Gravity (2013) Review

Purchase from Amazon: DVD - Blu-Ray Pros: +Stunning visuals/cinematography +Great use of setting +Good use of sound and silence +Thrilling +Well crafted +Good acting Cons: -Too much use of music/dialogue -Sentimentality occasionally feels overdone -Holds the viewer's hand a bit  Other films by Alfonso Cuaron: And Your Mother Too, Children of Men Similar films: Moon, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Silent Running, The Tree of Life

Director: Alfonso Cuarón Stars: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney Genre: Science Fiction, Thriller Veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski and newbie Dr. Ryan Stone are on a space shuttle mission in the orbit of Earth when unexpected debris from an exploded satellite causes them more trouble than they asked for. Trapped in space with oxygen running low, they must find a means of getting back to Earth. The concept is very straight-forward. It's narrative is very linear and to-the-point, but its execution is something else entirely. The entire film takes place in space and features only two characters, but the distant Earth is constantly present in the background and in the characters' minds that it almost feels like an unreachable second setting and space plays so active a role that it almost feels like a third character in and of itself. And man, does this film utilize its setting well. James Cameron called it "the best space film ever done" and I might just agree with him. Ultra wide shots (the film only used wide angle lenses) and multiple long takes help convey the vastness and solitude of space. Even the 3D did well to add an extra sense of depth to the massive abyss. On the other hand, great use of POV shots and extreme close-ups help to put you in the shoes of the main character. You will often feel as dizzy and disoriented as the main character (not that space even has an inherent orient), you'll feel the same helplessness, desperation, and even lack of breath. Space is alive in its nothingness, active in its indifference. "I hate space," Sandra Bullock's character mumbles at one point. Gravity shows us emotional people reacting to an unfeeling void. Space is a constant source of danger and suspense. The tension in this film is crazy. It's edge-of-your-seat stuff. The idea of losing grip and drifting away into space with no control over your movement is such a scary thought, both physically and psychologically, and the film knows this. It at times has as unnerving of an atmosphere as a horror film might. As a thriller it is certainly incredibly thrilling.  There's some good use of sound, but more importantly, great contrasting use of silence. The silence of course reinforces the massiveness and desolation of space. There is a musical score, done by Steven Price, and while the score itself is fine, it's certainly no rival to the silence. As the director has said, "There's no sound in space, but there's music in movies." That is of course true, and of course music is used to build tension or help convey the emotions of a scene, but I would have liked to have seen less music and more silence, as I feel that the silence is one of Gravity's best tools, far more valuable and effective than the music.  There was also, I felt, too much dialogue. For a film largely about one person floating through space, you'd expect less. Some of it is perfectly warranted, like transmitting "in the blind" to Mission Control in hopes they'll receive the message, and even Sandra Bullock's character talking to herself felt natural most of the time as she was established as a very solitary person, so it's completely believable that she'd occasionally murmur a thing or two to herself. Still though, there could have been less talking and, again, more use of space's inherent silence. A lot of the dialogue felt unnecessary. There's also a lot of sentimentality in here (the scene with Bullock's character and the Chinese guy on the radio was terribly unenjoyable). Again, a lot of it is warranted, especially if you view the film as an allegory for grieving and rebirth, but some of it felt overdone or unnecessary. The film does hold your hand a little bit. Only a little though. Sandra Bullock will talk to herself just to remind the audience that there's satellite debris hurling towards her. Even the beginning of the film felt the need to inform the viewer that there is no sound in space because there is no air for the vibrations to travel through. As if anyone over 12 isn't aware of such a common scientific fact. But we should be thankful that Gravity didn't end up being a typical Hollywood