ahwell's movie reviews

I guess I'll try this out, because I'm new here, but I'd like to give some reviews.

Hachi: A Dog's Tale
Director: Lasse Hallström


I just saw this as part of the Movie Challenge list (I counted it as the "North American Film" entry). I really expected it to be a sugar-coated, sappy, tale of mush with no real plot, like many other dog movies sometimes are. Instead, I was quite pleasantly surprised. This film is no masterpiece, but it wasn't by any means a "bad" movie, either.

One of my main complaints is the rewatchability, however. The whole plot revolves around a dog's devotion to the main character, and, unlike many other great movies, like The 400 Blows (another recent watch) I can't see myself being interested in this plot all over again, and actually feeling the same emotion as the first time I watched (I'll admit, I shed a tear or too, not what I was expecting from a dog movie).

Another main problem is the screenplay. There have been much worse screenplays than this, with no real dialogue. But, as Roger Ebert said, "Watching many movies, I realize that all of the dialogue is entirely devoted to explaining or furthering the plot, and no joy is taken in the style of language and idiom for its own sake." This is the feeling I get watching Hachi, with no real memorable quotes, or dialogue. Of course, because the plot revolves around a character who can't speak, this is to be expected- of course it's not going to be Annie Hall or Pulp Fiction in terms of dialogue. Still, I feel like some of the screenplay could have been better constructed and more well-thought out. That said, some of the more thoughtful moments in the movie don't need dialogue (like the end), and rely completely on beautiful images.

This movie is very original, although based off of a true story of a dog's devotion to his master. It has very beautiful moments of truth, and expands on the actual story of Hachi without making it seem like extra details were just stuffed in to make the movie longer.

The realism sometimes seems a bit off, like when there is a family death (trying to be vague plot-wise). The family just seems a bit grieved, but the sadness of the scene is in the music and images, and not the actual family members. Of course this may be an acting problem, which I'll get to in a minute.

The structure is very odd, but it would have been hard to do something different as they had to stay with original true story of course. The movie is essentially a young boy telling the dog's tale to his class, and basically the plot is the dog's life. By the end I think most of the actual plot and conflict has disappeared, and we are just waiting for the inevitable.

The acting was okay, although I liked Richard Gere as Professor Wilson. The daughter and the wife just seemed to show a passive lack of emotion throughout, and they didn't really make clear any of their emotions- basically, it felt a bit scripted. The boyfriend was maybe the worst actor, I felt he was a bit of a Hallmark Christmas movie actor, with no good lines and a sort of fake happiness and "manliness" throughout. That said, Gere partially saves the show, much like Cagney saved "Yankee Doodle Dandy."

Now, the actual characters in the movie... they were decent, I liked Wilson's character and the daughter, but Michael and Cate just seemed like annoying obstacles inserted to lengthen the story. The other problem is the lack of a real protagonist. The closest person to a protagonist in this story is Hachi, and as he doesn't have a single line it makes it hard to relate (although the movie does a good job of it). We see small goals in each of the characters, but their arcs all end by the last thirty minutes of the movie, leaving it void of real conflict. The last half suffers from this because I found myself losing interest.

And this leads us to pacing, which I thought was good for the most part, but due to the characters losing their goals and conflict, the last third fades away into just Hachi... well... waiting. Hachi's story in the beginning is very good, with a lot of scenes that just set up each of the characters.

The visuals/cinematography was indeed very good, and I liked many of the angles that showed the scenes in black and white (from Hachi's point of view). The ending was also really visually beautiful, and for the most part thumbs up for camera work.

The last thing I want to discuss is music/sound. The music I felt was very lackluster, and really forgetful. The music could have been much better than what it was because it doesn't create motifs and structures that help you relate (like Howard Shore does in Lord of the Rings series). This leads us to take emotion from "sad" music, but nothing more.

So, overall, it was a good movie with several major flaws (like characters and acting). I would recommend at least a watch, but it may be a hit or miss.

The 400 Blows
Director: François Truffaut


I had not seen a Truffaut film before this, but I knew he had partially ushered in the French New Age and was an incredibly influential director. I can see why The 400 Blows is so praised and famous, because it totally blew me away. The camera work was beautiful, great acting, well developed characters, a really enigmatic message.

I'll start with rewatchability again. I'm not sure how re-watchable this film is, a couple days after seeing it. But I still think I would like to watch it again in the future, at least several times, because I knew I had missed some things while watching it. The movie I think relies itself a lot on facial expression, emotion on the face (such as the great last shot, zooming in on Antoine's confused face). And that makes it very hard to actually look at all those faces, and how they change and react (like the parents and the teacher) when you are reading subtitles. Perhaps next time I watch it I will focus not so much on the plot and characters as the intimate cinematography and acting.

The script was overall very good, and very relatable to real life. There are short, "realistic," conversations that reflect what an actual parent-child conversation might be like, and I think this propels the script. Some of the dialogue, too, is delightful and creative, but we see much of the good screenplay going not to Antoine but to the parents, and the teacher. The adults are often mocked as the "all-knowing," "all-talking" god figures, while being show to be hypocrites, and that propels the themes in the film.

I've never seen another movie like this; it's original. Movies about a youth's struggle - and often failure - to stay out of trouble are very rare and often hit-and-miss due to a perhaps "softening" of the plot that Hollywood is so famous for. Truffaut does not ever soften the plot, letting us know that there will be no plot twists in the story - or at least nothing big - and that for Antoine his final outcome almost seems like fate, destined to happen whether he tried to stop it or not.

The film is also very realistic, conveying deep emotional relationships - between Antoine and his parents. They often fight about grades, chores, and other moral things (like lying and stealing). Truffaut masterfully portrays the hypocrisy of his parents moral law by showing his mother turning around and cheating on her husband. When Antoine sees this, the mother (Claire) then begins to be very nice to him and "love" him. By the end, this love has faded and Claire no longer feels that this truth needs to covered up. The school scenes are also very realistic and often very entertaining.

The structure is like a gradual descent, but not necessarily very linear. We see Antoine in the beginning as unlucky more than anything, who stays out of trouble and has a decent parent relationship. His friend is the one who eventually begins to turn him away from "good" and begin lying, cheating, and essentially creating a new identity. Antoine's new identity is what the structure of the film mirrors, and at the end, his identity can be clearly seen as completely lost, swamped, "robbed" almost.

