sean-ramsden Reviews

Women Talking (2022)

12 Angry Women

[7/10 · 9 March 2023]

Maybe it's not the most appropriate to suggest that a film with 'men' in the title was a much better discussion based film than Women Talking. Sure, they're both different films on different topics so maybe they shouldn't be compared, but I think they should so that you can see why one is a classic and the other will be forgotten.

I must say I did still like this film, but that's because it would be a great stage play. It was interesting to hear the discussion and to learn of what had been going on in this place, and I did want to find out what their final decision was going to be from their discussions. However, it didn't tell us enough. We have a very brief scene of exposition at the beginning though even that lacks all the necessary information. Women Talking would be a great documentary, and if it was then it would be told in parts, giving the audience one piece of information at a time and exploring the people involved. However, Women Talking gives us all the information we need straight away which leaves us with only one question we want answered throughout the entire film. Audiences need much more than that to keep them interested. Also, we knew very little about the characters, they had no introduction. We know as much about the women as we do from reading the seven dwarfs names. Clair Foy is vicious, Jessie Buckley is angry, Rooney Mara is calm etc. '12 Angry Men' also doesn't give us too much character information, however, their discussion isn't regarding themselves, it is about whether someone else committed a crime; the Women Talking discussion is regarding the women who are talking and so we had to feel a connection with them but unfortunately we did not.

The film is no rollercoaster ride at all, unless that rollercoaster is one that goes in a straight line for almost 2 hours with two 1-foot dips at the beginning and end. Sarah Polley's direction didn't do too much to keep us visually interested either. Most of the film was set in a dark barn and the colours had almost evaporated.

Again, although I have pointed out a lot of bad points from the film I did still find the movie interesting to watch and listen to. Can't really believe that it was nominated for the best picture Oscar though.

Elvis (2022)

Montage > montage > significant scene with a lack of build up

[7/10 · 8 March 2023]

This is a good film with an outstanding performance from Austin Butler as Elvis. The scenes in which Elvis takes the stage are the most captivating, mostly due to the exciting camera work and editing along with Butler's almost perfect portrayal of the King of Rock and Roll.

The downfall of this film is that it tries to tell too much. It is already almost 3 hours long, but if they wanted to tell us all this information then the movie needed to be almost 4 hours. It is full of montages. 20 minutes in and I wasn't sure that a single scene had been played out, it was all snippets of moments including an unnecessary narrator in Presley's manager played by Tom Hanks. So many montages unfortunately led to a lack of focus in the scenes that the movie did pay attention to. I wasn't always sure how these characters got to this point or why it was so significant for them.

Altogether, I enjoyed Elvis. The accuracy to the production design, costumes, and makeup is amazing to witness. Butler's final scene had me in awe, I wasn't sure whether the film had cut to real archive footage or not. Elvis fans will love it. Movie fans find some faults.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)

A crazy, comical rollercoaster ride waiting for us to step in

[8/10 · 4 February 2023]

Indy Jones number 2 arrived in 1984 after the huge success of its first movie. I liked Raiders of the Lost Ark but my criticism was that all the characters are very 1-dimensional, they lack depth and because of this I struggled to feel any attachment to the story. Temple of Doom seems to have understood this by being fully aware of the flat characters and outdated view of women it has created. It's as though the film is laughing at itself for this matter, and so we laugh with it. Temple of Doom is my favourite of the Indiana Jones franchise because it completely acknowledges its ridiculousness and because of the inclusion of the lovable Short Round! Kate Capshaw plays the perfect ditzy blonde. It isn't an unbelievably laugh out loud hilarious performance, but her habitual goofy behaviour is ideal for this adventure. The film gets going straight away as Capshaw fabulously comes out of a dragon's mouth to the tune of 'Anything Goes'; already we know we're in for a fun ride! Then just like the other movies we get going straight away and there is a constant flow throughout. Temple of Doom does have its dark moments, but the absurdity of it makes it comical instead of horrific.