blockbuster, which it very well could have been. The two characters could have easily fallen into numerous romance conventions, scenes taking place on Earth could have easily been implemented, more characters added, etc. Luckily director Alfonso Cuarón is of much more talent than that. Another behind-the-scenes talent is cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki. He's worked on many of Cuarón's previous works as well as many of Terrence Malick's films (including The Tree of Life which not only has equally beautiful cinematography as Gravity but curiously deals with many of the same themes as well). As if you couldn't already guess, the cinematography here is amazing and Lubezki, along with Cuarón, undoubtedly played a major part in making the film as stunning as it is. The engulfing blackness is humbling, the distant stars beautiful, and the massive Earth jaw-dropping. In front of the camera Sandra Bullock and George Clooney do a fine job as well. Bullock carries the film, being the only character on-screen for the majority of the film. I haven't seen many Bullock films, but it wouldn't surprise me if this is one of the best performances of her career. Clooney has a less frequent role, playing a character we're all familiar with from Clooney: laid-back and suave. While this is definitely Bullock's movie, Clooney adds a welcomed dimension to the film, contrasting Bullock's character with his likable, calm, and humorous personality. The two are, for movie stars, fairly convincing astronauts (the director didn't allow them to wear any make-up, which adds a bit of realism to their appearances). Like the other big Mexican film director Guillermo del Toro, who, with Pacific Rim earlier this year, made the film he would have wanted to watch as a child, a film which relies on stunning visuals that just weren't possible no more than 15 years ago; Alfonso Cuarón, quoted as saying that he made the film that he would have loved to see when he was young, achieved very much the same thing with Gravity. Gravity is a technical masterpiece, a milestone in special effects, and just completely awe-inspiring and stunning. Much like Pacific Rim. And Gravity does, at times, feel like a mindless special effects roller coaster thrill ride, being little more than a demonstration of technical ability. But there is more to Gravity than that. In movies every shot serves a purpose, every scene a motive, and every word a meaning. If you care enough to watch closely it's nearly impossible to miss the clear depth, symbolism, and metaphor that the director crafted. [Spoilers in this paragraph:] Dr. Ryan Stone is mourning her daughter; she takes escape to its utmost extreme: she literally leaves Earth. In this orbit she experiences a rebirth. She often accepts death, whether it be from the debris flying towards her or the seemingly impossible task of getting back down to Earth; she has nothing to live for. But gravity pulls and Dr. Stone must fall before she can get back up (get it? Stone? Ha!). There was always a reason for her to live, for her to try and survive, and it was always there tugging at her, she just had to realize it. She had to allow gravity to do its job. Allow herself to be pulled back down to Earth, back down to reality, back down to solid ground. This is her rebirth, her umbilical cord-like tether has been cut and she must find herself alone. And when she gets back to Earth and finally reaches land for the first time in the entire film, something she can finally plant her feet on, she nearly falls back down while trying to get up (remember, she just spent the whole film floating in zero gravity and swimming. Walking is a foreign concept to her body.) "No, not this time," she says, her face nearly hitting the sand, and rises to her feet. She's done falling. Gravity doesn't need to pull her back down anymore, she's already grounded, all she has to do is stand up. There's even more subtle, less meaningful things you may have missed in the film. For example, in the Russian space station there's chess pieces flying around and in the Chinese space station there's a ping pong paddle floating around. There's some other light-hearted moments like this throughout the film, and some not so light-hearted, but I'll leave them for you to find on your own. In conclusion, Gravity is an amazing visual spectacle but it proves that that's not all it is. It is genius in its minimalism and thrilling in its execution. It is one of the greatest films of the year, and will likely prove to be one of the greatest of all-time. Arguably Cuarón's best work to date and a worthwhile experience for any lover of cinema.