The acting is pretty good, in fact Jean-Pierre Léaud as Antoine Doinel is absolutely fantastic. Some of the other boy actors are a bit unconvincing, but that's hardly a complaint, as for their age they're spectacular. The parents are pretty good, and the teachers are marginal (a bit forced it feels like). Also, keep in mind, all of the acting I'm judging is from facial expressions and actions, because the words they say I don't understand and must read subtitles. Voice inflection and sentence structure can play a huge role in how good an actor is overall.

Now pacing can sometimes be fleshed in with structure, but I think they are two separate things. Traffaut often takes his time with pacing- for me, the flow, and sometimes I think that doesn't benefit the movie too well. Looking at Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, he deliberately adds slow pacing and continues that slow pacing until the end- this way his overall pace is adapted to and can be enjoyed by an engaged viewer. Traffaut's pacing in this film I think jumps between slow- and often too long or pointless- cuts, to quick, snappy scenes. This leaves the overall flow, I think, a bit shaky and that was one of my only criticisms of the film.

Camera work, from the opening Eiffel Tower shot, is beautiful, and really well done. I am no cinematography expert, but the camera it seems like follows not the plot but the emotions of a particular scene, and I think often that can detract from a good performance. But Traffaut makes it really convincing and engaging. One of the last scenes just shows Antoine running away from his camp. Every footstep was dubbed again because he wanted the camera to be continually following the boy... yes, it's following our protagonist, but if Traffaut wanted to follow the plot he would focus on a chase scene from one of the guards who is after the boy. Instead, we are given just the breathing and the footsteps, or perhaps of Antoine's "emotions," which is simply that he needs to run.

One of my only other complaints is once again the music, which I thought was slightly unsatisfying. I actually think much of the music could have been- and should have been- cut out, for a better "realism" effect. The music, mostly repeating one "cheerful" theme, is supposed to follow Antoine's descent into crime apparently. Instead, it comes across meandering interludes that add nothing to the plot or emotions of the story.

The 400 Blows was very well done, everything but a couple tweaks make it a brilliant film with a powerfully conveyed message about a boy's loss of direction in life, and the possible consequences.

Ben-Hur
Director: William Wyler


Ben-Hur is a film of redemption - both physical (through the healing of Ben-Hur's mother and sister) and spiritual (through Ben's own discovery of self-knowledge, love and mercy). Both these redemptions are achieved through Jesus, whose final crucifixion brings a rain of cleansing, and whose spiritual presence dominates the whole film. This is a movie with such an epic scope that understand and digesting the material can be difficult. But on the whole, Ben-Hur gives us something relatable- a character, Ben-Hur, who is really us. Putting this modern character in ancient times makes his struggles, failures, and victories all the more notable. So in short, Ben-Hur is not a tale of Christ, as it claims. It is a tale of us, of the Messala's in us, of the "Christ" in us, of our ashamed and self-doubting selves (Judah's family), and of course, the true victory in us that is not perfect, is no crystal staircase, but is well worth the journey.

For being nearly 4 hours in length, this film is surprisingly re-watchable. I felt that a second viewing would enhance my understand of the intricacies of the characters, the possible symbolism of location, and smaller details I missed. It is not the type of story that gets old quickly, partially because the plot doesn't try to build itself up to one event and climax for the character (I will discuss Judah's internal climax later).

Ben-Hur takes a different - and admirable - approach on the tale of Christ, not from his direct teachings and quotes, but from the recounting of the experiences of others (Balthasar, Esther, etc.). In fact, Jesus gets less than five minutes of the screen time in the
entire film, and his face is never even shown. All we ever see is his backside, with recognizable long hair. This is such a unique and original approach to his effect on others - not directly - but like a ripple.

I found the screenplay to be another pleasant surprise. Many of the dialogue scenes include delightful quotes, foreshadowing, and character development. We see the morals and values of each of the characters expressed through these dialogue/speech scenes. Arrius's quotes, "Hate keeps a man alive," seems to be the driving force to Judah's later ambitions, and it's often the dialogue scenes that change or affect his character.

The characters- and there are many - are beautifully well fleshed out. From Messala's inner drive of overhwelming patriotism to Arrius's more reasonable look at Rome, most of the characters all revolve around an opinion on Rome - whether a good or bad one. Ben-Hur is the most complex character in the film, and this is portrayed through his drive to kill Messala. Ben-Hur's original conflict is the liberty of the people of Judea. After he his condemned, however, it is interesting to note that his original noble goal is turned into hatred and lust for blood, both aimed at Messala and Rome in general. Even when Messala dies his anger consumes him and it is only through Jesus that he is redeemed. Ben-Hur's search for happiness is only fulfilled by his act of mercy at the end, giving Jesus water. We see that water, like in the Bible, is in Ben-Hur a symbol for life and redemption, and Judah's gift of water is his climactic moment. He realizes that love and forgiveness will always dominate hatred and evil.

The structure is perhaps the weakest part of a consistently strong film. Ben-Hur's rising actions do become unclear near the second half of the film, and this makes the structure collapse a bit under the weight of Judah's unstable character. He has no clear goal or real reason for conflict by the end, although his un-explainable hatred is indeed cleansed by Christ.

Ben-Hur takes it's time with pacing, and that pays off. Over three hours, Ben-Hur splits up Judah's life without rushing through details that might cheapen his character. The first thirty minutes introduce the exposition - setting many of the major characters. By an hour in, Judah begins taking steps towards his goal, and defeats Messala during the last hour. This is simply a resolution of his external conflict. The film paces itself slower near the end, showing Judah's loss of direction. Four hours is really necessary for this film.

The acting is generally very good, with Heston as a brilliant and believable Judah. Esther (Haya Harareet) can often come across as sentimental and fake, but I think that this is often her role, not her acting. Stephen Boyd as Messala is very good, and portrays a restrained but vicious murderer. Arrisu is great as well. It's often the mother, daughter, and wife of Judah that show a not-so-convincing acting job.