There's no time wasting in telling us that this is an Indy Jones movie. Not only do we get the familiar Paramount logo fade in, but Spielberg and cinematographer Douglas Slocombe also bring us back to the camerawork of the first film. While Jones and his enemy slide each other treasure across the table, the camera follows the transactions without breaking shot. This is a brilliant and obvious call back to the notable scene where Karen Allen's Marion out-drinks her drunk contender.

Many critics said Raiders was like an e-ticket ride to a theme park rollercoaster, and I didn't come away from the movie feeling like I discovered any more than a great theme park ride. This is captured perfectly with the mine cart chase, almost a literal rollercoaster. In fact, there is one in Disneyland. Set pieces like this are synonymous with Indiana Jones movies and Temple of Doom is filled with them and I cannot see how anyone could get bored.

Overall, this is the ultimate Indiana Jones movie for me because of its self-awareness to what it is doing. It's made to be a crazy, comical rollercoaster ride waiting for us to step in.

E.T. (1982)

John Williams' score will enchant your inevitable innocent love of the stranded extra terrestrial

[9/10 · 14 April 2022]

One of Spielberg's masterpieces that he made at just the age of 35. This is one of my favourite Spielberg movies because it is what cinema and the movie experience is all about. The famous image of the bicycle flying past the luminous moon is only one of many great moments in this motion picture. No one can doubt ET's reasons for being a classic. Many more movies have attempted to emulate what Spielberg created but almost all of them have failed to reach ET's greatness.

If I must stay away from praising then I'd say that personally, I don't believe the script is perfect from Melissa Mathison. However, I do believe that this film is great due to the collaboration of everyone involved and of course from Steven Spielberg's brilliant vision. Mathison's screenplay has wonderful moments and she has tied it all together expertly, however, there are just a few moments that I believe Spielberg has managed to not bring much attention to in his direction but that altogether fail to add to the wonder of ET. Looking back on the film makes me completely forget these moments though because the overall ride is too powerful and significant in my mind.

This is not a film to keep the volume down for. You MUST have John William's score bursting out at you. I know this for certain as I have twice watched the movie at home and twice in the cinema, the effect of a cinema experience is so much greater that it will astound any viewer. My most recent experience was with an accompanying orchestra. The music reverberated around the theatre and wowed every single person sitting inside - everyone gave a standing ovation at the end. Seeing this at a theatre accompanied by a live orchestra was an incredible experience, you get a whole new appreciation for Williams' score. I believe that no score will ever add so much to a movie like it did for Jaws, however, this is still my personal favourite score from John Williams.

Spielberg's movies, especially his blockbusting crowdpleasers, are not fantastic because of him alone but because of Spielberg and Williams. They are one of the greatest duos of American cinema. The second you see Spielberg and Williams' name come up on the screen you know you're in for a wonderful ride of entertainment in sight and sound. Not only this but Ben Burtt also worked on ET in developing the sound. Ben Burtt being the great sound designer who created the famous sounds that Star Wars is so well known for, now he is working on this little alien picture you know your ears are going to have a great time. Watching this on my TV late at night with the sound turned down diminished all the brilliant work of everyone that worked on this spectacle. If you really want to experience ET for what it is then you must see it in cinemas, or, at the very least, have your volume at maximum so John Williams' score will enchant your inevitable innocent love of the stranded extra terrestrial.

Overall, one of Spielberg's best and maybe most iconic film. It deserves all the praise it gets and its IMDb rating should be much higher! Spielberg's greatest sci-fi!

Mother! (2017)

Watch it before you understand it

[8/10 · 28 January 2022]

Phenomenal film. I'm not going to comment on the meaning behind the film because I think it best that people watch it without knowing, and then watch it again with knowing.