Killer's Kiss (1955) Review

Director: Stanley Kubrick
Stars: Frank Silvera, Jamie Smith, Irene Kane
Genre: Thriller, Film Noir

Killer's Kiss is a very early film by Stanley Kubrick, and probably the first in his filmography that I'd consider to be a good film (his previous efforts had to this point only been some short documentaries and a very mediocre Fear and Desire, of which Killer's Kiss is much of an improvement over).

The story concerns a boy, a girl, and love. But standing in-between boy and girl is a jealous and dangerous man of whom the girl used to work for. Boy and girl want nothing more than to be happily together, but can they overcome the necessary obstacles?

It's a very standard plot and a very standard love story with, as you may expect, a very standard ending (against Kubrick's original wishes). It is, all in all, an extremely conventional film. Kubrick's directing hints at the genius he would become, but at this point it was still very amateurish and crude.

Kubrick captures some very nice city visuals and the popular noir style of the time is implemented here which makes the film look very nice. As Kubrick himself had said: "While Fear and Desire had been a serious effort ineptly done, Killer's Kiss proved, I think, to be a frivolous effort done with conceivably more expertise, though still down in the student level of film-making."

The acting is, as with most facets if the film, very amateur. It's not terrible by any means, but it's only decent at its best. Should also be noted that the film was recorded with no audio and all the sounds and dialogue were later recorded in a studio and dubbed in (a very torturous process according to the actors). The dubbing isn't done bad, it's done well enough, though it is occasionally noticeable and it definitely doesn't help the already amateurish acting.

There's not much to say about Killer's Kiss. It runs for just over an hour and it's a solid noir film that would have been forgotten had it not been for its director. Can only really recommend this to Kubrick fans; it's definitely not a bad film but it's only barely a good one and nothing as amazing as Kubrick's later films.

Purchase Killer's Kiss on Amazon: DVD - Stream

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974) Review

Director: Joseph Sargent
Stars: Walter Matthau, Jerry Stiller, Dick O'Neill, Robert Shaw, Martin Balsam
Genre: Thriller, Crime

As far as 70s crime thrillers go, The Taking of Pelham 123 is one of the finest.

Set in 70s New York City the story follows a group of hijackers who hold a train hostage and threaten to kill the passengers if they aren't paid one million dollars. But there's still one thing that everyone can't figure out: what's their escape plan?

First off I have to say that one thing I love about this film is its setting. It nicely captures New York at the time; the way it looked, the types of people. It's great. Maybe I appreciate it more since I'm from New York (though I wasn't born until two decades after this film), so I recognize many of the subway stops and street names.

The plot is pretty good. It surely made subway-takers even more terrified of the subway then they already were. It definitely took a new angle on subway trains. The movie isn't action packed, but it doesn't feel slow. There's a lot of suspense and build-up and most of it is very effective. The only real complaint I had was that the hijacker's escape plan was pretty disappointing. It wasn't really clever, or crazy, or impressive. It just was.

The cast is pretty awesome too. You have Walter Matthau sort of playing the film's protagonist, Dick O'Neill, and Jerry Stiller of Seinfeld and King of Queens fame (Stiller really is fond of New York, isn't he?). Robert Shaw, who fans of Jaws will recognize as Quint the fisherman, played Mr. Blue. Martin Balsam, whom any film-goer will recognize from somewhere, played Mr. Green.

The writing is great, it has plenty of cheesy one-liners (many of them very clever) but it also has some really fantastic dialogue, which is great being that most of the film is about hijackers giving demands through a radio.

The ending, I won't spoil, is ridiculous, hilarious, totally predictable, but it works. The last frame cracks me up every time.

There's not much more I can say about The Taking of Pelham 123. It's enjoyable to watch and it captures its setting so well. Has its hilarious points and its suspenseful ones. Worth the watch. 

Recommended for: Fans of any cast/crew, fans of 70s thrillers, New Yorkers

Purchase The Taking of Pelham 123 on Amazon: Blu-Ray - DVD

Death Proof (2007) Review

Part of Merry Christmas and Happy Tarantino Month! 

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Stars: Kurt Russell, Rose McGowan, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Zoe Bell, Rosario Dawson
Genre: Action, Thriller, Exploitation

One half of the Rodriquez-Tarantino double-feature, Grindhouse. The other half being Rodriquez's Planet Terror. Tarantino has been quoted saying that this is the worst film he's ever made. Well, it sure ain't that bad for his worst.

The premise is simple. There's a guy named Stuntman Mike (Russell) and he likes to crash his "death proof" car into cars that are driven by beautiful women and, in some cases, kill them. It's essentially a slasher plot.

