That's right, another slightly dated movie reviewed by yours truly. Only in the last year have I discovered the gangster-film genre, in the forms of Scorcese and Tarantino mostly, but they've already become some of my favourite movies. Enjoy the review!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s hard not to be expecting good things when you sit down to watch a movie that won an Oscar (best actor in a supporting role to Joe Pesci), along with another thirty-four awards and eighteen more nominations on top of that. Equally it’s hard not to be swayed by such a massive public opinion and critical acclaim. The key is of course to go into a film such as this with a clean slate and as little of an opinion to begin with, but even if I was trying to do this I admit that I was probably examining the film just a little more closely than I would on a general watch, looking out for what apparently made this piece of cinema so special.
After just a few minutes, the answers to that question just start jumping out at you. One of the key devices used in the narrative of the film is the constant narration from one of the lead characters, be it that of Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) or of his wife Karen (Lorraine Bracco). While this ‘internal monologue’ is hardly a new innovation in moviemaking technique, the way that it is split between the two characters is very clever. In this way, instead of being subjected to one point of view, we are subjected to two. From the start of the film we, as an audience, develop a bond with Liotta’s character, and our sympathies are directed toward him, whether he is committing acts of questionable legality, or being beaten on by his father. However, when the second layer of narration is introduced, we are provided with a whole different look on the events of the film, and it is that of an outsider. From Karen’s point of view, we can see the effect that Henry’s occupation is having on his family and on himself; something that he is blind to. Moreover, the fact that our sympathies are jumping between two main characters gives us a much more objective view on the conflicts that occur, and this is vital, as conflict is a major theme of the film.
On the subject of the themes behind the film, Goodfellas, being a gangster film by genre, also explores this occupation, or rather way of life, in a way that completely involves the audience. We can see very clearly the two distinct halves of the gangster lifestyle; the first, where being a gangster simply means being part of a family where you look out for everyone and everyone looks out for you, and when you’ve got a problem, there will always be people there to help you out, and the second half, which is the gritty underside. This is the half in which people are beaten to death, shot down and buried after a bumpy trip in the boot of a car. The fact that we see both the sides of the gangster’s life equally is key to the constant intensity and pressure that is always dwelling beneath the surface of the film’s storyline.
Much of said intensity is both embodied and radiates from the character of Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci). He is at once the fun guy everyone wants to hang around with, and one scary son of a bitch. The way in which he can flick between easygoing and lethal in an instant is spectacular, and is executed perfectly by Pesci. He serves as an onscreen reminder that every action committed has consequences, and in this way is more of an instrument of theatrical tension than a mere character.
Now, to talk somewhat about the cinematography of the piece. The direction by the acclaimed Martin Scorsese, the force behind Taxi Driver (1976) and later Casino (1995) and The Departed (2006) is something to behold. The action is swift in fast both from a micro perspective and a macro, narrative altering one. I could write an entire review based on that one famous tracking shot that descends across a street, between cars, down a couple of flights of stairs, through a kitchen full of people, and into a crowded restaurant in a single take, accompanied by lines from the actors. I don’t know how Scorsese managed to pull this trick off, but it worked beautifully. This one shot really immerses an audience, because it is here that we realize that the direction isn’t confining us to a simple set, but we are really spectators in a physical world that can be moved around and through as needed. The same, though to a lesser extent, can be said for the shot that slices through the restaurant the first time, when we are introduced to various minor characters who all nod their heads and greet us; this is cinema gold right here. The way that we as spectators are also enveloped into the story of the film is one of its greatest achievements.
Another couple of tricks used in the direction to masterful effect are audio bridges and freezeframes, which are micro devices since they do nothing to alter or advance the plot, but instead give the cinematography a polished, stylish feel to go with the depth of the internal narration we are provided with.
What I refer to by the ‘macro element’ is the way that the narrative can freely jump from one point in time to two, four, seven years later in the characters’ lives. Ordinarily this would leave a gaping vacuum in the story, but thanks to the strength of the actors in the film, this is a technique that can be pulled off in a slick way that doesn’t falter or stop the flow of the narrative at all.
It’s difficult to find negative aspects to Goodfellas, but you might say that the narrative, although nicely conducted, was oddly constructed. Apart from the introduction of the characters, nothing really happens in the entire first half of the film. It is only a good hour and a half in that events pick up with the robbery and the deaths, and even then it’s difficult to tell whether you’re watching the climax of the film or just still on the upwards climb.
To conclude, Goodfellas is both an excellent piece of cinema and a deeply involving study of true events in recent history. The seamless performances and revolutionary direction easily lives up to its reputation and stands the test of time, and it is easy to see why it is a movie that has influenced gangster and crime-based films well into the next decade.
