Rear Window (1954)

Genre: Mystery, Thriller

Released: August 1, 1954

My Rating:  
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)




Overall, I think Rear Window is a great movie, with interesting storytelling, good characters, good acting, and strong suspense, among other things.  I would definitely recommend it to anybody interested in film.



As of right now, I have only seen three of Alfred Hitchcock's films: Psycho, Vertigo, and now Rear Window.  I have to say, I already like the way Hitchcok creates suspense, and also his methods of storytelling and tampering with narrative elements.  A number of people, including film critic James Berardinelli, consider Rear Window to be Hitchcock's best film.  As of right now, I personally agree; I've only seen three of his films, but Rear Window is my favorite of the three.

Rear Window is appropriately named.  The protagonist, L. B. Jefferies (James Stewart), is a professional photographer with a broken leg, and is therefore confined to his apartment in New York.  He spends the time watching his neighbors from his rear window (see, I told you the film was appropriately named).  Soon, however, he begins to suspect that one of his neighbors might have murdered his wife, and he becomes obsessed with this mystery, and eventually he even gets his girlfriend to help him investigate.

What I loved most about the film was the way the story is told.  Just like Vertigo and Psycho, Rear Window has a strong and unmatched uniqueness and, even though elements of the film have almost certainly been used in films between then and now.  What I really found interesting is the "restriction" of the film; except for a brief spot near the end, the film is entirely restricted to inside Jefferies's apartment and his view from his rear window.  The events of the story that happen outside of the apartment are either only mentioned in the dialogue or seen from the window.

However, despite this restriction to voyeurism, it's actually somewhat interesting watching going-ons outside in the courtyard and through the windows of other people's apartments, even though we are watching these things from a distance instead of having the scenes be set in those actual areas.  Even in real life, a lot can often be learned even just by watching, and it can be quite interesting.  Also, the suspense in the film handled very well.  And I should also point out that, like in Psycho and Vertigo, the the story is not entirely predictable; Hitchcock cleverly throws in some things that flout the audience's expectations.

In addition to all of this, the actors, especially James Stewart, put on good performances.  They are likable and believeable.  Jefferies is a semi-interesting character, and his relationship with his girlfriend, Lisa, is handled pretty well.  The other performances are good too.  Overall, the performances in this movie are another factor that make the film great, and they are especially useful given the "containment" of the film's story.

Overall, I think Rear Window is a great movie, with interesting storytelling, good characters, good acting, and strong suspense, and overall good moral messages, among other things.  I would definitely recommend it to anybody interested in film.






Cast and Credits:
L. B. Jefferies: James Stewart
Lisa Fremont: Grace Kelly
Det. Lt. Doyle: Wendell Corey
Lars Thorwald: Raymond Burr
Stella: Thelma Ritter

Paramount Pictures presents
A film directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Rated PG

King Kong (2005)

Genre: Action, Adventure, Drama, Romance

Released: December 14, 2005

 

My Rating: 
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)

Overall, the film isn't completely terrible, and it is watchable, but I was pretty disappointed, especially since this is from the director of Lord of the Rings.

A number of people complain that James Cameron's Avatar was a huge show-off of CGI with flaws, a weak, thin story, and very little substance.  I disagree with this, but I do think that this statement would be somewhat accurate in describing Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong, which I saw on Sunday (October 7, just four days ago).  I wouldn't describe this film using that statement word-for-word, but the "massive amount of CGI and lots of flaws" part is pretty accurate for this film, if you ask me.

I've seen a clip of original 1933 King Kong film, but I've never seen the entire film, so I won't be able to compare and contrast the films.  So I will just talk about this film.  The story is set in 1933.  Film director Carl Denham (Jack Black) wants to travel to a mysterious island called Skull Island to finish his film.  He finds a lead lady, Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts).  After a while, during which Ann falls in love with Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), they reach the island, but soon the natives there capture Ann and give her up to Kong, a giant gorilla.  Kong takes Ann and retreats into the jungle, and Carl, Jack, and the crew go in after her, along the way encountering many creatures and other dangers.