This film was intentionally made to resemble the '70s grindhouse B-movies, both in plot and in style. In that sense the film is successful. Intentional damage was done to the film to achieve the worn look of many exploitation films and there's numerous jump-cuts and audio cut-outs that all add to the film's great style.

The film has its slower talky moments and it also has its contrasting action scenes.

The action scenes are great. Zoe Bell (who also has a large role in the film) served as the main stunt performer. [Fun fact: Zoe Bell was also Uma Thurman's stunt double in Kill Bill.] The car scenes are great and this film has one of the coolest chase scenes you'll ever see. The first crash scene is awesomely detailed and replayed from numerous angles. There could have been a lot more action though. It's nearly a two hour film and the action goes like this: short (but awesome) car crash in the first half of the film, girl driving around on the hood of a car for a few minutes in the second half of the film, great chase scene in the last ten minutes of the film. So most of the film is without action, which wouldn't usually be a problem except...

...The slow scenes in Death Proof pretty much suck. Well, maybe that's not completely fair. Much of the first half of the film was very enjoyable (with the first batch of girls). The first half also had better characters (in my opinion, though most of the characters were pretty awful) and features one of the greatest lap-dance scenes ever put to film. So the first half, in the bar, was pretty good. But Tarantino, a man known for his dialogue and skill in crafting slow long-take scenes, really failed to bring great dialogue or scenes. The scene where those four girls are in a diner eating (the camera spinning around the table like in Reservoir Dogs) is one of the worst scenes I've ever watched (I will admit there was one cool line: "You know what happens to motherfuckers who carry knives? They get shot!").

Allow me to make one thing clear: nearly every scene with Kurt Russell is five star material. He's great in here and he really carries the film. His dialogue is very well written and him as a character is very interesting. Unfortunately there's not much of Russell in here. He really only appears during the action scenes. I also didn't like how he became a whiny bitch in the second half, but whatever.

So the dialogue goes like this: In the first half it's pretty good (though far from Tarantino's best), in the second half it's sometimes decent but mostly mediocre, and anything that comes out of Kurt Russell's mouth is gold.

I definitely liked the first half better than the second half. The only good part in the second half is the action scenes towards the end. I didn't really have a problem with the ending, it was okay.

The cast here is pretty great as are the performances. Obviously Kurt Russell steals the show. Rose McGowan has a nice small role (who was also in Planet Terror and whom I have had a cinematic crush on ever since The Doom Generation). Eli Roth makes a cameo, who I don't mind at all as a person but I just for some reason really hate his face and acting. Zoe Bell, who isn't an actress, did a surprisingly good performance. There's plenty of beautiful girls in here (Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Rosario Dawson, Vanessa Ferlito, Sydney Tamiia Poitier, Tracie Thoms, Jordan Ladd). I should also note that Mary Elizabeth Winstead is at her prettiest in here. Quentin himself also makes a cameo.

The soundtrack is awesome, none of it original. My favorite track being April March's "Chick Habit" which plays during the end credits.

Watch Death Proof if you're a fan of exploitation or a fan of Tarantino or Kurt Russell. You'll definitely enjoy it. There was some missed opportunity and some things were just surprisingly mediocre, but all in all not a bad film.

Purchase Death Proof on Amazon: Blu-Ray - DVD - Stream

The Bride Wore Black (1968) Review

Director: Francois Truffaut
Stars: Jeanne Moreau, Michel Bouquet, Jean-Claude Brialy
Genre: Thriller, French New Wave

The Bride Wore Black is...an interesting film. It does a few things right, a few things wrong, and it's directed by the legendary Francois Truffaut.

It's about a bride who seeks revenge on the murderers who killed her husband on their wedding day. (Kill Bill much?)

She hunts down these men and kills them...which is cool, the only problem is that she kills them in extremely mundane ways. Pushing people off ledges and poisoning their drinks is not interesting. Maybe the film tried not to be very violent? But it would have benefited, because the entire film has a gritty, merciless feel to it. It's just boring deaths that are very unimaginative and anti-climatic. 