The themes of this film are not by any means original - but they penetrated me so deeply that I think they can come across as much more profound. To "love thy enemies" and to have faith; these are the themes that crop up constantly in Ben-Hur as Judah struggles with himself over his identity and true love. So perhaps it is not so much these themes in this movie that hit me so hard, but the way they are portrayed.

The visuals are exciting and often breath taking. The famous chariot race scene is a prime example of one such moment, and for 1959 this is incredible. The camera work is careful and detailed, like it's portrayal of Jesus's indirect and faith-based connection to us. These are also many colorful moments, with good usage of lighting. No complaints visually.

Rosza did such a great job with the music for Ben-Hur, and I wouldn't hesitate to call it one of the greatest film scores ever written. Rosza builds a harmonic world for Ben-Hur so effectively, and he doesn't need to rely on rhythmic ostinato and computer-generated noise like so many composer do today. For instance, during the rowing scene, he creates a rippling and unsettling flow of orchestral colors, making the scene much more tense. A much easier and less effective route would have been to include war drums and pounding rhythms, with no real tension. Well done from Rosza.

All in all, Ben-Hur is so far my favorite film of 2019, and it sparked every side of me- the Messala, the Balthasar, the Ben-Hur, and all the other characters that I find myself relating so well to. And thinking about it, Ben-Hur is more about the mind than the surroundings. By digging into the human psyche, Ben-Hur achieves a new level of depth. It not only redeems us, it incites in us a new sense of ultimate moral fulfillment.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Director: Cottrell, et al


What is a protagonist? literaryterms.net defines it as:

just another word for “main character.” The story circles around this character’s experiences, and the audience is invited to see the world from his or her perspective. Note that the protagonist is not necessarily a “good guy.” Although most of the time the protagonist is some kind of hero, sometimes we see the whole story from the perspective of a villain.

From that definition, which I think is a pretty good one that most authors/artists used when drawing their protagonists, the protagonist of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is not Snow white or the seven dwarfs. It is in fact the evil queen, whose jealousy and hatred eventually destroys her and all she worked towards. By this standard, which I think Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was intended to be viewed as for adults, this film is an utter masterpiece, not only original and breathtakingly beautiful, but like nothing else Disney ever produced again. It is perhaps Disney's oddest film, the more I think about it. Even with Pinocchio, their second film, Disney had added in the "questioning of existence" part of their animated characters, and ever since, through Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King and up until Ralph Breaks the Internet, Disney heroes (notice I don't say protagonist) always have fought against both themselves and some existential force. Snow White, who I think is our hero, does not do this. Instead, she remains the most innocent, gullible, and stupid creation of Disney's. But this isn't necessarily a flaw, because Snow White isn't the character who is presenting the message and themes. It is the evil queen. So, although Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is incredibly dated from the perspective of female and male stereotypes, not-so-funny humor, and animation style, it's freshness penetrates through due to the evil queen's oddly relatable jealousy that dominates the film.

Let's start with rewatchability. I could see myself rewatching it, but it is nothing on my list in the near future. It has a certain charm for a first viewing (although I saw it as a kid, I don't remember it, so I count this as my first time watching), and I don't know if that would hold during second or third times. But the movie is short, at least compared to Ben-Hur (!), and it was mostly enjoyable and fun.

I don't need to add anything to how original Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is... it was the first animated film ever made, something so incredibly unique, full of color, plot, and beautiful "camera" work. I read Roger Ebert's review of it, and he put it perfectly my thoughts when watching scenes like the well, where of course it is easy enough to draw, but nothing had been done like that before. It's truly inspiring to see what animators and directors can do with nothing in the past they can build off of.

The screenplay was not anything too special, but for an animated movie it was still relatable and could have fresh moments of great potence. In fact, the script is along the lines of the quality of Beauty and the Beast or the Little Mermaid, which I found to be quite enjoyable. But, like most Disney movies, the screenplay wasn't the focus, and I don't think it necessarily should be for kids.

The characters are the most interesting and fascinating thing in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Of course there is Snow White, a boring and predictable stereotype of the helpless princess. She charms animals, charms dwarfs, charms the prince, and everything ends happily for her. There does seem to be something almost unfair about how Snow White's naivety gets her to a beautiful life. But I also think there is a ring of truth to that- ignorance is bliss, as the saying goes, and we are often charmed by the innocent or the "stupid" people in our lives, who don't know what's going on but are still kind, and caring, and sweet. But Snow White isn't the film's focus, anyways. In fact, she can almost be seen as an antagonist. The only true goal in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is that of the evil queen, who hopes to become the fairest in the land. By killing Snow White - who the magic mirror has said is fairer then her - she can then be without question the most beautiful. The actions that follow in the film are the rising actions of the queen. As she pursues her goal, she succeeds in killing the innocent Snow White... but overlooks her own power and beauty and accidentally kills herself. So the failure of the evil queen relays the themes and values of the movie, not the successes of Snow White, who has no real goal that we can relate to. As for the dwarfs, they are good facile characters, who propel the plot of both the queen and of Snow White.

Acting is, of course, harding to judge with an animated film, but the actors did a decent job of conveying the evil - through the evil queen - and the innocent and sweet - through Snow White, although Snow White can be a bit annoying at times. The dwarfs have their charming moments too, but there is nothing too amazing going on like perhaps the Genie in Aladdin or Woody in Toy Story could be seen.

The structure holds together quite well, actually, considering we are basing it on the queen's Senecan plot line. Her intro to conflict appears at the very beginning, followed by her rising actions. Her climax is when she finally chooses to give Snow White the apple, fulfilling her desires. Her resolution, letting us know that she has failed, is when she is knocked off the cliff to her death.

The pacing was in fact very good as well. The movie takes its time, and although there are lengthier sequences, like the scene where the dwarfs discover Snow White in their home, the plot flows quite while, innocently and leisurely, much like Snow White's innocence. By contrast, during the scenes with the queen, camera changes are quick, and from a closer point, making her insanity look even stronger.