The visual effects in this film are very good and convincing.  Everything is designed with great detail, especially Kong.  James Newton Howard composed a good score for the film.  And I liked Kong himself.  He's not just a one-dimensional figure; he actually has some personality and depth, and I did feel the emotional impact of his death at the end of the film.  And I liked the scenes involving Ann and Kong, and I liked the bond that developed between them (although it should have been stronger).

Now for the criticisms...where you you like me to begin?    In my opinion, the film is way too long.  It also has some serious pacing and structure issues.  The exposition is too long; over an hour passes before Kong appears.  I was hoping for the movie to get better after Kong's initial appearance.  This is where Ann is taken by Kong, and Carl, Jack, and the crew follow them deeper into the island.  But, unfortunately, (at least for me) it actually got worse after Kong's appearance.  The film basically discards most of its substance, and many other things established in the hour-long first act (and the natives on the island who give Ann to Kong), and goes into over-the-top and overly-long CGI sequences.  I felt to me almost as if the film couldn't make up its mind as to what is important and what is pointless.  The storyline is somewhat cluttered, and, again, not properly paced.  Things are not paid off properly, etc., and don't have the bones to support them.

The film had so much potential, and, in my opinion it ended up blowing most of it.  Again, I haven't seen the original 1933 film, but even so, this film (2005) could have been great.  Like I said before, the effects are interesting, and a lot of the design is good, but the film even had trouble here.  The creatures that the characters encounter on the island seemed more as if they were designed mainly to look cool or scary rather than anything else.  Also, the "world" (Skull Island) doesn't really work with the narrative like it should.  It, and the CGI, felt more like it was there to just look cool and distract the viewer from the flaws, which of course does not work on me.  Also, good as the effects are, some of the creatures and sequences were pretty stupid; I almost rolled my eyes in a few areas.

I felt that Skull Island was begging for a firm establishment in the film, even as a character in itself.  I felt that it was begging to have the film go somewhat into its history, biology, etc, and that the film should have maybe gone into Kong's background, and stuff like that (and more about the natives).  Unfortunately, the film does not do this.  Maybe if it did, it would somewhat justify the three-hour running time.  But it doesn't, and it ends up being too thin and too long.  Also, the Kong/Ann and Kong's death scenes, effective as they are, could have been much better.

Overall, the film isn't completely terrible, and it is watchable, but I was pretty disappointed, especially since this is from the director of Lord of the Rings.  It has some redeeming values, but it has to many flaws, in my opinion.  It felt almost like a great movie trapped in a lame one.

Note: Avatar, like King Kong, has some script flaws and could have used more depth, but in my opinion it's actually an okay movie.  It's solid, coherent, and has a much better world.  Also, in my opinion, the world Pandora actually felt alive to me, and I felt that it was actually a character in the film (not to mention carefully crafted with actual thoughts towards science, biology, ecosystems, etc., rather than just things to look cool).  Also, in my opinion, Avatar has more meaning (it's not meaningless at all), more emotion, more relatability, much stronger romance, and a much more coherent story.

Cast and Credits:

Ann Darrow: Naomi Watts

Carl Denham: Jack Black

Jack Driscoll: Adrian Brody

Universal Pictures presents

A film directed by Peter Jackson

Running time: 187 min.

Rated PG-13 for frightening adventure violence and some disturbing images

Tangled (2012)

Genre: Animation, Adventure, Comedy, Family, Fantasy, Musical, Romance

Release Date: November 24, 2010

  My Rating:  
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)


One of the best animated Disney features in years.

I loved Disney when I was a kid.  After the blue and white Disney logo (which has been changed since then), I would sit back and enjoy adventure, fantasy, castles, romance, sword fights, songs, magic spells, talking animals, and...well, you get the idea!  I used to watch and re-watch several of their animated films - just to name a few: The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, Pinnochio, and many others.  I have to admit, even now that I'm no longer a Disney lover, I still consider many of their old animated films (including the ones I've listed above) to be good; they certainly know how to deliver visual pleasure and vivid storytelling.  In fact, I've given many of these films either three, three-and-a-half, or four star ratings.  Nowadays, the only animated Disney films I've really been interested in have been Pixar films, and I like a few of Disney's live action films (like National Treasure and The Sorcerer's Apprentice) as guilty pleasures.  But I have to admit, I enjoyed Tangled.