Jeanne Moreau, a very popular actress, really doesn't do a great job here. She plays a very unemotional, boring, detached character. I get that that's what they were going for, being that since she lost her husband she has no reason to live other than for revenge. It's just such a boring performance and you can't relate to her at all let alone sympathize with her revenge. She fails to be relatable or intimidating, which in turn makes it look like just really bad acting. 

Also the reason that the husband was shot, I won't spoil anything, was very random and dumb, and definitely not engaging at all.

I did think that the ending was really well done and the soundtrack was good. I also thought the film was pretty well written, with some really awesome dialogue. Unfortunately this wasn't enough to carry the film beyond anything more than okay. Also, the film's title is really cool.

This is definitely not Truffaut's best film, he has directed some amazing films but The Bride Wore Black is not one of them. Indeed even Truffaut himself says he doesn't like this film and blames his cinematographer for the film, Raoul Coutard, for the undesired outcome.

I think the only thing good that has come out of this film is the amazing song by Kate Bush, "The Wedding List", which was based on the plot of The Bride Wore Black.

It's an alright film. I can only barely recommend it though, especially since it's running time is slightly above average length. It's not terrible, but watch at your own risk.

Purchase The Bride Wore Black on Amazon: DVD - VHS

Thriller: A Cruel Picture (1974) Review

Director: Bo Arne Vibenius
Stars: Christina Lindberg, Heinz Hopf
Genre: Thriller, Exploitation, Rape and Revenge
Also known as: They Call Her One Eye

Thriller: A Cruel Picture is hardcore. How hardcore? Well let's see. A real corpse was used for an eyeball gouging scene, real live ammunition was used, saline solution was injected in place of heroin, there's a load of hardcore pornography sequences. To top it off, it was later revealed that the film's producers had taken out a huge life insurance policy on the lead actress during filming. So they were pretty much just expecting someone to actually die in this movie.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is exploitation rape and revenge at its utmost finest.

It's about a woman, Madeleine, who was sexually assaulted when she was a very young girl and ever since then has been unable to talk, i.e., she's a mute. She grows up and ends up being drugged by a man and he gets her addicted to heroin and forces her into prostitution. Madeleine slowly learns how to fight, drive, and use guns, so she can take her revenge on those who did her wrong.

Christina Lindberg plays a silent girl, who looks like she's 16 but the actress was 24 when this was released, and she does a wonderful job. The character of Madeleine blurs the line between little girl and badass. She may seem small, weak, helpless, but at other times seem awesome, crazy, unstoppable. She utters not a single word the entire film, but she doesn't need to, her appearance and performance say enough.

Real ammunition was used, which makes the film all the more scary. Though it is nice to see an almost entirely accurate portrayal of firearms, unlike many other films. The sex here is very graphic. You see penis, vagina, there's anal, lesbian, creampies, all of it. In Sweden, at the time, there was a very liberal pornographic trend going on and this film intended to capitalize on it. Stuff like this in a film is rarely ever seen outside the pornography genre. It definitely adds the the disturbing terror of this film. With all the sex, violence, death, drugs, etc., Thriller: A Cruel Picture isn't for the light of heart.

The film is very silent, like our main character. The second half of the film is very light on the dialogue and there isn't much of a score. When there is music playing it is very minimalistic and has a very ambient electronic sound that actually works great. But most of the time the film opts to let us hear natural sounds, such as moans or gunshots or whatever it may be, rather than music. Which I love.

The cinematography is fantastic, especially for an exploitation film. There's some really awesome shots and camera angles and, oddly enough, it is a very visually pleasing film. There's a lot of first person POV shots that involve the viewer in the film and at certain times a character will look directly at the camera whilst talking, which makes for a very chilling and moving experience. All the locations are great, whether it be an autumn field covered in yellow and orange leaves or the side of a desert road, it all looks quite beautiful.