The themes and values I think are the most interesting part of all of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. To understand them, we must look at the evil queen as the protagonist once again. By killing Snow White, the evil queen has partially achieved her goal. If the film had ended with that, then perhaps a theme would have been that hatred and jealousy will prevail without consequence in an innocent world. By contrast, the fact that the queen dies changes the theme entirely, and notably without the effect of Snow White. The theme now is that jealousy, greed, and hatred will always come around and bite its owner. In Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs this is portrayed by a random lightning strike, making her death seem like fate. However, the fact that Snow White's friends are the ones that chased the queen to her fateful rock is more important. The good and the noble of this world, Disney is saying, will always fight back against evil; Thus, jealousy and hatred will be returned in due time. And now for the fascinating part, at least for me; I don't see that in any other Disney film. As stereotypical of a message it is, the final climax for every protagonist in most other Disney films occurs when the protagonist overcomes themself, learns to have confidence, or love, or forgive... the fighting evil part always seems to be in the background. They are two totally different messages that Disney gives us, and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is one of their only films where this is not questioned - Snow White should go with her prince, the evil queen should die (it is only right), and the dwarfs should take care of her and love her. They can be seen as "fantastical" and "unrealistic," but actually the more I see it relates more to real life than the heroic and questioning characters of the Disney Renaissance and beyond.

This is one of the most visually beautiful films Disney has created. The only animated film as revolutionary as this film I can think of is Toy Story, and that was sixty years later, when computer generated animating had already been introduced. The animals, the forest, the well, the dwarfs, all of it is just so magical. And I think it can be compared to movies like The Wizard of Oz, The Sorcerer's Stone, and others as one of the most visually "magical" films of all time.

The composers of the music to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs did an awesome job. The melodies are hummable and never tedious, and they are quite catchy too. The music sometimes quite comedically follows the actions, and can add so much to the atmosphere, such as the menacing chords when Snow White first sees the evil queen in the form of the evil hag. Definitely a 5/5 for music.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is worthy of praise for what it is as a film, not just what it influenced. Besides being the first fully animated movie of all time, it creates a magical atmosphere and themes that I don't see cropped up in any modern Disney movies. It presents a different look at culture, one where our "heroes" don't always question their purpose and one where the protagonist is a villain consumed by utmost jealousy. In the end, Snow White and her prince walk into their glorious palace, and I felt an odd feeling come over. And the truth is, it's because I realized Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs takes place in a world that is alien. Other Disney films have relatable locations or real locations... but nothing like this, a place that seems in the middle of the wilderness, where the animals understand us, where nothing stops a young girl from entering and making herself at home in a cottage, where a prince is always waiting around the corner; it is a beautiful world, but one removed from ours, all except for the evil queen. And perhaps the evil queen isn't so evil... she is the only real "human" in the film anyways, and the character that creates the themes and values of the film. And that is why Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs as a film is so relatable, but the world it takes place in is so different. It creates something new, always inventing, and the connects us to who we know we might be in that perfect world; the evil queen, after all- the true person.

Fences
Director: Denzel Washington


Fences, based off of August Wilson's famous play, I think is a movie with a great topic, and has a really impactful message. But on the whole, Fences is not suitable for cinema. It is a play, through and through, and adapting it for film I think caused some of its problems. But the film, nevertheless, remained really powerful and a beautiful look at racial and family relations in 1950s America.

Fences was no doubt pretty re-watchable, mostly due to its interesting and complex plot and screenplay. A lot of the time, we are held in suspense and have no idea what is going on only to learn later, and I think that can often detract from a second viewing, when you know exactly how it is going to turn out. Nevertheless, it remained an enjoyable watch with many details I missed and would like to spot in later watchings.

It's hard to judge the originality of Fences, because, of course it was based off of a play. I've never read the play, either, and I don't know how much the movie went above and beyond, went out of the box like Lumet did in 12 Angry Men. But this no stereotypical plot. The interesting thing is how little race relations is actually explored in the film. It is more about family relations inside the black community, and we never see the world as a racist and corrupt place. In fact, there is not a single white person ever show in the film. It is a world built from the inside, which is incredibly original.

The screenplay was the best part of the whole film, and I saw at the end that it was the playwright himself who had helped adapt it. The film takes delight it in employing verbal idioms and phrases that propel that character and "culture" of the whole movie. There are times when it can become mushy and we realize this isn't really a poor black family but a set of scripted actors. But those are very rare moments, and on the whole it is a very enthralling script experience.

The characters are once again well drawn out and Troy is such an interesting protagonist. His goals throughout the film constantly shift, and so we are left with the conclusion that his goal is simply what our goal is for him- to be a kind and caring husband, and let his children follow their dreams. Yes, he fails that goal by dying, but is redeemed in a way by his disabled brother, who is convinced that blowing his trumpet (which he really can't play) will open up the gates of heaven- which it finally does for Troy in the end. It is incredibly powerful, and sums up each character and their reactions to the different experiences provided in the film.

I think Denzel Washington and Viola Davis were two extraordinary actors in this film, especially Davis as Troy's wife. The color and personality of her character that she brings out completely dwarfs her actual role, and we are actually left with a stronger reaction to her acting than her characters. As for some of the other characters, it was generally hit or miss acting wise, including Troy's children. But there were no huge complaints here.

The structure was all based around Troy's goals and needs throughout the film, culminating in his climactic moment (driving his son out of the house). This climactic moment shows his failure in the end, and that is where I think the structural drive of Fences ends. Without a clear goal and rising actions of the protagonists, the film's resolution was a bit long and un-clear. There was a lot of unnecessary conversation with no true conflict.

That leads me to pacing, which I think was one of the weaker things with Fences. The opening has a long, non-conflicted pacing with a clear introduction to conflict only thirty plus minutes in. From there, we move slowly past rising actions but then quickly move to a climax. The film just seemed to be jolting a bit much, and the resolution at the end seems to be just trying to make itself longer and longer for the sake of being more than two hours. If Washington had cut out all but five minutes of the closing sequence, I think the film could have had the same effect.

The themes and values of this film are actually very hard to understand, and that is where I think this is more of a "play" than a film. Films, in a lot of cases, should be able to present themselves clearly, with symbols identified through visuals and character dialogue. With a play, which this essentially was - a filmed play - the symbols should be gradually implanted on the watcher/reader and understood through analysis afterwards. That's what the film doesn't give us time to do, with the symbol of the trumpet, or the baseball, or the fence itself. It moves too quickly through the plot so we know the characters but not their themes. The basic theme from Fences is that protection is not freedom. By fencing in his family, Troy is protecting them from the "outside" world so he can feed and support them, but he is shutting down their dreams and hopes. He fails when he realizes that these hopes can't be subdues, and he finally lets Cory go.