My rating:
* * * *
(4/5 Stars)
- J. Boulton
Sunday, 26 December 2010
Wednesday, 22 December 2010
Opinion: The 'Alien' Films (1979 - 1997)
The quadrilogy of films consisting of 'Alien' (1979), 'Aliens' (1986), 'Alien 3' (1992) and 'Alien: Resurrection' (1997) is a well known set. It's got a cult following, with fans spread out across the world, and I am proud to say that I am one of them.
That's right, I love the 'Alien' franchise, but I can't deny that the quality of the films as you go along them seems to jump up and down like one of those things that measures people's heartrates. Whenever people ask my opinion on them, I tell them "Masterpiece, Excellent, Crap, 'Interesting'", in that order. Now that I've got a blog in which to go on about thing like this, I can go into detail with my opinion on the matter.
The first film, in 1979, was hailed as revolutionary, and rightly so. Ridley Scott here took two genres, horror and science-fiction, and blended them together in a way that nobody had seen done before. It had the shock factor, the blood-and-guts, the skin-crawling suspense throughout of a well designed horror-thriller, and yet it was all placed on a gritty backdrop of an industrial future in outer space. I describe 'Alien' as a masterpiece because of what it achieved and the imagination it showed, but the other reason for my praise is that God damn is that good film making. If you've got any appreciation at all for suspense in films, this is like the motherload. Right from the opening titles, the way they fade into view letter by letter, you already know what they're going to spell, but it keeps you waiting, on the edge of your seat, and that's what the entire film does. It had you waiting and waiting for that giant climax of action and bloodshed, and then it had you waiting a bit longer, and then it exploded the ship and you thought it was over, and then you waited some more... I digress, but the point was that you didn't mind the waiting, because of the atmosphere that Scott created, it was the waiting and the suspence that the audience got the enjoyment out of. 'Alien' was a incredibly intense film, and I stand firm in calling it a masterpiece.
Aliens (1986) brought James Cameron, and James Cameron brought guns. Lots of guns. The most hardcore fans of the prequel slated the new addition for completely going against everything that it stood for, the suspence, the build up. It was all exchanged for more shooting, shouting soldiers and a hundred or so more aliens. However, while the select group sulked in the corner and drew moustaches and silly hats on pictures of Cameron with a sharpie, the rest of us agreed that, while not exactly as revolutionary as the first film, 'Aliens' brought something new and enjoyable to the table. The way to look at this first addition to the franchise is that it takes the concept presented in the first film, which was a blend of horror and sci-fi genres, and puts a new spin on it, making it instead action and sci-fi. It's quite reasonable to want to consider what would happen if a group of soldiers were faced with multiple copies of the baddie that was so infamously hard to destroy in the first film. 'Aliens' also adds a little bit to the alien life cycle which was first presented in the original film, and develops the story of Ripley in a satisfying way with relative depth. I consider 'Aliens' an excellent film, because of these reasons and its sheer entertainment value.
Now, there were many factors that almost stopped 'Alien 3' from being released, but the picture pressed on through and hit the screens in '92. I really wish that hadn't happened. Let's see what's wrong with this picture. The filmakers make the foolhardy decision to kill off all three of the new characters that 'Aliens' spent so long allowing us to build a relationship with. These were people that we came to really care for, cheer for, and they kill them off. Wait! It gets better! In what manner, you may ask, are these characters killed off? I'll tell you. OFF SCREEN. That's right, they don't even merit a death scene. It's like the writers and director David Fincher just walked into the board room and said 'Okay, we see what you did here in the first two films. We think we can do it better. Let's kill off what you've done and start again!'. Following this outrage we recieve a drab setting in the form of what appears to be a holy prison (I don't even...), and then, for good measure, let's shave off all Sigourney Weaver's hair! WHY THE HELL NOT? And this is all before I even mention the crappy CGI 'dog alien' that hounds the characters throughout the film. They would have been better off using a bloody cardboard cutout than the graphics showcased in this film. Alien 3 is without doubt the low of the quadrilogy.
And thus we come to the questionmark that is 'Alien: Resurrection' (1997). It's a little bit abstract, a little bit artsy. By the end of it you're not really sure what the hell is going on, but even so it has some nice scenes, some solid action, and this acts as a reminder of the franchise's better times. The storyline, while unquestionably bizarre, does something new, yet again, with an old concept, and that's what made the second film good. The problem here is that 'Aliens' took the concept in a bold new direction by mixing in action. 'Resurrection' takes it in a wierd new direction by mixing in... something. Like a perverted artist's dreams, or something. If you're a fan of the Alien series, yeah, I'd say watch 'Resurrection' too, especially if you were able to stomach the third film with your love of the franchise still in tact. This movie should be a breeze.
Well, there you have it. I won't bother going into the 'AvP' films, at least not this time (suffice to say that they were "Good, Crap"), but there you have my humble opinions on all four of the films. If you haven't watched them, I would absolutely reccomend them. If you have, then so would you.
Thanks for reading.