At the beginning of the film, a queen is gravely ill, but is cured by the powers of a magic flower.  Soon afterward, she bears a baby girl, Rapunzel, who actually inherits the magic flower's powers.  However, Rapunzel is kidnapped in the middle of the night by Mother Gothel, who wants to stay young via the magic healing powers within Rapunzel's hair, so she raises Rapunzel in a tower.  Now a teenager, Rapunzel's hair is extremely long, and she has spent her entire life in the tower, and is curious about the outside world.  One day, a thief named Flynn Rider, who is on the run, scales the tower and hides inside, and is taken captive by Rapunzel.  She hides the tiara he has recently stolen and agrees to give it back only if he takes her to the place where the floating lights appear on her birthday each year.  On this journey, she truly discovers the outside world, and, eventually, who she really is.

The story is a bit formulaic and predictable, but that's not a problem at all.  Besides, this is true for many of Disney's animated films.  But it's a good story, and Disney takes it and applies unique and memorable elements and charm to it, and some songs too.  Disney even draws ideas and elements from some of its previous films.  I think it's safe to say that Tangled is a mix of past and present in terms of Disney.  It contains a lot of old Disney-type elements, formats, and methods of storytelling among other things, but with the application of modern CGI animation, and some other modern elements.

I was expecting this film to be geared more towards kids, but it's actually a good film for anyone.  It is very much a family movie.  Sure, there are some kid-oriented elements, and some slapstick humor that the kids would enjoy, but there are also things that adults would appreciate; even the more childish elements I just mentioned are not so extreme, and are perfectly enjoyable for adults.  The film has a lot of good humor, but it also has a good sense of character, story, depth, and emotion.  The characters are not flat, but are actually very good, and so are the relationships between them.  The characters are truly lovable, especially Flynn and Rapunzel (and of these two, especially the latter), and evoke genuine emotion.  Their attitudes and personalities contain both older and modern elements.  There are even a couple of hilarious sidekicks - a chameleon named Pascal and a horse named Maximus (my favorite of which was the latter).

CGI technology and effects have progressed even further since this film came out, but still, the animation in this film is beautiful.  Everything is well designed, and with great detail and scope - the characters, the scenery, Rapunzel's hair...everything.  And this animation is not just eye candy - it's used wisely, and it actually works well with the script and helps with the emotion and narrative, like it's supposed to.  The film offers some very memorable things (characters, scenes, images, and much more) including a truly unforgettable, visually beautiful, and emotionally powerful scene involving floating lanterns.

The voice actors all put on good performances, especially Mandy Moore as Rapunzel.  They all really bring their characters to life.  The music in this film is good, both the songs and the standard underscore.  The songs could have been better, but they are pretty good and perfectly enjoyable as they are, especially "When Will My Life Begin?" (sung by Rapunzel about five minutes into the film) and "I See the Light" (sung by Rapunzel and Flynn during the lantern scene I mentioned in the last paragraph).  I really have to give the filmmakers a major thumbs up for Rapunzel herself.  She is very well designed (especially her hair), and is absolutely beautiful.  And not only that, she is hot.  Her personality and liveliness are very attractive as well, and she really captures the heart.  She and Flynn are great together, and their romantic relationship is handled very well - it's not corny, it's actually charming and emotional (and, yes, with bits of humor here and there).

In my opinion, the film is good as it is, but it still could have been better.  The one criticism I do have is that there are some things about the story and characters, especially in the third act, that I think could have been handled better and given more depth, and should have involved more character complexity.  However, despite this, the film works, and it does have a pretty good sense of depth, character, humor, and emotion as it is.  It combines and balances all of its elements pretty well.  You laugh when you're supposed to, cry when you're supposed to, etc.  And the film has a pretty good moral message: go out and live your dream.  Don't just sit at home in your figurative tower or at your computer all the time; go out, fulfill your dream, live your life.  That's an important message for everyone.