The visuals were pretty good, but nothing out of the box. Again, it was more of a filmed play. 12 Angry Men went above and beyond by slowly closing in with the camera, making for a tight and tense rising actions. Fences is generally filming the characters- their faces, their reactions, their expressions. It's like the camera is an audience, and we are watching the actors, but we can't look at the surroundings. Which is fine for a play, but I'm not sure how it works as a movie.

The music was disappointing, to be frank. We don't even get any music until about forty five minutes through, and by then it seems kind of pointless. It's like the music was added in just for some sort of movie obligation check list. And the melodies aren't even melodies, they're just "sad" noise. Not very impressed with the music.

All in all, Fences is an really moving film... but it wasn't really a film. Some of the structural, thematic, and pacing elements weren't fully developed because the movie needed time that it doesn't use to point out and explain the symbols. That said, the movie contains piercing truth about the human condition, and what we can do to break through from the hate and jealousy that might be building up inside.

ahwell foleeeyy..!

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
Director: Ramsey, et al


Spider-Man was a visually remarkable experience, and I enjoyed it through and through. It had some major flaws, but that didn't stop me from giving it a 4/5, which is generally a good review for me. It benefits from the voice acting, screenplay, originality, and visuals but suffers a bit from music, pacing, and structure, which I'll go over in my review. But Spider-Man creates an amazingly original idea in a world where too many super-hero movies are churned out every year, many of them awful. This was definitely my favorite animated movie of 2019 (better than Incredibles 2 and Wreck-it Ralph 2, which were the previous two).

How rewatchable is Spider-Man? I thought it suffers from the overall plot build-up to one defining moment... but that said, there are a lot of details in this movie, and it would be nice to go through and pick them out again after already understanding the plot. So I think Spider-Man is pretty rewatchable, even considering it's weak climax. If nothing else, the visuals stun.

The originality of the film is the best thing about it I think. The multi-dimensional idea is so different and ingeniously sets itself up for infinite franchise movies in the future involving each of the dimensions. The idea that there are multiple spider-mans is fascinating and even provocative to think about in our own world - that idea that there may be other dimensions with the same things going on- time is relative, after all...

The screenplay is another great thing about Spider-Man. It doesn't just rely on plot and tense moments - it can throw around some contexual dialogue, spice things up with conflict between father and son, brother and brother, uncle and nephew. These relationships are all expressed primarily through the screenplay, which gets a bit minimalist near the end, but that is due to the action and most of the character building has been done before.

The characters - especially our main character, Mile - is fascinating, and as he has faced with constant situations he reacts to them in normal and interesting ways. This makes for a very deep character who is able to stand back and think about things. Each of the side-kick characters have strongly defined personalities as well, and that creates a huge canvas of colorful characters to base the movie off of.

The acting was phenomenal. I could hear the emotion and expression of every word that Mile said, and his actor set up a really great new super-hero "vibe" that is really fascinating to listen to. The antagonists, as well as the other "Spider-Man"s had some weaker actors, but mostly stayed convincing and engaging to the audience.

Structurally, I didn't see that much going on. The film stretched itself so wide with multiple plots, conflicts, and motifs, that it was sometimes to difficult to understand Mile's emerging and struggling character. Although the film follows a conventional plot line, ending with Mile's climax in which he decides, after his father's speech, to change things around and go save the day, I think much of the film strayed too far from this conflict and tried to build other characters to a plot line that just ended in mid-air.

The pacing - slow at the beginning and end, and fast in the middle - was hard to keep track of. Some of the scenes moved so fast that it was hard to watch and quite distracting from was going on. So much is packed in every single scene that sometimes it gave me a headache. But the film follows Mile's story line nicely, and only speeds up more than necessary occasionally.

The themes of the movie basically had to do with most super-hero movies. Everyone's "ordinary," but everyone ordinary can do extraordinary things. It's a great message for kids, and the movie presents it well, perhaps not the most original thing ever, but powerful and impactful, especially for younger audiences.

This was a visually stunning film. The movie went above and beyond with animation style, adding in a "comic-book" flavor. The fight scenes were packed with interesting camera work, words on the screen to show what the characters had just said, and amazing colors. The visuals were one of the best things about Spider-Man.

The music was lack-luster, with no real theme or motifs to build off of. There were mostly pop tunes or dramatic music to accompany whatever was going. One of the downsides of the film, in my opinion. I think they could have done a better effort with enhancing the film with music, not just accompanying it.

Spider-Man was not just a good movie, and it went totally out of the box with unconventional story lines, visuals, and amazingly well developed characters. What could have been a boring, over-used, superhero movie that had already been made a million times was instead a highly original, polished, and effective landmark in cinema.

Jaws
Director: Steven Spielberg


IMDB labels Jaws as a adventure/drama/thriller movie, although it comes across as horror. But I think they are right in labeling the movie with these genres, because horror movies seek to scare the audience. Jaws does not seek to do that, in my opinion, although it does scare the audience tremendously in the process. Instead, Jaws seeks to explore and convey what fear can do to a person, how it consumes him or her, and how confronting that fear is the only way to overcome it. In this way, Jaws not only paved the way for horror movies in the future - without even being a horror movie - but it opened up new possibilities for the film making world in general.

I think what makes Jaws so re-watchable is the fact that it never lets loose its grip on you. Even when you know the outcome of every scene, you are dreading it, fearing it, hoping it won't happen. And then it happens but the suspense was the better part... Spielberg is an absolute genius with this movie, how he portrays the shark almost like an abstract object, invisible until near the end, representing all of fears and worries. I would totally rewatch this movie soon.

The originality here is stunning. As far as I know, nothing like this had been done before, or at least nothing to this effect. A shark/creature lurks in the darkness as everyone tries to catch it before it kills everyone. A classic enough story, but what Spielberg does with it is absolutely stunning. Every scene paves the way for the next, building a two horror staircase of building suspense.

The screenplay isn't too shabby either. "You’re Gonna Need A Bigger Boat," "I don’t need this working class hero crap!" and others are so iconic and amazing lines in a movie that could have been a humor-less trudge where the only dialogue is about the technicalities of killing this shark. That's where a lot of horror movies go wrong today, and give up great characters and dialogue for effects and violence... Look to Spielberg, guys, that's how you do it.