That's right, I love the 'Alien' franchise, but I can't deny that the quality of the films as you go along them seems to jump up and down like one of those things that measures people's heartrates. Whenever people ask my opinion on them, I tell them "Masterpiece, Excellent, Crap, 'Interesting'", in that order. Now that I've got a blog in which to go on about thing like this, I can go into detail with my opinion on the matter.
The first film, in 1979, was hailed as revolutionary, and rightly so. Ridley Scott here took two genres, horror and science-fiction, and blended them together in a way that nobody had seen done before. It had the shock factor, the blood-and-guts, the skin-crawling suspense throughout of a well designed horror-thriller, and yet it was all placed on a gritty backdrop of an industrial future in outer space. I describe 'Alien' as a masterpiece because of what it achieved and the imagination it showed, but the other reason for my praise is that God damn is that good film making. If you've got any appreciation at all for suspense in films, this is like the motherload. Right from the opening titles, the way they fade into view letter by letter, you already know what they're going to spell, but it keeps you waiting, on the edge of your seat, and that's what the entire film does. It had you waiting and waiting for that giant climax of action and bloodshed, and then it had you waiting a bit longer, and then it exploded the ship and you thought it was over, and then you waited some more... I digress, but the point was that you didn't mind the waiting, because of the atmosphere that Scott created, it was the waiting and the suspence that the audience got the enjoyment out of. 'Alien' was a incredibly intense film, and I stand firm in calling it a masterpiece.
Aliens (1986) brought James Cameron, and James Cameron brought guns. Lots of guns. The most hardcore fans of the prequel slated the new addition for completely going against everything that it stood for, the suspence, the build up. It was all exchanged for more shooting, shouting soldiers and a hundred or so more aliens. However, while the select group sulked in the corner and drew moustaches and silly hats on pictures of Cameron with a sharpie, the rest of us agreed that, while not exactly as revolutionary as the first film, 'Aliens' brought something new and enjoyable to the table. The way to look at this first addition to the franchise is that it takes the concept presented in the first film, which was a blend of horror and sci-fi genres, and puts a new spin on it, making it instead action and sci-fi. It's quite reasonable to want to consider what would happen if a group of soldiers were faced with multiple copies of the baddie that was so infamously hard to destroy in the first film. 'Aliens' also adds a little bit to the alien life cycle which was first presented in the original film, and develops the story of Ripley in a satisfying way with relative depth. I consider 'Aliens' an excellent film, because of these reasons and its sheer entertainment value.
Now, there were many factors that almost stopped 'Alien 3' from being released, but the picture pressed on through and hit the screens in '92. I really wish that hadn't happened. Let's see what's wrong with this picture. The filmakers make the foolhardy decision to kill off all three of the new characters that 'Aliens' spent so long allowing us to build a relationship with. These were people that we came to really care for, cheer for, and they kill them off. Wait! It gets better! In what manner, you may ask, are these characters killed off? I'll tell you. OFF SCREEN. That's right, they don't even merit a death scene. It's like the writers and director David Fincher just walked into the board room and said 'Okay, we see what you did here in the first two films. We think we can do it better. Let's kill off what you've done and start again!'. Following this outrage we recieve a drab setting in the form of what appears to be a holy prison (I don't even...), and then, for good measure, let's shave off all Sigourney Weaver's hair! WHY THE HELL NOT? And this is all before I even mention the crappy CGI 'dog alien' that hounds the characters throughout the film. They would have been better off using a bloody cardboard cutout than the graphics showcased in this film. Alien 3 is without doubt the low of the quadrilogy.
And thus we come to the questionmark that is 'Alien: Resurrection' (1997). It's a little bit abstract, a little bit artsy. By the end of it you're not really sure what the hell is going on, but even so it has some nice scenes, some solid action, and this acts as a reminder of the franchise's better times. The storyline, while unquestionably bizarre, does something new, yet again, with an old concept, and that's what made the second film good. The problem here is that 'Aliens' took the concept in a bold new direction by mixing in action. 'Resurrection' takes it in a wierd new direction by mixing in... something. Like a perverted artist's dreams, or something. If you're a fan of the Alien series, yeah, I'd say watch 'Resurrection' too, especially if you were able to stomach the third film with your love of the franchise still in tact. This movie should be a breeze.
Well, there you have it. I won't bother going into the 'AvP' films, at least not this time (suffice to say that they were "Good, Crap"), but there you have my humble opinions on all four of the films. If you haven't watched them, I would absolutely reccomend them. If you have, then so would you.
Thanks for reading.