A lot of people complain about the overused slow-motion in the second half. I can understand that, I didn't really like it either at first. All the kills are in super slow-motion and can sometimes drag the scene out. But the way I look at it is that we're seeing the deaths as the main characters sees them. Surely after all the torture she has gone through she will savor killing these people and will enjoy every second, every detail of their deaths, and the slow-motion allows us to see it the same way; seeing the blood spurt out and the pain on their faces. Every death is a celebration that must be savored.

There's some minor plot-holes in the story, but it's nothing major and most will probably not even catch them. One thing that I didn't like, or that confused me, was that [minor spoiler] the main character, who is supposed to be the protagonist, kills some innocent people in that driving scene. I love how easily all those cars blow up, but why the hell did she kill them? They never hurt her. Perhaps symbolism that she isn't representing justice but rather personal satisfaction in the form of revenge? I don't know. Minor annoyance.

I like the ending. The film has a very western feel to it, along with some other styles. It's a very good film, one of the best exploitation has to offer. Great plot, characters, acting, violence, soundtrack, cinematography, etc. A scary film for some, disturbing for others, emotional maybe, but definitely enjoyable for most. Thriller truly is a Cruel Picture.

Purchase Thriller: A Cruel Picture on Amazon: DVD

Reservoir Dogs (1992) Review

Part of Merry Christmas and Happy Tarantino Month!

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Stars: Harvey Keitel, Steve Buscemi, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Chris Penn
Genre: Crime, Thriller

Reservoir Dogs is Tarantino's directorial debut (if you don't count his earlier amateur film) and what a fine debut it is.

The plot concerns a jewel robbery gone wrong. Who died, who didn't, were they set up, who's the rat, etc. are common questions to be had here. The plot is basically a rip-off of Ringo Lam's 1987 City on Fire, a Chinese film that Reservoir Dogs stole many ideas from, though Reservoir Dogs arguably does it much better.

Every character is referred to by a color (an idea straight out of The Taking of Pelham One Two Three) so as nobody can snitch on anyone if they get caught. There's a really terrific cast here, Harvey Keitel as Mr. White, Tim Roth as Mr. Orange, Steve Buscemi as Mr. Pink, Michael Madsen as Mr. Blonde, Chris Penn playing Eddie and Lawrence Tierney playing Joe. They all do fantastic jobs, except for maybe Tierney. Buscemi's is my favorite performance as is Mr. Pink my favorite character.

You can still see Tarantino's style developing in here but still not quite fully developed. You have Tarantino's signature Trunk Shots and it does show off his recognizable style. The dialogue here is great (though largely irrelevant), especially the opening. It really helps that all the characters are fantastic, not that they're developed, just that they have terrific personalities. There's plenty of great long takes in here and they are all done flawlessly.

The plot is engaging throughout and really does make you think what you'd do in the same situation. Can be funny, thrilling, intense. The only part that felt kind of off to me was the Mr. Orange back-story, I felt like the film spent a little too much time with that. Minor complaint though.

Some complain about the pacing or structure (not many mind you), I thought it was pretty good though. I'd easily cite it as an example of flashbacks done right. I felt the film flowed very nicely. I think the film could of benefited if it worked a little more mystery in, but I guess it worked out fine.

The soundtrack is great, as with all Tarantino films.

I like the fact that aside from the big name actors, it's a very simple film. It really didn't take a whole lot to make. From the first scene with some guys talking in a diner, to the warehouse where most of the film takes place. It's a small-scale film, and that's what I usually prefer. It is an independent film after all (though it had a 1.5 million dollar budget), and started out as a very small project for Tarantino but eventually grew much bigger.

As well with all Tarantino films, it's not a highly original film, sure it has that Tarantino feel to it, but nearly all its elements are borrowed. Nonetheless it is a worthy entry into the Crime genre and one of the best heists-gone-wrong films, a gangster tragedy. The ending was kind of meh, it was completely void of logic to me, but I guess that was the point. 