Lots of people dislike this movie for one reason or another, but I went into this film knowing basically nothing about it. Many people saw it knowing everything and that seems to make them come to the conclusion that it is pretentious and over the top. I was astounded by the directing, acting, and cinematography of this movie. The camera keeps so close in on Jennifer Lawrence's face that we get sucked into the idea and plot of this enthralling movie, which isn't actually that unusual for 70% of it. Personally, I couldn't work out the meaning behind it until I read it online after the watching the film. Maybe I'm foolish for not catching on or maybe Aronofsky's script presents his enigmatic vision in such an adept way that I feel too involved in Mother's narrative to sit back and consider its symbolism.

A common question faced with screenwriters of these types of unusual thriller/horror films is how far should they go? Some films take the peculiarities too far and create a confusing narrative that leaves no impact on me but uncertainty. However, this film I believe gets it right. It does get extreme at the end but we are led to that gradually throughout the film allowing us to have time to anticipate it.

My only complaint is what I believe to be the poor casting of Kristen Wiig. I'm so invested and involved in the story by this point that I was slightly taken back and pulled out of the story when this usually comedy actress appears during a high-tension scene. I'm a fan of Kristen Wiig but her placement just seemed out of place in this to me.

Once I found out the meaning behind the film my appreciation for it grew further. Darren Aronofsky has put together an engrossing rather than terrifying script that has left me thinking long after viewing it. It is ridiculous that Aronofsky, Lawrence, and Bardem were nominated for worst director/actress/actor of the year at the Razzies. I'm greatly confused by this fact. Personally, I believe it is Jennifer Lawrence's greatest onscreen performance and worthy of not only an Oscar nomination but an Oscar win. Phenomenal film.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

A Brilliant Adventure With 1-Dimensional Characters

[7/10 · 13 January 2022]

Film critic Roger Ebert says Indiana Jones is "an out-of-body experience, a movie of glorious imagination and breakneck speed...". And it is, it is exactly that, a movie of glorious imagination which doesn't make you wait, you're into the action from the get go, but I must argue that it is not much more than that.

Controversially, I don't think this is a brilliant film but it is a classic nonetheless. Steven Spielberg wanted to make a Bond movie originally but producer/writer George Lucas convinced him that this archaeological adventure would be better. Spielberg described it to be like a serial show which it very much feels like. It is just one famous scene, or set piece, after the other to create this adventurous story that greatly entertains but definitely does not test the emotions of the viewer. The cinematography by Douglas Slocombe, the editing by Michael Kahn, and the famous music by John Williams all form to make a fun journey through Spielberg's vision. It is entertaining, yet, I still regret to say that it is not technically a brilliant movie.

This may simply be down to the fact that the characters are rather flat. Whether this is your favourite movie or not this is an undeniable truth. Who are these people? I can list few facts about Indy Jones, his whole character is his love for archaeology and his fear of snakes. He is very basic though he contains some originality due to the sort of story that he has been thrown into. I could say even less about Marion played by Karen Allen. I think because of this it leaves me feeling like I have no reason to be invested in the story. Indy is a cool character but I have no dying want for him to succeed, due to this I feel slightly out of the narrative.

Let me confirm, I am far from someone who dislikes this movie, it is a movie that I'd happily watch again. I'm a big Spielberg fan, and he was obviously looking to hit back after the disappointment of his previous film '1941', which many say almost ended his career. Of course, if this film was fairly unknown then I'd be only praising it right now but because it is so highly rated I thought it best to look at its bad side.

Overall, this is an escapist movie with a magnificent adventure, anyone would struggle to not have fun. It is a tight film, it doesn't get boring, and that keeps our interest, which is enough for some audiences, making the lack of character depth unnoticeable. I can understand why it is a classic and I wouldn't want it any other way. I look forward to seeing the rest of the quadrilogy!

