s to not having to watch this movie 20 more times!

However, films--and this one in particular--are subjective pieces of art and so just because this writer thinks of a different meaning to a technique than you, it doesn’t mean your take on it is wrong. Therefore if you desperately want to form your own views on this movie, I suggest you have a re-watch!

[sallylikesmovies]

Just some of my favorite moments from The Truman Show (1998) dir. Peter Weir. This movie is a masterpiece and everyone needs to go see it at least once in their lifetime.

[sallylikesmovies]

Some helpful tips to make your footage look more smooth without fancy equipment! I will definitely be using some of these. Make sure to check out his Youtube channel! It’s full of super informative videos on how to make your photos and videos better.