Overall, Tangled isn't great, but it's good, and, in my opinion, one of the best animated Disney features in years.  It has good characters and a good story, and it's funny, charming, clever, witty, and full of heart and soul.  Disney still knows how to deliver a film ripe with visual and storytelling magic.




Cast and Credits:
Rapunzel: Mandy Moore
Flynn/Eugene: Zachary Levi
Mother Gothel: Donna Murphy

A Walt Disney Pictures presentation
Directed by Nathan Greno and Bryon Howard
Running time: 100 min.

Rated PG for brief mild violence

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Genre: Action, Adventure, Crime, Thriller

Release Date: July 20, 2012

My Rating:  




The Dark Knight Rises is a roller coaster of thrills, morals, darkness, plot twists, top-notch action scenes, and much more; it's pure high-order entertainment.  Nolan ends his trilogy on a great, and dark, note.  The Dark Knight has risen well.

The thing about making a finale, or any sequel, in a franchise is that it's hard to do so.  There are expectations and hype to live up to, and a weak installment can ruin a franchise (even without hype).  Sometimes, however, such films are a success.  Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises is the finale to his Batman trilogy, and I just saw it in the theater today.  It doesn't live up to the excellence of The Dark Knight, but it really is an excellent movie.

The Dark Knight Rises takes place eight years after the end of The Dark Knight.  Bruce Wayne is retired from being Batman, and he mainly stays shut up in his new mansion.  His reputation as Batman is tarnished because he took the rap for Harvey Dent's crimes in the previous film.  However, he is soon pulled back into action when a new villain, Bane, starts wreaking havoc on Gotham (although, of course, this havoc is not his primary objective).

Nolan's previous two Batman films were more dark, deep, emotional, and moral, instead of lighthearted and bright.  They were even a bit intellectually involving.  So what should you expect from this movie?  More of those same elements!  He doesn't completely live up to hype and expectations, and this film is probably the weakest of the trilogy (but only slightly; it's just a hair behind Batman Begins), but Nolan does not disappoint.  The film starts out a bit slowly and a bit weak, and the first act is definitely the weakest part of the film (but not bad, though), but it eventually really gets going and really unfolds, and the sky is the limit for Nolan.  The film is by no means perfect.  It does have a few flaws.  There are a few flawed dialogue lines here and there.  Batman doesn't have as much screen time as he should have.  Also, the plot stumbles a bit here and there, and some things should have been organized and paid off better.  But it's pretty darn good as it is.

The effects, visual and sound, are excellent.  The visual and special effects are as great as ever, from the scenery and portrayal of Gotham, to the costumes, action effects, and everything else.  Hans Zimmer composed the score for the previous two films, and he composed it for this film too, and once again, he did a good job.  The actors in this film put on good performances.  In this film, we have some familiar faces, including Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) and Mr. Fox (Morgan Freeman).  And of course we have some new characters, including Bane.  There are also a couple of women with whom Bruce has shallow love affairs, and one of whom is Catwoman.  And speaking of new things, Batman now has a new means of transportation: one that flies!  And of course the story is good, and the ending is especially powerful (but I won't give it away).  The story even has plot twists and whatnot, and it's not completely predictable or formulematic, which is good, of course.  This movie, again, is, by a tad, the weakest in the trilogy, but it's great.

The Dark Knight Rises is a roller coaster of thrills, morals, darkness, plot twists, top-notch action scenes, and much more; it's pure high-order entertainment.  Nolan ends his trilogy on a great, and dark, note.  The Dark Knight has risen well.




Cast and Credits:
Bruce Wayne / Batman: Christian Bale
Commissioner Gordon: Gary Oldman
Bane: Tom Hardy
Selina / Catwoman: Anne Hathaway
Miranda: Marion Cotillard
Lucius Fox: Morgan Freeman
Alfred: Michael Caine

Warner Brothers Pictures presents
A film directed by Christopher Nolan
Running time: 164 min.

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some sensuality and language

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Genre: Crime, Drama 

Released: October 14, 1994

My Rating:  
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)


The Shawshank Redemption is moving and compelling, and it truly touches the heart and soul.