The characters are also really iconic. The three main ones, the fisherman, oceanographer, and police chief all come together at the end to try to kill Jaws. It's a spectacular combination of three different characters with striking personalities. They're discussions, like when the fisherman tells of his war experiences, are brilliantly painted out for each of their characters and shows a true care and dedication to making colorful people come to life.

The acting is also top notch. Each of the actors embodies their characters and brilliantly conveys emotions and dialogue. Richard Dreyfuss and Roy Scheider are the best of all, exhibiting snappy and colorful tone of voice and completely becoming their characters - Dreyfuss as a know-it-all oceanographer and Scheider as a semi-clueless police chief.

Structurally, the film all revolves around Jaws and Brody. Jaws is the one causing the action, and whatever Brody does is the action. So it's basically a tale of Brody - who is/was afraid of the water - overcoming his fear. From that standpoint, the structure is basic but works well, effective enough to convey each of the character's personal developments and reactions to a looming danger.

The pacing was good for the most part as well, which might have failed with a shark hunting movie. The second half is consumed by one long boating trip, but oddly it works, due to the journey of each of the characters during the trip. The resolution is very, very, short, only a couple of minutes, but it works with very little dialogue as well. I liked that Spielberg resisted on-land reactions to the death of the shark, and we are left satisfied that Brody and Hooper have been successful, swimming back to shore.

The themes and values of this movie ring true... The only way to overcome our fears is to face them and destroy them, as Brody does. By letting them lurk in the shadows these fears and worries will infect us and overcome us. This is what almost happens to the men on the boat in Jaws, but Brody saves the day. Although he was the one most afraid of the ocean, the last bit of dialogue confirms that is fears are gone... gone with the shark that he blew up. This is a powerful moment, and that's shocking for these types of movies, because Jaws is not an "emotionally powerful and moving" film, and it shouldn't be. But for the ending, this works perfectly, and we realize things are back to the way they were, but the fear has somehow vanished in the process.

The visuals are stunning, nothing I really need to say here. The entire opening scene is just brilliant. And in fact every time we see a victim claimed, we never see the shark, all we see it the camera - in the shark's point of view! - getting closer and closer to a person's legs. And then suddenly, we are above water and someone is screaming and getting killed. But the scary part is not the screaming, it's the approaching camera. Absolutely brilliant visuals and camera work.

John Williams had a breakthrough with Jaws. This was his first great score in my opinion, and he achieved the basis for the whole movie with just those famous two notes, which repeat over and over again in a pounding rhythm that is to convey the shark throughout these two awful and amazing hours. The music actually acts as an unconscious clue as to where the shark is and when he will attack. That means Williams had a big responsibility and could have failed - but he didn't and made one of the greatest soundtracks in history.

Jaws checks every box for a good movie... and it was an instant classic, nominated for Best Picture (but probably would have won had it not been that One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was released that seem year), and won several other oscars. People recognized the greatness of this movie the minute it came out, and ever since it has been rightly praised as one of the most influential movies of all time. It also brought the world to the attention of Spielberg, who would go on to direct to some of the greatest movies of all time. In the end, Jaws works because it's not about scaring us... it's about showing us how to confront our fears, which is in many ways a noble light in a film of dark and menacing ideals. Jaws is probably my favorite movie this year, and could possibly contend for one of my favorites of all time.

The Bookshop
Director: Isabel Coixet


I'll give one thing to the Bookshop - it's a pretty funny movie. The only problem is that it's not trying to. It's the moments where it grasps for emotion and practically screams at the viewer to cry, to feel some sort of sympathy, empathy, or liking for any of the characters- those are the funny moments. Some of the sadder moments, when I did cry out of boredom, were in the middle where no real plot happens, just characters bumbling about with conflicts that never get resolved and never get worked towards defeating.

Anyways, let's delve into rewatchability. I will never re-watch this film, it was two hours of my life wasted with watching a woman struggle to own a bookshop and publish a controversial book (Gasp! This is the talk of the town! Someone is selling Lolita!!!!). And then she fails. So, yeah, no re-watching of this movie.

How original is this movie? It checks all the boxes for conventional storytelling. A strong-minded woman begins her own bookshop in a town where a rich woman controls everything. Poor Florence Green struggles to make a living and succeeds in standing up to the tyranny and awfulness of the town. Alongside her, we need the firm but kind little girl, the wise old man, the poor mother who we should pity. These are character archetypes with no depth.

There's nothing there with screenplay. Everything they say is just talking about the bookshop, the precious bookshop, and it's like everything in the town revolves around it, and it's bigger than any of the other issues - like obvious poverty and sickness - in the town. It's a historical center??? That's the best conflict you can do??? Sigh...

The characters, as I already touched on, are bland, uninteresting, and predictable. Each one of the them is like Snow White in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Except even that movie, made 75 years before this movie, still had more interesting characters in the form of the evil queen. The only interesting character is Edmund Brundish, but that may just because he's the only actually good actor in the film.

And speaking of acting, Patricia Clarkson as Violet is downright laughable. Emily Mortimer is decent as Florence Green, but the only one who really holds as a good actor is Edmund Brundish, played by Bill Nighy. It just sounds so... scripted, which of course it is. But the actors talk as if they are just waiting for the person they are having a conversation with to finish so they can say their line. It's not very convincing, and quite boring.

The structure is boring and unoriginal. It also doesn't even make sense. Florence Green's intro to conflict is at the party, and the antagonist is Violet. But Florence's rising actions disappear during the movie, and ends with her goal- keeping the bookshop- failing. So I didn't really understand the structure, and it seemed like the movie couldn't decide which of it's characters were protagonists or not.

It did have okay pacing, though. This was a relatively slow-moving film, but I think suits the time period and style of it. Yes, due to the screenplay and characters, this is a very dull film. However, taking it with pacing alone, I don't see how they might have paced it any different.

The themes and values are non-existent. The theme I took from this was basically dreams and hopes, even when worked towards, will be crushed by evil, Which is fine, and may be true, but the movie is giving that message while also giving out one of hope. Which makes no sense. It's almost saying that you have no play in anything you do, it's all fate. Kind of boring and predictable.

