Change Your Image
theodore_varengo
Reviews
Monster's Ball (2001)
One of the more overrated films
Don't get me wrong, by no means do I think Monster's Ball is a bad movie. But it is far too problematic to be considered great, and is, I feel, one of the more overrated movies of recent years. I do have to concede that there are some very good performances, particularly from Billy Bob Thornton and the late Heath Ledger. The late, great Peter Boyle is also excellent, as is young Coronji Calhoun. And Oscar winner Halle Berry does give the performance of her career, although based on other roles such as Catwoman and the Flinstones, that's a rather dubious statement. I certainly don't think her work in this film was Oscar-worthy. The cinematography is above average, as is the dialog, but the story frequently stretches believability. More than anything, I feel this film is a fairly manipulative tearjerker, with moments, MOMENTS of greatness. By far the most distracting thing in the movie is the highly graphic sex scene between Berry and Thornton (which is even more graphic in the unrated director's cut). Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed seeing the beautiful Halle Berry in the buff, but I also felt it cheapened the movie as it is completely over the top and gratuitous. Many a couple in many a movie has had sex, and it can certainly be an important plot point, but it has never been necessary to be as graphic as this scene because we all know what happens when people have sex. The scene is near-porn with art-house pretensions, and makes the film feel like the whole thing was just an excuse to get Halle naked and (very realistically) simulating sex. It is my biggest problem with this movie. It is also a guilty pleasure to watch, with the end result being me questioning why I watch the film. Overall, I still recommend the movie, it has its moments, as I've said. I also think the director is a big ol' perv.
Men of Honor (2000)
A Salute Is Warranted
I was curious to know how critics responded to this rousing, inspiring film, so I went to Rotten Tomatoes and was dismayed to discover that the pompous peanut gallery that is our nation's film critics had given the film an average 43% (or "Rotten") rating.
All I can say is, if this movie doesn't move you, you have no heart. (It's interesting to note that the same film on the same website got a 74% rating from viewers).
Not that the opinion of critics is all THAT important to me. After all, I can't think of a more useless, overpaid profession. Some schmo gets paid to go to the movies (what a tough life) and does the same thing everyone else on the planet does: forms an opinion. But these chumps have a way of coming across like their opinion somehow matters more than yours, and even worse, they love to hate.
I'll grant you that this movie is old fashioned (well, except for the f-bombs), syrupy, and a little predictable... after all, you know right from the beginning that Cuba Gooding Jr., portraying real-life Navy hero Carl Brashear, is going to triumph (eventually) at every turn simply by the way he comes across: determined and plucky; strong-willed and optimistic.
But his performance and that of De Niro (as Billy Sunday, a composite character of several real-life people) are so strong, so inspiring, that you'll be on your feet cheering many of the film's scenes, especially the courtroom climax. You'd have to be a real stick in the mud not to be moved by these scenes. Like our nation's film critics. Michael Rappaport is excellent as well as a sweet-natured, stuttering diving student that befriends Gooding's Brashear. If anyone has seen "Higher Learning", this character totally redeems that character.
Anyway, this confirms what I've always felt: don't listen to critics. See this movie and get inspired.
Wolf (1994)
Underrated werewolf classic
This has to be one of the best werewolf movies ever made, although I don't think it gets due credit for that. Nicholson is perfect in this role, and the dialogue is very witty and intelligent. Michelle Pfieffer has never looked more ravishing, and her performance is one of her best. James Spader is delightfully weird as Nicholson's antagonist, and the special effects are wisely kept to a minimum, making them more effective. Rick Baker's werewolf makeup is reminiscent of another werewolf classic, Werewolf Of London. The atmosphere brings back memories of old Universal horror flicks, and the film overall is tasteful and doesn't rely on gore or shock value, very refreshing for a horror film made in the last 30 years. Kudos to all involved.
Son of Frankenstein (1939)
Last of the great Frankenflicks
Frankenstein film number 3 for Universal, major changes were afoot with SON OF FRANKENSTEIN. The most significant difference is the departure of James Whale from the series; Rowland V. Lee takes over with confidence and competence, but alas he is not nearly as inspired as Whales. Fortunately, he is a good mimic of Whale's style, and the film retains many of the trademarks of the first two Frankenstein films; great, Gothic, expressionistic sets and a total absence of sunlight... gloomy and foggy are as good as the weather gets in the town of Frankenstein, and that's in between violent thunderstorms... these are stylistically consistent with FRANKENSTEIN (1931) and BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935), and, in fact, Lee often brings these elements to new heights. He also carries over some of the humor of BRIDE, especially if one believes the character of the Inspector with his famous artificial arm, and Wolf von Frankenstein himself, with his clumsy attempts to cover up the nature of his experiments, are intentionally funny characters (I'm not sure they are!). Another huge difference in this third picture is the absence of Colin Clive (who had unfortunately passed away prior to this picture). Basil Rathbone as the title character gets a little over the top as the film progresses, and I found his acting to actually be one of the film's few liabilities (along with some minor revisionist continuity with the first two films). But this is more than compensated for by the outstanding performances of Bela Lugosi as Ygor (in my opinion his finest performance), and Karloff, in his last performance as the Monster. Karloff actually has less to do in this film than in the previous two and for the most part isn't given much room to show off his acting chops, but he comes through with a vengeance in the scene where he discovers his only friend, Ygor, has been killed. His performance in this scene is heartbreaking, and the pinnacle of his involvement in the Frankesntein franchise. This film doesn't quite match the first two films in the series, and the happy ending seems kind of abrupt and out of place, but there is some genuine excitement during the climax of the film, some creepy atmospherics leading up to it, and definitive performances from the two greatest actors in the illustrious history of classic Universal horror.
Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
James Whale's masterpiece
This film had several things stacked against it going into production, potentially preventing it from being as great as it is: for one thing, sequels rarely equal the original film in quality, and James Whale was reluctant to return to the Frankenstein story after the first film, so one might have thought he wouldn't put his heart into the project. Another thing that could have worked against the film is that it is immediately obvious that they had a much higher budget and there is a slickness that wasn't present in the original. The relative crudeness of FRANKENSTEIN worked in its favor; the smaller budget and lack of a score only added to its weirdness.
Fortunately, James Whale overcame all of these factors (including his initial reluctance) and delivered not only one of the greatest horror films ever made, but probably one of the greatest films ever made in any genre. Just compare the scene of Frankenstein and Pretorius bringing the Bride to life to the equivalent creation scene in the original movie and you'll see how they ramped everything up to a whole new level for this picture. The editing, the production design, the sets, the performances, are so over the top yet dead on it almost creates a giddiness or a frenzied feeling for the viewer. In fact, as the movie progresses, the editing becomes more frantic, the camera angles more abstract, the overall effect more otherworldly. By the creation scene, the film feels half-crazed, the viewer somehow intoxicated. Ernest Thesiger as Pretorius as absolutely brilliant, his performance equaling that of any contemporary actor, and Colin Clive delivers yet another delightfully manic performance as a Henry Frankenstein torn between what is morally right and scientific curiosity. But of course it is Boris Karloff who gives an outstanding performance as the Monster (duly credited this time instead of being billed as "?" as he was in the first movie), one that may even bring you to tears he when befriends a blind hermit.
There is a great deal more humor in this film, most of it delivered by Thesiger in laugh-out-loud lines that are not funny at all taken out of context ("You're wise in your generation" for example), and I don't want to ruin any of the witty and florid dialogue for you. The film careens wildly from humor to pathos, creepiness to zaniness, in a roller coaster ride of styles and emotions. The slickness doesn't detract from the atmosphere, and since the first film was an enormous hit for Universal, to try and duplicate the low-budget look of the first film would have been pretentious.
This is just about as close to a perfect movie that one will encounter, and certainly a perfect Universal horror flick. And who wouldn't enjoy that?
Frankenstein (1931)
'Stein holds up
The beautiful thing about a true work of art in any genre or any medium is that it will stand the test of time and be just as intriguing 75 years later if not more so. Well, FRANKENSTEIN definitely stands up to that test as a timeless horror classic featuring the definitive movie monster. Of course, in 2007, it's not a film that will scare your pants off... everyone has seen the Frankenstein Monster as immortalized by Boris Karloff, he's as big of a fictional American icon as Mickey Mouse or Superman, so his appearance in the film is more likely to bring warm feelings of recognition rather than fright. That doesn't mean that the film is boring (it fairly flies by at just over an hour) or lacking spooky atmospherics (it may not terrify you, but it can still deliver Halloweenish goose bumps with its foggy graveyards and stormy nights), but the thing that still knocks me out is the set design and the Germanic, expressionist cinematography. Although BRIDE OF FRANKESNTEIN was clearly made with a much bigger budget, they definitely made the best out of what they had in this first feature, and certainly the laboratory equipment is still a treat to behold. The retro effect of watching the creation scene in 2007 only adds to its appeal. I also think the lack of a score and the relative crudeness of the film in comparison to later flicks in the series adds to the film rather than detracts. Karloff is great as the sympathetic creature, and Colin Clive is delightfully manic as Frankenstein. Sure the acting is dated and melodramatic at times... the film was made in 1931, you have to keep the performances in that perspective. But the overall artistry of the production, the better-than-you'd-expect dialogue and acting, and James Whale's distinctive direction all add up to make this landmark film the granddaddy of all monster movies.
Who's That Knocking at My Door (1967)
It was all there right from the start
This film should cement in anyone's mind why Martin Scorcese is one of the best directors of all time. The greatness is apparent right out of the gate with his very first feature film; all the classic Scorsese elements are already firmly in place, even if the film is not quite as compelling as later works. It wouldn't be long before Scorsese could spin a plot that was up to the par of his technical skills; Mean Streets (1973) is in the same league as later efforts like Taxi Driver and Goodfellas, and it's a great showcase for a much younger De Niro (who was on point right from the start of his relationship with ol' Marty). Similarly, Harvey Keitel delivers powerfully in his first collaboration with Scorsese, but the plot and dramatic impact of the script were just not quite up to snuff yet. But it's not bad in those departments by any means, and in terms of the photography, dialog, and acting, as well as some very memorable isolated scenes, it's all classic Scorsese, bearing his unmistakable stylistic fingerprints.