Sunday, 19 December 2010
News: 'Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides' (2011)
I'm very grateful to my good friend Daniel for pointing out yesterday the new trailer which has just hit Youtube for the fourth film in the massively popular film series 'Pirates of the Caribbean'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR_9A-cUEJc
I don't feel there's any need to explain the Pirates franchise, since it's just that massive that I've yet to meet anybody who hasn't seen at least one of the films (and, furthermore, to meet anyone who doesn't like them). I myself am I very big fan, and although I believe the films decended the entertainment scale as they progressed through the trilogy so far, I'm all for a fourth. This is for several reasons. Going from the trailer, and from general information that is now public knowledge, this film completely omits the characters of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swan (or is that Elizabeth Turner now? Did they ever get married, again?). I think this is a very good decision, as I feel their story had reached its natural and satisfying conclusion, and not to mention everybody knows that people go to see the POTC films for Captain Jack, not for them. So I take it that Disney is giving the people what they want with this film: more Jack. According to Oren Aviv, speaking on behalf of Disney, the film isn't going to be on the huge scale of the final of the trilogy, and will be less complex and revert back to the core interest, which is the characters themselves. On the subject of characters, I'm glad to see that Geoffrey Rush is back to reprise his role as Barbossa, since he was also one of my favourite characters of the first three, and the prospect of Blackbeard, the legendary pirate that is going to be portrayed by Ian McShane, is enough to draw me into the idea of the movie completely.
Even if that wasn't enough, the trailer (which, now that I've supplied you with a link, I'm sure you've watched and watched again) is simply amazing. It has the fights, the creepy villains, the lore, the explosions, and most importantly, an awful lot of Jack Sparrow.
Turning to IMDb for the best bits of trivia for you guys, this film is apparently going to lead into another trilogy, if all goes well, making the Pirates franchise a saga. I have very high expectations of this happening, considering the size of the fanbase and thus the ammount of people who will go out and watch these new movies. 'On Stranger Tides', however, is also the first of the Pirates film not to be directed by Gore Verbinski, and we'll have to wait and see how he does, though if he's smart he'll keep what we all know are the best bits, and lose the complicated plotlines that gave us three-hour headaches in the last film ("This is a Disney film, for God's sakes, how is a kid supposed to follow this?!"). Finally, as with all films these days, Tides is going to be filmed and released in 3D. And to round this thing off, I'm admittedly more excited about this release than the new Transformers coming next year (see previous post for more info).
Expect the fourth chapter in the Pirates franchise in cinemas in the UK for the 18th May 2011.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR_9A-cUEJc
I don't feel there's any need to explain the Pirates franchise, since it's just that massive that I've yet to meet anybody who hasn't seen at least one of the films (and, furthermore, to meet anyone who doesn't like them). I myself am I very big fan, and although I believe the films decended the entertainment scale as they progressed through the trilogy so far, I'm all for a fourth. This is for several reasons. Going from the trailer, and from general information that is now public knowledge, this film completely omits the characters of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swan (or is that Elizabeth Turner now? Did they ever get married, again?). I think this is a very good decision, as I feel their story had reached its natural and satisfying conclusion, and not to mention everybody knows that people go to see the POTC films for Captain Jack, not for them. So I take it that Disney is giving the people what they want with this film: more Jack. According to Oren Aviv, speaking on behalf of Disney, the film isn't going to be on the huge scale of the final of the trilogy, and will be less complex and revert back to the core interest, which is the characters themselves. On the subject of characters, I'm glad to see that Geoffrey Rush is back to reprise his role as Barbossa, since he was also one of my favourite characters of the first three, and the prospect of Blackbeard, the legendary pirate that is going to be portrayed by Ian McShane, is enough to draw me into the idea of the movie completely.
Even if that wasn't enough, the trailer (which, now that I've supplied you with a link, I'm sure you've watched and watched again) is simply amazing. It has the fights, the creepy villains, the lore, the explosions, and most importantly, an awful lot of Jack Sparrow.
Turning to IMDb for the best bits of trivia for you guys, this film is apparently going to lead into another trilogy, if all goes well, making the Pirates franchise a saga. I have very high expectations of this happening, considering the size of the fanbase and thus the ammount of people who will go out and watch these new movies. 'On Stranger Tides', however, is also the first of the Pirates film not to be directed by Gore Verbinski, and we'll have to wait and see how he does, though if he's smart he'll keep what we all know are the best bits, and lose the complicated plotlines that gave us three-hour headaches in the last film ("This is a Disney film, for God's sakes, how is a kid supposed to follow this?!"). Finally, as with all films these days, Tides is going to be filmed and released in 3D. And to round this thing off, I'm admittedly more excited about this release than the new Transformers coming next year (see previous post for more info).
Expect the fourth chapter in the Pirates franchise in cinemas in the UK for the 18th May 2011.