If it wasn't for the more than stellar performances (Buscemi especially) this film would get a much lower rating (3 stars, maybe 3.5). Watch it, it's definitely enjoyable and is a great movie. If you're a sucker for Buscemi and Roth, than you'll love this. 

Purchase Reservoir Dogs on Amazon: Blu-Ray - DVD - Stream

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976) Review

Director: John Carpenter
Stars: Austin Stoker, Darwin Joston, Tony Burton
Genre: Action, Thriller

Assault on Precinct 13 was John Carpenter's second film (after the very low-budget Dark Star two years earlier) and, boy, what a film it is.

The plot is simple enough. A Los Angeles street gang named Street Thunder target a precinct that is in the process of being closed down. Inside the precinct there is only one police officer, two secretaries, and two prisoners, and they must work together to hold off the waves of endless gang members.

The film has been called a mix between Howard Hawks's Rio Bravo and George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead, and Carpenter has admitted to being influenced by both. If you think about it, Assault is basically a zombie movie. You have the survivors inside trying to hold off the infinite flow of unknown, expendable antagonists. 

As with many well-executed zombie films, the large group of enemies outside does make you feel a bit scared. How the hell are these few people going to survive against all of them? you'll find yourself wondering. The street gang is pretty intimidating; they're great in number, they're silent, and they have no fear of death. 

There's some great suspense and tension present and the drama between the people in the precinct is great. You never know if you can trust the prisoners, so there's this ever-present sense of unease. Will the prisoners take advantage of the situation and kill the cop? There's a lot of wonderment and unpredictability in this film. 

The soundtrack is amazing, composed by John carpenter himself. I'd recommend watching Assault on Precinct 13 simply for the great score and theme music. It's a wonderful electronic sound, something that wasn't very popular at the time. 

There's plenty of violence in here. The film doesn't hold back. There's cops getting killed, little girls receiving the wrong flavor of ice cream (and then getting killed), and plenty to satisfy any fan of violence.

There's some interesting cinematography here and the acting is great. The actors are all mostly unknowns, but Austin Stoker's great performance as a police officer and Darwin Joston's great portrayal of a memorable character are as good, if not better, than anything coming out of Hollywood at the time. 

John Carpenter took a low budget, a handful of unknown actors, and made a classic. Contains elements from action films, westerns, and even elements from horror films. It should satisfy fans of all genres.

Purchase Assault on Precinct 13 on Amazon: Blu-Ray - DVD - Stream - Soundtrack

The Night of the Hunter (1955) Review

Director: Charles Laughton
Stars: Robert Mitchum, Shelley Winters, Lillian Gish
Genre: Thriller

The Night of the Hunter is a film about a man who robs $10,000 from a bank and hides the money, telling only his two children where it is and entrusting them to never tell anyone, not even their mother. The man is then arrested and sentenced to death for the murders of two people in the bank.

While in prison he meets a preacher named Harry Powell (Mitchum) who, after being released, goes to the now dead man's home to try and find out where the money is stashed. The entire film is about this preacher trying to get the children to tell him where the money is.

The plot, which is based on the novel of the same name, is actually pretty good. It's simple and easy to follow but leads to many events and varied scenes. 

This is the only film that actor Charles Laughton ever directed. The film was mostly ignored at the time of its release but has since found the recognition that it no doubt deserves.

The cinematography and visuals here are stunning. Though not quite a film noir, it has very many noir qualities and themes. At times it even has a Gothic feel, and the German expressionist influences are quite present. The sets and scenes are all beautiful, whether it be children floating down river at night on a boat, or an angry preacher riding his horse in the distance; it's all beautifully done and very memorable. Let me not forget the perfect use of light and shadows, creating and incredibly sinister atmosphere. 

It's a pretty film to say the least. Charles Laughton should be applauded on his cinematography choices. Take for example the scene where Harry Powell has his tattooed hand parched on the fence post. Or the haunting scene with the dead woman's body at the bottom of the river, hair waving in the water with the seaweed.