Anne Frank: The Whole Story (2001)

"Those who have courage and faith shall never perish in misery" - Anne Frank

[9/10 · 10 January 2022]

Wow, what an incredible masterpiece of a film. This film is a triumph that possibly is not so well known due to the fact of it originally being a 2 part TV series. Now it is a 3 hour film that doesn't waste a single second. It tells the story in 3 distinct parts - Anne's life as a schoolgirl, Anne in hiding, Anne in the concentration camps. Hannah Taylor Gordon's performance as Anne Frank is worthy of an Oscar as are the performances of the entire ensemble cast. Ben Kingsley as Otto Frank, Nicholas Audley as Peter Van Pels, Brenda Blethyn as Mrs Van Pels. I could list the entire cast as standout performers, the casting was perfect for this picture. I personally believe this should be on the same level of Spielberg's Schindler's List, which is a huge statement in itself.

My only criticism, there was one shot I felt was unnecessary even though it was arguably the best shot of the film. A starry night over the concentration camp. It looked beautiful, like a lovely dream, but I believe it was poorly placed. The whole film felt very real which is what makes it work so well, but this 1 shot felt like it was taking us out of reality and into dreamland. One lesson I have learnt from cinematography is that the most important thing to consider is not whether the shot looks good but whether it fits the scene. This shot may look lovely, but it does not fit the feeling of the scene for me.

Other than this, the film is astounding in every way, it is one of the greatest movies I have ever seen. We get a realistic view of the life that many people had to live during the war, the atrocities that took place and the very real reactions that they had to those afflictions. Many historians have said that this is the one Anne Frank film that gets everything right. Every aspect of it is accurate to what took place in the last few years of Anne Frank's life. Even to the point of being one of the only films that named the fellow hiders accurately as the Van Pels, which was their real name rather than the Van Daans that Anne's diary names them.

I have watched 1959's Anne Frank film adaptation, 2009's film adaptation, and 1995's documentary 'Anne Frank Remembered'. Yet, 'Anne Frank: The Whole Story' was the film that moved me most. Every moment feels significant. Furthermore, after watching 'Anne Frank Remembered' I have discovered that every moment is completely accurate, including the final third in the concentration camps, which would astound any viewer. How powerful those moments are and how perfectly constructed they are by the director Robert Dornhelm.

All of these Anne Frank adaptations, especially 'Anne Frank: The Whole Story' and 1959's 'The Diary of Anne Frank', have taught me a valuable lesson in life, of course, along with her diary too. Some of these quotes from Anne Frank may explain at least some of the power of her story. - "How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world". "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are truly good at heart". "As long as this exists, this sunshine and this cloudless sky, and as long as I can enjoy it, how can I be sad?". "Those who have courage and faith shall never perish in misery".

This wasn't the best review, but I felt I needed to write it after watching this film. I could go on talking about it and the impact it has made on me and I'm sure there are aspects I have forgot to mention, however, it is best that you see it for yourself. There are of course some tough scenes to watch and I can only imagine how it must have been filming those moments, but I would advise anyone with an interest in history, war, and human life to watch this film.

The Diary of Anne Frank (1959)

One of the most intense scenes that I have personally experienced on screen

[8/10 · 7 January 2022]

The first adaptation of Anne Frank's diary was released just 15 years after her writings suddenly came to an end. George Stevens does a great job in directing this picture despite 20th Century Fox forcing him to film in CinemaScope, which he felt would lose the claustrophobic effect of the film. There are a couple of shots with dead space but for the most part it works because Stevens made the shot feel cramped by including slanted beams going across the secret annex.

Millie Perkins plays Anne Frank. A role that many girls were considered for including Audrey Hepburn who turned it down as she felt it might bring back her own bad memories of the war. Otto Frank (Anne's father) was hired as a technical advisor for this film. He worked closely with Millie Perkins to capture his daughters personality, which surely makes anyone's doubts of Perkins casting fade away. Millie Perkins initially seemed like she might be a poor choice when I first heard her sweet American girl voice play over the film, but she quickly grew into a unique representation of Anne Frank that works well. The innocence, playfulness and clever remarks of Anne come through well in Perkins' performance.