Saturday, 18 December 2010
News: 'Transformers: Dark of the Moon' (2011)
I found out recently that the next 'Transformers' movie is nearing completion, or rather is completed, and is going to be released in 2011. In case you haven't heard about it, this movie is going to be called 'Transformers: Dark of the Moon', and a teaser trailer can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H8bnKdf654
Now, a lot of people said that the second film was a drastic downhill turn from the first. Personally, I quite enjoyed it, although it was obvious that the story and character development from the first was being directly shunned in favour of cramming in as many fights and large-scale action scenes as possible. But that was fine with me, that's the reason I went to see the movie: giant robots blowing each other up! Who needs story when you've got that?
As for this new film, it's obviously hard to tell anything from this point, but IMDb has some fun facts!
Megan Fox has been fired from the cast, and replaced with one Rosie Huntington-Whitely, so we should expect mass public outcry about that. Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the screenplay writers for the first two films, are off the job this time, for reasons of schedule, and because they thought the franchise was at risk of 'getting stale'. This third installment in the series will be in 3D as well as 2D, due to the growing popularity of the former, though Michael Bay was apparently concerned with using what he thought was a 'gimmick'. Finally, the autobot characters are all experiencing an 'upgrade' in tech, which should be especially cool to see.
As we can see, there are various differences that might make this one a whole different ball game to the first two (especially the thing with the writer guys), but I'm holding out for a longer trailer before I form an opinion.
'Tranformers: Dark of the Moon' is scheduled to hit screens in the UK on the 29th of June 2011 (the day before somebody's birthday).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H8bnKdf654
Now, a lot of people said that the second film was a drastic downhill turn from the first. Personally, I quite enjoyed it, although it was obvious that the story and character development from the first was being directly shunned in favour of cramming in as many fights and large-scale action scenes as possible. But that was fine with me, that's the reason I went to see the movie: giant robots blowing each other up! Who needs story when you've got that?
As for this new film, it's obviously hard to tell anything from this point, but IMDb has some fun facts!
Megan Fox has been fired from the cast, and replaced with one Rosie Huntington-Whitely, so we should expect mass public outcry about that. Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the screenplay writers for the first two films, are off the job this time, for reasons of schedule, and because they thought the franchise was at risk of 'getting stale'. This third installment in the series will be in 3D as well as 2D, due to the growing popularity of the former, though Michael Bay was apparently concerned with using what he thought was a 'gimmick'. Finally, the autobot characters are all experiencing an 'upgrade' in tech, which should be especially cool to see.
As we can see, there are various differences that might make this one a whole different ball game to the first two (especially the thing with the writer guys), but I'm holding out for a longer trailer before I form an opinion.
'Tranformers: Dark of the Moon' is scheduled to hit screens in the UK on the 29th of June 2011 (the day before somebody's birthday).
Tuesday, 14 December 2010
Film Review: Nosferatu: eine Symphonie des Grauens (Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror) (1922)
The second part to double-feature review, and, surprise surprise, it's also vampire-themed! If you've seen Dracula, you may not have seen 'Nosferatu', or vice versa, so hopefully at least one of the two will give you something new to read about. Enjoy, and tomorrow I may be posting something other than a film review (though still film-based, of course).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Film Review: 'Nosferatu: Eine Symphonie des Grauens' (Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror')
‘Nosferatu’ is a black-and-white, silent film from Germany in 1922, but don’t let that put you off. It is also an interpretation of Bram Stoker’s renowned novel ‘Dracula’. Taking on such a popular and iconic story so soon after Germany’s hyperinflation crisis was definitely a risky and daunting task, but what was produced was a marvel of a film.
The important thing to know is that ‘Nosferatu’ is a greatly warped interpretation of the story. Whether it was because they couldn’t quite understand the book, or because of time and budget limitations, the film seems to merge the first and second halves of the book, and cuts certain characters completely. Curiously, it also adds on a section at the beginning which isn’t in the book. However, since the filmmakers are long gone by now, we can’t ask questions, only enjoy the film they left behind.
The first thing that a viewer notices as soon as the film starts is the music. Since there is no audible dialogue or sound effects, the music runs almost the entire way through the movie. I imagine that the music won’t be to all viewers’ liking, but in my opinion it definitely adds another dimension to the film. When it’s happy, it’s happy on a sinister level, and when it’s dark and dramatic, it slots right into any of the scenes.
Right from the word ‘go’, the differences between the acting styles of the now and then are painstakingly visible. Due to the lack of words, the entire cast is buzzing with the energy necessary to make a silent film interesting to watch. Jonathan Harker’s sometimes child-like enthusiasm makes him much more likable than he is even in the book.
Since the film starts in London and shows scenes such as the superstitious Transylvanian village, there is a good long build up to the appearance of the Nosferatu, or ‘Count Orlok’, as this incarnation is often referred to (though not in the actual film).
Max Schreck as the Count is, without question, the absolute highlight of the film. The performance he gives is iconic, every move he makes is chilling. Every scene he is in has you glued to the screen and every scene he isn’t in has the audience waiting with baited breath for the moment that he will appear again.