The Shawshank Redemption is currently number one on the IMDb Top 250 list.  I don't particularly agree with that, but it is a truly great movie nonetheless.  It is moving and compelling, and it touches the heart and soul.

The story is set in the 1940s, and it involves Andy Dufrense (Tim Robbins), a young man who is convicted of murdering his wife and her lover and is sentenced to life in the Shawshank Prison.  As one would expect, he is very unhappy at first, but then he leans that there's something deeper that nobody can take away from you: hope.  As the story unfolds, over the years, Andy eventually becomes very influential within the prison and gains the respect of other inmates, especially "Red" (Morgan Freeman), with whom he develops a special friendship.

The story isn't original or creative, and it's relatively simple, and a bit predictable, but it's compelling, moving, and memorable, and there's a bit more to it which I won't go into.  The movie puts the viewer right into the footsteps, experiences, and emotions of the characters.  Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman put on great performances.  They really bring out their characters and offer true depth and emotion.  One of the major moral messages of the movie is that a person may be imprisoned, even for life, but the spirit can never truly be imprisoned.  The movie conveys this moral message very strongly, and it truly touches the heart and soul.

I am very glad I watched this movie.  It is a truly emotional experience.




Cast and Credits:
Andy Dufrense: Tim Robbins
Ellis Boyd "Red" Redding: Morgan Freeman
Warden Norton: Bob Gunton
Heywood: William Sadler
Captain Hadley: Clancy Brown

Castle Rock Entertainment presents
A film directed by Frank Darabont

Rated R for language and prison violence

Brave (2012)

Genre: Animation, Action, Adventure, Comedy, Family, Fantasy

Release Date: June 22, 2012

My Rating:  
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)


Brave is not one of Pixar's best films, but it's fairly good; it's charming, good-hearted, a bit witty, visually stunning, and has a likable heroine protagonist.

Pixar has returned to the big screen with Brave, which I saw in the theater today, and I liked it.  It was hot today, so I was glad to spend an hour and a half in an air-conditioned theater with a soda and watching an enjoyable movie.

Brave is the story of Merida, a young red-haired princess and aspiring archer who is unhappy with her life as a princess.  She doesn't like living the controlled and restricted life that she's living.  When she is asked by her mother to choose between three possible husbands (she is at a marriageable age), she is even more upset.  She eventually flees into the woods, and soon comes upon a cottage (led there by magical blue wisps), where she meets a witch.  She begs for a magic spell to change her mother's mind, but it doesn't exactly go according to how Merida wants it...  This eventually leads to unintended chaos that threatens not only Merida's mother, but also the kingdom.

In my opinion, Brave is definitely not one of Pixar's best films.  But it's far from Pixar's worst.  It's not as good as I hoped it would be, but it's actually fairly good.  The story isn't creative or anything, but it's enjoyable and charming, and it has some good moral messages.  It's a medieval-type story, with a bit of fantasy (magic), but it has some modern elements in it.  The humor isn't as good as it usually is in Pixar films, but its effective and witty at times.  The film handles its emotional aspects pretty well also.  Just like Pixar's other films, Brave is very much a family movie, and it's good-hearted.  The actors all put on effective voice performances.  The music score is pretty good. The animation in the film is some of the best animation I've ever seen.  It's visually stunning.  And it's not just eye candy, it actually helps with the emotional and narrative aspects of the film, like it's supposed to.  Overall, the movie isn't original or creative, but it has a pretty good uniqueness about it.

What I liked most about the movie was Merida herself.  She's stubborn, spunky, and strong-willed, and quite likable in personality.  She's also a bit physically attractive.  She is a good CGI character, especially her hair.  Also, she's a bit different from the typical Disney princess.  She longs for something else in her life, but it has nothing to do with a romantic relationship with a man.  In fact, she doesn't even necessarily want to get married, and she doesn't seem to mind living without a husband.  But it's not like she doesn't have any emotional or any other kind of depth as a person, because she does.  She's actually a somewhat charming character, and she's a good heroine.  And she and her mother eventually undergo some interesting yet charming mother-daughter bonding.