The preacher, Harry Powell, is perhaps one of the most terrifying and memorable antagonists ever. Portrayed excellently by Robert Mitchum, he gives off a creepy and terror-filled vibe that is very similar to many horror films. His hands are tattooed with the word "LOVE" on his right knuckles and "HATE" on his right. A chilling trademark for a chilling character.

The latter part of the film follows the two children trying to escape from the preacher, and this was one of the few films of the time to give such a large role to children. And I must say the child actors did not disappoint. 

I'd call The Night of the Hunter a borderline horror film, just because of its deliciously evil and memorable antagonist and its creepy atmosphere. Plus it always seems to be night time in this film. There's even an angry mob towards the end, which I'm still not sure what purpose they served.

I can't remember the film having any music besides the songs that were sung by characters in the film. From little girls singing lullabies, to an old woman singing in unison with a serial killer. It's all wonderfully chilling and unsettling, which fits the theme perfectly.

The film has its flaws. The ending was....really weird. It just didn't fit the feel of the rest of the film, and it almost felt like propaganda the way the lady just looked at the camera. It is a happy ending, but it was just...I really can't describe it, it was just so unsubtle in its delivery. There were also some questionable directorial decisions, but for a directorial debut this film is superb.

It's a classic film that was ahead of its time and one of those films that everyone should watch.

Pros:

+Great visuals, cinematography, and atmosphere

+Feared and memorable antagonist

+Memorable scenes

+Chilling soundtrack

Cons:

-Questionable ending

Purchase The Night of the Hunter on Amazon: Blu-Ray - DVD - Stream

Seconds (1966) Review

Director: John Frankenheimer
Stars: Rock Hudson, Salome Jens, John Randolph
Genre: Science fiction psychological thriller

What makes a film great? Great cinematography? Great plot? Great acting? Yes, yes, yes, among countless other things. Seconds has all these qualities and more, and in fact I can't really think of much Seconds does wrong.

The film follows a old man who realizes that his entire life was dull and pointless. He realized that he had done none of what he would have liked. He ends up at a company that offers to, at a price, fake his death and through vigorous plastic surgery make him a new identity. New face, new name, new life all together. So this man gets the operation and everyone he once knew (family, friends, co-workers) believes he died in a fire, when in reality he is living in a new home with a new face.

He encounters troubles and he eventually wants to change his face yet again, and give it another go. If there is one thing I'd wish this film did better, I wish they had focused more on the struggles of leaving one identity and becoming another. They didn't really focus all too much on this, and it seems it'd be an important part of a film like this. But, it's not much of a complaint being that what they did instead was still great.

"I couldn't help it, Charlie. I had to find out where I went wrong. The years I've spent trying to get all the things I was told were important - that I was supposed to want! Things! Not people... or meaning. Just things. And California was the same. They made the decisions for me all over again and they were the same things, really. It's going to be different from now on. A new face and a name. I'll do the rest. I know it's going to be different."

The cinematography is amazing, which is to be expected from the legendary James Wong Howe. I'd go as far as to say that the cinematography is the best part of the film. Each angle is chilling and twisted, each scene has a lingering sense of mystery and paranoia. Often it even feels surreal.

Visually, besides the great cinematography, it also has a very film noir look to it, visually and even in plot. All this creates a very intense atmosphere, almost trance-like and hypnotic, all which is complimented by a chilling soundtrack. 

Rock Hudson did a superb acting job, and though the character he plays could pretty much fit the mold of any film character of the time, it's still fun to watch.

There are some scenes that I'm sure will stick with me for quite some time, like the hippy wine party in the woods, or that abstract hallway. And how could you forget the bandaged face after surgery?

In conclusion Seconds is a superb film which makes good use of mystery and suspense, and can even be horrifying at times, not with shock but rather with great atmosphere. Combined with an intriguing plot and a satisfying ending, along with general greatness on nearly all fronts, you have yourself a very worthwhile film.

Pros:

+Strong plot

+Great cinematography

+Chilling atmosphere and score

Cons:

-A few, minor missed potentials

Purchase Seconds on Amazon: DVD - VHS - Stream