His blood-curdling performance is authenticated by the costuming department. His outfits are bizarre and show his terrifying form perfectly. The other costumes are also effective as of the time the story is set.
Most people are put off by the thought of ‘Nosferatu’ when told it is in black-and-white. In actuality, the lack of colour and poor picture quality enhances the realism of the motion picture. Of course, in the nineteenth century there was no method of filming whatsoever, but this was made in a time nearer to the actual one than we are now, and the viewer is able to trick themselves with relative ease into thinking that this is actual footage.
The down side to this black-and-white atmosphere is that, because of the lack of efficient cameras, there are no night-time sequences. This unfortunately detracts from the movie what it might have been, but it is nobody’s fault and couldn’t be helped. Luckily, the sheer excellence more than makes up for this drawback.
Part of this is due to the way the film is shot. Although the angles are standard throughout, and hardly adventurous, every now and then a shot is thrown in that sends chills up your spine. For example, the Count emerging from his coffin aboard the Demeter, or the iconic shadow shot of him ascending the stairs.
On the subject of shadows, the shadow effects are here done with much more effectiveness and efficiency than in certain other, more recent films I could name. What’s more, it does the effect without resorting to a projector.
Once Dracula boards the Demeter, the film unfortunately seems to lose its structure slightly. The scenes are less solidly fitted together and more elusively sewn in. Combine this with the aforementioned lack of colour and sound and the end result is that it takes quite some patience to watch ‘Nosferatu’ all the way through. If you can muster up this patience, though, you’ll be glad you did. This film is a treat to horror-enthusiasts and film-fanatics alike.
My rating:
* * * *
(4/5 Stars)
- J. Boulton
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Film Review: 'Nosferatu: Eine Symphonie des Grauens' (Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror')
‘Nosferatu’ is a black-and-white, silent film from Germany in 1922, but don’t let that put you off. It is also an interpretation of Bram Stoker’s renowned novel ‘Dracula’. Taking on such a popular and iconic story so soon after Germany’s hyperinflation crisis was definitely a risky and daunting task, but what was produced was a marvel of a film.
The important thing to know is that ‘Nosferatu’ is a greatly warped interpretation of the story. Whether it was because they couldn’t quite understand the book, or because of time and budget limitations, the film seems to merge the first and second halves of the book, and cuts certain characters completely. Curiously, it also adds on a section at the beginning which isn’t in the book. However, since the filmmakers are long gone by now, we can’t ask questions, only enjoy the film they left behind.
The first thing that a viewer notices as soon as the film starts is the music. Since there is no audible dialogue or sound effects, the music runs almost the entire way through the movie. I imagine that the music won’t be to all viewers’ liking, but in my opinion it definitely adds another dimension to the film. When it’s happy, it’s happy on a sinister level, and when it’s dark and dramatic, it slots right into any of the scenes.
Right from the word ‘go’, the differences between the acting styles of the now and then are painstakingly visible. Due to the lack of words, the entire cast is buzzing with the energy necessary to make a silent film interesting to watch. Jonathan Harker’s sometimes child-like enthusiasm makes him much more likable than he is even in the book.
Since the film starts in London and shows scenes such as the superstitious Transylvanian village, there is a good long build up to the appearance of the Nosferatu, or ‘Count Orlok’, as this incarnation is often referred to (though not in the actual film).
Max Schreck as the Count is, without question, the absolute highlight of the film. The performance he gives is iconic, every move he makes is chilling. Every scene he is in has you glued to the screen and every scene he isn’t in has the audience waiting with baited breath for the moment that he will appear again.
His blood-curdling performance is authenticated by the costuming department. His outfits are bizarre and show his terrifying form perfectly. The other costumes are also effective as of the time the story is set.
Most people are put off by the thought of ‘Nosferatu’ when told it is in black-and-white. In actuality, the lack of colour and poor picture quality enhances the realism of the motion picture. Of course, in the nineteenth century there was no method of filming whatsoever, but this was made in a time nearer to the actual one than we are now, and the viewer is able to trick themselves with relative ease into thinking that this is actual footage.
The down side to this black-and-white atmosphere is that, because of the lack of efficient cameras, there are no night-time sequences. This unfortunately detracts from the movie what it might have been, but it is nobody’s fault and couldn’t be helped. Luckily, the sheer excellence more than makes up for this drawback.
Part of this is due to the way the film is shot. Although the angles are standard throughout, and hardly adventurous, every now and then a shot is thrown in that sends chills up your spine. For example, the Count emerging from his coffin aboard the Demeter, or the iconic shadow shot of him ascending the stairs.
On the subject of shadows, the shadow effects are here done with much more effectiveness and efficiency than in certain other, more recent films I could name. What’s more, it does the effect without resorting to a projector.