Overall, the movie could've been better, but I enjoyed it, and it was especially enjoyable on the big screen.  Brave is not one of Pixar's best films, but it's fairly good; it's charming, good-hearted, a bit witty, visually stunning, and has a likable heroine protagonist.  It's a good film to be seen with the family.





Cast and Credits:
Merida: Kelly Macdonald
Fergus: Billy Connolly
Elinor: Emma Thompson
The Witch: Julie Walters
Lord Dingwall: Robbie Coltrane

Walt Disney Pictures presents a Pixar film
Running time: 100 min.

Rated PG for some scary action and rude humor

Dances With Wolves (1990)

Release Date: November 21, 1990

Genre: Adventure, Drama, Western


My Rating:  
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)



Overall, I feel that Dances With Wolves is more of a moral message experience than entertainment.  It's not something I'd want to watch more than once, but it's a good movie all the same, definitely worth watching.

I saw Dances With Wolves for the first time sometime within the last several months.  It wasn't as great or memorable as I hoped it would be, but it's pretty good nonetheless.

As the story starts off, we are introduced to Lieutenant John Dunbar, who does something stupid during a Civil War battle and inadvertendly leads the Union troops to a victory.  As a reward, he is given a post at the western frontier.  Upon arriving, he finds the post deserted.  Soon however, he starts to befriend a curious local indian tribe.  Gradually, over time earns the trust and respect of these people, and eventually becomes one of them.  Along the way, he also falls in love with Stands With A Fist, a white girl raised by the tribe.  Also, along the way, he even receives a tribal name, "Dances With Wolves."

It's a simple story.  It's that old man-befriends-natives-and-turns-against-his-own-people type of story.  There's no originality in it whatsoever, and it's almost completely predictable.  However, it is very well-told, with soul and emotion.  The movie follows Dunbar and allows the viewer to feel his emotions and experiences as he gradually falls in love with the tribe and the land.  In terms of the script, and other aspects, the movie is pretty good.  The dialogue is pretty good, and the story is well-paced.  Performances by Costner and everyone else are good as well, and the actors really bring out their characters.  John Barry also composed a great score for the film, which also helped bring out the emotion, mood, and tone of the film.

I do have a few criticisms of the film.  My first criticism concerns Mary McDonnel.  She was effective as Stands With A Fist, and her performance was good, but there's something about her that took away slightly from my liking for her character.  I didn't think she was quite right for her role.  Also, I should have had more emotional attachment to her (not that I didn't, but I did feel that it lacked a bit).  My second criticism concerns the length of the film.  I can see what Costner was trying to do in terms of storytelling, emotion, length of scenes, and all that, but, in my opinion, the film was too long.  I have to admit, I liked the film, but I did get bored in some areas.  Also, while the character development is solid, I think the story should have gone more into character complexity.  The story itself had more potential too.  There's hardly any plot at all, but it's enjoyable, but nonetheless, if the movie did have more of a real plot it could have been a lot better.  Next, I didn't really feel much tension/worry for the inevitable fight with the American military coming up at the end.  I really did need to feel much more of that.  Next, they actually show Dunbar and Stands having sex.  It wasn't explicit or anything, but that scene was a bit unnecessary.  Also, while the movie is pretty good, it only has a few memorable aspects about it.  It needed more.

Overall, I feel that Dances With Wolves is more of a moral message experience than entertainment.  It's not something I'd want to watch more than once, but it's a good movie all the same, definitely worth watching.  But it did have a lot more potential.




Cast and Credits:
Lt. John Dunbar: Kevin Costner
Stands With A Fist: Mary McDonnell
Kicking Bird: Graham Greene
Wind In His Hair: Rodney A. Grant
Ten Bears: Floyd Red Crow
Black Shawl: Tantoo Cardinal
Christine: Annie Costner

Orion Pictures presents
A film directed by Kevin Costner
Screenplay by Michael Blake
Music by John Barry
Running Time: 181 minutes

Rated PG-13 for some intense Western violence, language, thematic elements, brief sexuality and nudity