The visuals are laughable, like the early boat scene done so poorly. The costumes are also ridiculous, so not much to say here, just not very exciting or original.

The music is forgettable and boring, and I really disliked it as well.

Overall, this film is really poorly done, and could have been a great story. I've never read the book, but apparently it was good. I might read it to compare and see what the movie maybe did wrong.

Your watching some good stuff here! I love Ben-Hur, Jaws and Fences. All of those I've reviewed here at MoFo and if memory serves me, I rated all very high. I've not seen The 400 Blows but really want to. And I'm looking forward to watching Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, believe it or not I've never seen it.

Yes, I've read (and enjoyed) your reviews on the movies, since I have been searching for other member reviews of the movies I have watched.

Snow White I will say may be a hit or miss for a lot of people, due to the really boring character of Snow White... but I still think it's an amazing movie.

Up
Director: Pete Docter


Wow, Pixar did it again. Why did it make me cry so much? I'm really struggling about that, because The Bookshop has multiple characters who die, and some of them are the only likable characters in the film. Why are those deaths so boring, and Ellie's in Up so heartbreaking and noble? This film takes a new approach on children's films, and I think it connect to everyone, kid or adult alike.

I would totally re-watch this film. It was so beautiful, and there were so many funny, sad, scary, brilliant moments that I would want to enjoy again. Truth be told, there are no huge plot twists, no amazing story telling and not that innovative visuals. But the storytelling is so warm, and the characters so well-built, it's near impossible to dislike this movie.

And this isn't Pixar's most original movie. With Toy Story, of course they introduced their new visuals and their new storytelling. Up does nothing too original, but Pixar just perfected everything about their art in this movie. Their characters are just as good as that of Toy Story, and I think they expanded to a new audience, which they had already done in previous movies - but this almost seems to be more about adults than children... the only kid in the movie is just seen as an annoying brat (although he is good-hearted).

The screenplay is funny and entertaining, although I don't think this movie relies on screenplay to create emotional effect. I'll get to that in visuals and music, though. Although some of the moments with Doug and the other dogs can be very annoying, that is a small part of an overall brilliant and well-thought out script.

The characters are one of the best things about this movie. Carl, our main character, is a great example of a complex character, which can be hard to do for kids. But his struggles - and flaws - are the main premise of the whole movie, and some of more grumpy moments can be forgiven as we learn to love him and respect him. The remaining characters are also intriguing and interesting, Charles Muntz most of all - Pixar's demonstration of what humiliation and desire can do to a person. Overall, the characters are really well fleshed out.

The voice acting was also pretty good, and I liked how each of the characters embodied their personalities. Doug was a bit annoying, but he played a minor role, as did most of the other dog's (at least their voices). Russell is played by a charming and really good actor who I liked for his innocence and voice. Really strong voice acting.

The structure basically revolved around Carl, whose introduction to conflict is when he hits the construction worker on the head in anger- showing his grief over Ellie and his frustration at the world around him. The rising actions show is gradually softening and ability to appreciate life. The climactic moment is one of the best in any Pixar movie, and for me that's the most heartbreaking moment in the film, not the opening. When Carl throws all his items off of the house, he is symbolically letting go of his attachment to objects that remind him of Ellie. And that last shot of the two armchairs- the central symbols of Carl and Ellie's relationship- sitting side by side... its a perfect way to show that by letting go of Carl, he is spiritually reunited with her.

The pacing was nice, although it could be a bit jolty at times. The opening pacing is amazing, with a pan through the life of Carl and Ellie. These first five minutes make up for me one of Pixar's best scenes ever, and tell a better story than The Bookshop does in two hours. From there, the rest of the movie isn't quite as good, but how can it be? Everything sparkles, and the pacing does not fail (only wavers a little in the middle).

The themes and values I think aren't that hard to make out, but they're really different, and I don't know how well kids can connect to it. It's basically saying that happiness in life is achieved through enjoying life, not mourning over loss. There are more eloquent ways of saying this (like the entire film), but it's the basic message, and it's one of Pixar's more original ones. I really liked the symbolism incorporated in this film, and how Carl relates to each of the symbols on a personal level. This elevates the storytelling and the eventual impact of the themes of the film.

The visuals are really great, although not anything too special like Toy Story and Finding Nemo. But definitely no complaints. I really enjoyed the scenes where the house is in the sky, I thought they were really well done.

The music is great. 5/5. Maybe Pixar's best soundtrack ever, written by Michael Giacchino. The soundtrack revolves around one melody, representative of the relationship between Carl and Ellie. And for me, without the music, the opening scene in particular would not be what it is. And it is through the music that we are reminded of the beautiful life of Carl and Ellie, and how he can find happiness again... one of the best film scores in recent years, deserving of its Oscar for Best Score.

Overall, Up was really, really solid movie, made in an era where Pixar was releasing movies every year that were just so great. Although they haven't lived up to these movies in recent years, I can hardly blame them. The product of their work in the 2000s was outstanding, and Up is just one of the examples of the power of animation and kids movies in general... many times, I think, these movies have deeper and more powerful themes and values than a lot of adult crap today... So hats off to Pixar for once again producing a masterpiece.

Incredibly Loud and Extremely Close
Director: Stephen Daldry


Incredibly Loud and Extremely Close wasn't really a bad movie, and I didn't hate it. But I don't think it moved me as much as it should have, considering it's topic of 9/11. It more focuses on a traumatized kid who may be on the autism spectrum, and how this boy deals with his fears. So, to tell the truth, I wasn't really sure what it was about. Was it about 9/11 or understanding mental illnesses? Was it about dealing with your fears or remembering your loved ones? Accepting loss or letting it go? I had a lot of questions with this movies, and many I am still pondering.

This was a long movie... well, it felt long, even though it was only about two hours. And that's why I think it isn't the most re-watchable movie ever... it all builds up the final climax and final location of the key. But it's the journey that matters, the movie seems to say. Is the journey worth watching for two hours over again?

And, frankly, it wasn't that original, was it? Yes, it takes a new approach on 9/11, but it's the same sentimental message, and I began to realize the movie is basically saying the same thing that Up was saying- how to let go of loss and fears. But then again, Up was made before this movie, and I think it does a better job of not trying to weigh us down with forced moments.