Once Dracula boards the Demeter, the film unfortunately seems to lose its structure slightly. The scenes are less solidly fitted together and more elusively sewn in. Combine this with the aforementioned lack of colour and sound and the end result is that it takes quite some patience to watch ‘Nosferatu’ all the way through. If you can muster up this patience, though, you’ll be glad you did. This film is a treat to horror-enthusiasts and film-fanatics alike.
My rating:
* * * *
(4/5 Stars)
- J. Boulton
Monday, 13 December 2010
Film Review: Dracula (1992)
Ah, here we are! My first entry, and what better way to start it than with the first review that I both began and completed?
I watched the film 'Dracula' at college during our time in English Language Literature studying the Bram Stoker novel of the same title. The review kind of goes hand-in-hand with the second one that I will post, but there's not much else I can say right now without spoiling what follows. So! Enjoy, and I'll post another review soon!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Film Review: 'Dracula' (1992)
‘Dracula’ (1992) is an award-winning, bare-boned attempt to show an interpretation of Bram Stoker’s legendary nineteenth century gothic novel. Whereas other Dracula-based films seem to use the novel as a basis for their own vampiric stories, this particular rendition is a cover-to-cover summary. It is also an abysmal film.
To start on a positive note, the sets used in the film were quite impressive. The darkness of Dracula’s castle and the snowy wastelands of Transylvania could have been taken right out of the book, and the film presented an acceptable look for the streets of Victorian London. I sincerely hope that this film has not damaged the career of the set-designer too badly, as he or she was one of the few people who managed to do their job properly in this movie.
The film opens with a backstory of Dracula’s ‘previous life’ which comes in the form of a typical, greek tragedy-esque flashback. Simplicity is not a problem in this sequence, however. The problem is that Dracula’s armour looks like it was bought from the Early Learning Centre. Although this shouldn’t have made a huge impact, it was certainly distracting during the dialogue (and the following enraged screaming that, try as I might, I couldn’t take seriously).
Gary Oldman’s screeching at the heavens, however, is nothing compared to Keanu Reeves’ cringeworthy portrayal of Jonathan Harker. Every time the man came into the shot I felt like I wanted to projectile-vomit blood like Lucy (we’ll come to that later). Reeves’ acting, if you could call it that, was as wooden as a coffin and had less depth. His English accent physically hurt me inside.
Acting alongside Reeves in the first few scenes of the film was Gary Oldman as Count Dracula. Now, I am personally a fan of Oldman’s work, and in my opinion he managed to bring at least a smidge of dignity to the film (he even won a Saturn Award for his portrayal of the title character). This goes especially for the old and withered version of the character, as when playing this he was actually creepy and disturbing to watch, but in a good way that was intended for the character in the book. Although his hair looked like cleavage, the costume design here was also effective, and the effect of him scuttling across the sheer surface of the castle wall was altogether both unsettling and delightful.
Now, on to Lucy. Perhaps that is a poor choice of words, as most if not all of the characters in the film seemed to be ‘on to’ Lucy at one point or another. The writers butchered the character, making her a two-dimensional airhead, and Sadie Frost’s whiney portrayal of her was the final nail in the coffin that sealed her complete unlikability.
Realism was a serious issue in this film, or rather the lack of it. Of course, I don’t mean the fact that there were giant bat-people jumping around. What I mean is that within the context the story is set in it is completely unrealistic. For example, the female characters were wearing dresses that showed almost the entirety of their chests. If they tried to do that in the real Victorian England, they’d most likely be locked away.
The unrealism strikes again with the scene in which the newly vampiric Lucy projects a jet of blood from her mouth to cover Van Helsing. I can only presume that this was an attempt to shock viewers since the themes of Dracula that shocked Victorian readers would no longer have an effect on the audience of today. However, this felt misguided and unnecessary and, along with Lucy’s demonic writhing, had me fooled into thinking I was watching a parody of ‘The Exorcist’.
Whilst I disapproved of this effect, some of the other effects in the film were admittedly impressive, such as the pyrotechnics and the effect of Dracula turning into a mound of rats (the rats were also better actors than Keanu Reeves). One of the most prominent effects ran through out the film – the projection of fluid shadows onto the set that move separately from the actors. I could see what they were trying to achieve with this effect, and it was a sound idea. The achieved result, however, was distracting and looked shoddy and ineffective.
A positive aspect of the film is that it pretty much summarises the book. If you’d never read the original novel, by watching the film you’d get at least a rough idea of what happens in it.
However, one of the biggest things that put me off the film was the absence of the relationships between the characters which made the book so involving. The sense of togetherness, support and determination that was supposed to shine from the group of Van Helsing, Harker, Godalming and Morris, was completely missing. This drained all sense of sympathy the audience may have had for the characters. When R.M. Renfield, played by Tom Waits, is a more engaging and interesting character than Van Helsing, you know something is amiss.
To top off all of this, the film had severe continuity issues: Jonathan Harker’s hair changed from grey to black; the sun went from just setting to mid-day. If the film makers cannot sort out such trivial things as these, it is no surprise that their attempt at adapting one of the most legendary horrors of all time was altogether abysmal.
My Rating:
* *
(2/5 Stars)
- J. Boulton
I watched the film 'Dracula' at college during our time in English Language Literature studying the Bram Stoker novel of the same title. The review kind of goes hand-in-hand with the second one that I will post, but there's not much else I can say right now without spoiling what follows. So! Enjoy, and I'll post another review soon!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Film Review: 'Dracula' (1992)
‘Dracula’ (1992) is an award-winning, bare-boned attempt to show an interpretation of Bram Stoker’s legendary nineteenth century gothic novel. Whereas other Dracula-based films seem to use the novel as a basis for their own vampiric stories, this particular rendition is a cover-to-cover summary. It is also an abysmal film.
To start on a positive note, the sets used in the film were quite impressive. The darkness of Dracula’s castle and the snowy wastelands of Transylvania could have been taken right out of the book, and the film presented an acceptable look for the streets of Victorian London. I sincerely hope that this film has not damaged the career of the set-designer too badly, as he or she was one of the few people who managed to do their job properly in this movie.
The film opens with a backstory of Dracula’s ‘previous life’ which comes in the form of a typical, greek tragedy-esque flashback. Simplicity is not a problem in this sequence, however. The problem is that Dracula’s armour looks like it was bought from the Early Learning Centre. Although this shouldn’t have made a huge impact, it was certainly distracting during the dialogue (and the following enraged screaming that, try as I might, I couldn’t take seriously).
Gary Oldman’s screeching at the heavens, however, is nothing compared to Keanu Reeves’ cringeworthy portrayal of Jonathan Harker. Every time the man came into the shot I felt like I wanted to projectile-vomit blood like Lucy (we’ll come to that later). Reeves’ acting, if you could call it that, was as wooden as a coffin and had less depth. His English accent physically hurt me inside.
Acting alongside Reeves in the first few scenes of the film was Gary Oldman as Count Dracula. Now, I am personally a fan of Oldman’s work, and in my opinion he managed to bring at least a smidge of dignity to the film (he even won a Saturn Award for his portrayal of the title character). This goes especially for the old and withered version of the character, as when playing this he was actually creepy and disturbing to watch, but in a good way that was intended for the character in the book. Although his hair looked like cleavage, the costume design here was also effective, and the effect of him scuttling across the sheer surface of the castle wall was altogether both unsettling and delightful.
Now, on to Lucy. Perhaps that is a poor choice of words, as most if not all of the characters in the film seemed to be ‘on to’ Lucy at one point or another. The writers butchered the character, making her a two-dimensional airhead, and Sadie Frost’s whiney portrayal of her was the final nail in the coffin that sealed her complete unlikability.
Realism was a serious issue in this film, or rather the lack of it. Of course, I don’t mean the fact that there were giant bat-people jumping around. What I mean is that within the context the story is set in it is completely unrealistic. For example, the female characters were wearing dresses that showed almost the entirety of their chests. If they tried to do that in the real Victorian England, they’d most likely be locked away.
The unrealism strikes again with the scene in which the newly vampiric Lucy projects a jet of blood from her mouth to cover Van Helsing. I can only presume that this was an attempt to shock viewers since the themes of Dracula that shocked Victorian readers would no longer have an effect on the audience of today. However, this felt misguided and unnecessary and, along with Lucy’s demonic writhing, had me fooled into thinking I was watching a parody of ‘The Exorcist’.
Whilst I disapproved of this effect, some of the other effects in the film were admittedly impressive, such as the pyrotechnics and the effect of Dracula turning into a mound of rats (the rats were also better actors than Keanu Reeves). One of the most prominent effects ran through out the film – the projection of fluid shadows onto the set that move separately from the actors. I could see what they were trying to achieve with this effect, and it was a sound idea. The achieved result, however, was distracting and looked shoddy and ineffective.
A positive aspect of the film is that it pretty much summarises the book. If you’d never read the original novel, by watching the film you’d get at least a rough idea of what happens in it.
However, one of the biggest things that put me off the film was the absence of the relationships between the characters which made the book so involving. The sense of togetherness, support and determination that was supposed to shine from the group of Van Helsing, Harker, Godalming and Morris, was completely missing. This drained all sense of sympathy the audience may have had for the characters. When R.M. Renfield, played by Tom Waits, is a more engaging and interesting character than Van Helsing, you know something is amiss.
To top off all of this, the film had severe continuity issues: Jonathan Harker’s hair changed from grey to black; the sun went from just setting to mid-day. If the film makers cannot sort out such trivial things as these, it is no surprise that their attempt at adapting one of the most legendary horrors of all time was altogether abysmal.
My Rating:
* *
(2/5 Stars)
- J. Boulton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)