The characters, on the other hand, were brilliantly well though out. Our protagonist, a boy who I think is on the autism spectrum, is a kid struggling with the loss of his father a year ago in 9/11. We see glimpses of what the father was like, and the mother is another complex and interesting character.

The acting was also phenomenal, especially the young kid, who did a fantastic job of portraying what trauma and possible autism might be like. Tom Hanks of course was amazing, and I really enjoyed Sandra Bullock as well.

Structurally, I wasn't quite convinced. Oskar is struggling with his identity and his father, and the whole story is just that. However, his rising actions aren't very well thought out. Instead, his strengthening of character is ruined by some of the last scenes, where he goes into one of his fits again. Although he shapes up by the end, I think that really destroys the structure the movie was creating for him.

The pacing I don't think was very good, but I think the film did a good job of showing what perhaps trauma or autism might be like, with loud noises and fast images, as well as odd trade-off scenes with long dialogue and then very fast imagery or information. Overall, it could have been better, but they pulled it off.

The themes and values are basically that of Up. At it's core, this story says that loss and pain can only be accepted through the release of that loss, and moving forward in life. It's a great theme, but sometimes I feel that the rudeness of the boy and his relationships with people can get in the way of it being presented in the way that Docter does.

The visuals and cinematography weren't anything too special, but not bad. Some of the moments with fast images and a lot of talking could be overload, but then again, I think that was the point.

Another meh for music. I didn't really hear anything, no real melody or leitmotif, certainly nothing we can connect to. Just some sad, sentimental music with no cohesiveness throughout. A bit disappointing.

Overall, there were some brilliant moments in this film, but I'm not sure how well it holds up. Sure, the emotional effect is strong, but if you dissect all the layers of the film, not only does a lot of the plot not make sense (who would let a random boy who's obviously mentally ill into their home and not call the police), but some of the pacing and structure-related things don't line up, making for an emotional experience, but nothing very thrilling.

Jack Frost
Director: Troy Miller


The Bookshop was sometimes a fun movie to laugh at. But Jack Frost is just plain deathly boring... It's one hour and forty minutes of no plot, no direction, no character development, really nothing going for it.

First of all, I will never re-watch this movie, it is so boring, stupid, and quite meaningless in message. I could hardly finish it, much less rewatch it.

One of the few decent things it has going for it is the originality of the idea. A dad dies and come to life in the form of snowman. Pretty original on paper... and they create this two hour slog with no good content.

How about it for the most boring screenplay possible? Everything is so scripted and forced, its like eating a piece of candy with 75 percent more sugar. It's so extra. They couldn't have had any original conversations rather than vague attempts at comedy (with no success)?

The characters aren't much better. We're given a semi-protagonist, the Dad, who's goal is to support his kid more. And then he dies... and the whole goal and conflict disappears even when he's re-incarnated. The one thing he does is go to his kid's hockey game, but by then it's not even really about him. The kid is another protagonist (possibly), but he has no real internal conflict, and his resolution is bad.

The acting is on par with the characters as well. The dad is so cringe-worthy, as is the mom. The boy's actually decent, but he too is a bit boring.

The structure is so bad, it's literally a nightmare. There's no clear plot line, development, characters, whatever. I get it, it's a family fun movie that we're not supposed to think about that kind of things. But how are we supposed to connect to it otherwise?

The pacing also sucks. The opening takes way too long with introducing the characters and then zooms past as the dad and son do all their adventures when he's a snowman. The resolution is short (thankfully), and the climax isn't really a climax. It's the dad leaving.

The theme basically is to accept loss, which makes it the third (and worst) movie I've watched in a row that deals with that. It definitely does it the worst, and I have no idea what the people were thinking with the Dad randomly at the end.

The visuals are boring and lame, nothing original done, just follows the faces and the scenes.

Not a single memorable melodic idea... Well, actually maybe one. I also really hated the music the Dad's band played.

Overall, I know this has been a pretty poorly-written review. But I don't have a lot of time, and I'm too lazy to write a decent review for a crap movie like this.

Abandon Ship!
Director: Richard Sale



For me, a film more than anything should be a combination of good story, good visuals, and good music... and the story only does one of those things pretty well, which is good story. So I struggled with this movie, but overall it wasn't that bad, and wasn't that good.

I really enjoyed the theme at the end of the film, which is more like a question of the morality of it. Was this murder or not murder? Was the captain guilty or not guilty? This really gets you thinking about the implications about what just happened.

I also really enjoyed the originality of the film. Although it was based off of a true story, I think the plot idea was highly original and very cool. The idea of putting strangers on a boat that might sink is basically a study in psychology, forseeing some of the moments in future cinema, such as the boat scene in The Dark Knight.

Although this film was very short, it was a bit of a drag. I think a lot of things could have been cut out, like the opening scene. But I may rewatch this if the time comes, because I think some of the context and foreshadowing could be spotted earlier on.

I also thought there were too many characters. We got the one main character and his wife/girlfriend... but really not much else. Most of the characters have one large moment of dialogue and then disappear for the rest of the film. I didn't really like this, and couldn't connect to any of the characters.

The script was very mediocre as well, there wasn't much originality. It was basically people waiting for other people to talk, which I wasn't too fond of. I wish something could have been added to spice things up.

Structurally, the thing is a bit of a mess. If there's any identifiable main conflict, it is more than halfway through, and the resolution happens so abruptly that the plot seems very shaky and breakable.

The acting also seemed very forced, which I didn't enjoy. Especially some of the secondary roles... they were so obviously acting, and it drove me a bit crazy. But some of the main leads were pretty good.

The pacing kind of went along with the structure, and my main problem was that conflict started over halfway through. We didn't need the opening scene or many of the dialogue scenes in the middle. Overall, I think it was pretty sloppy.

The visuals were okay, but nothing too amazing. However, I really liked scenes like the storm scene and the final scene, where the camera shows more than just the faces of the characters.

The music was pretty boring and bad, and there really wasn't much. So I didn't really like how it went along with the visuals.

Overall, this film had a really great idea with some very interesting questions. But in the end the execution didn't really work out, and I think they could have made better characters, plot, and other things to make the film work out better.