The Diary of Anne Frank contains one of the most intense scenes that I have personally experienced on screen. Two Officers explore the building due to a possible burglary. The calm silence and little movements are what make it work. A small glance up the stairs from the Nazi Officer made me want to beg him not to go up. The Nazi Officer looking at the ceiling as though he might be about to work something out got me hoping that something would distract his attention quickly. One of the most simple but achingly intense shots was when Peter's cat sniffs inside a small metal kitchen accessory that somehow manages to stay on the table without falling off. No music apart from the occasional silent murmur. It felt real, not done by cutting to create false excitement, but a real moment that kept me on the edge. It is a scene that any filmmaker should study.

Overall, a touching film that does sometimes exploit Hollywood's theatricality. Though it never goes too far and always stays true to how Anne Frank wrote it herself. She always said she loved movie stars and wished that she would be remembered forever. I think this is the perfect way to do just that for her.

The Shop Around the Corner (1940)

No doubt that it's James Stewart's second best Christmas film!

[8/10 · 20 December 2021]

Why this film is so unknown I'm not quite sure. Maybe it's the way that James Stewart's 'It's A Wonderful Life' overshadows it, or maybe because its modern remake 'You've Got Mail' has stolen its popularity, or I guess it is simply the fact that the film is so hard to come by.

A top tip for screenwriters is to 'show not tell', obviously the writers of The Shop Around The Corner (Samson Raphaelson and Ben Hecht) did not receive this advice but still they managed to create a clever structure around amusing dialogue. Of course, this story was originally a stage play written by Miklos Laszlo, which answers why it is so packed full of the spoken word. Those words are so well merged with each other and developed to make a succinct but simple story with lots of memorable moments of comedy.

The director, Ernst Lubitsch, keeps the story going without allowing the narrative to become complicated, keeping a sharp pace to the 97-minute story. Lubitsch later said that this was his favourite he made in his career. His career includes being nominated for 3 Oscars and directing classic movies such as To Be or Not to Be, Heaven Can Wait, and Ninotchka. He is a legend from the golden era of Hollywood and if this is his favourite film it surely means it is a must watch! If you can find somewhere to watch this comical Christmassy romance then I have no doubt you'll thoroughly enjoy it, even with its occasional rather dark elements dipped into a couple of scenes.

The Shop Around The Corner is a lovely film marvellously performed by Margaret Sullavan and James Stewart in the lead roles. No doubt that it's James Stewart's second best Christmas film!

1941 (1979)

A rather good, fun, and crazy film!

[7/10 · 28 November 2021]

In Spielberg's first Second World War movie he takes a rather unusual look at the period, especially when now we know what emotional brilliance he later brought to the screen. 1941 is a crazy slapstick comedy! It is a combination of 3 young filmmakers full of energy and excitement as they brace the film industry. The screenplay is written by Robert Zemeckis, Bob Gale, and John Milius, of which separately created films such as Back To The Future, Apocalypse Now, and Forrest Gump. I do personally think that 1941 is a good film that is very harshly rated. It is on the same comedic format of films like Airplane and Naked Gun.

Industry folk in the late 70s seemed to desperately want Spielberg to fail. This fresh filmmaker created the summer blockbuster and cinema's highest grossing movie ever made (at the time), surely he couldn't keep going? For me I believe he does, it is not an exceptional movie but it is definitely entertaining. Spielberg's movies tend to linger around or above the 2 hour mark, however, this one would have benefited from a shorter length. Around the 90 minute mark would have knitted the story more tightly together and took out any of the unnecessary loose ends.

There are a plethora of characters involved in 1941, which maybe adds to the dislike of this film. Some characters feel like a recurring joke from a sketch show, simply being used for a quick laugh before the story continues. John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd are tagged as the big stars on the DVD cover but neither of which contribute to the story nor are exceptionally funny. John Belushi's character was supposed to be very minor at first but when Belushi was cast they decided to make his role more prominent, however, I feel this was a mistake. Belushi does a couple of comedy gags here and there but he is possibly the most unnecessary character of them all, destroying the flow of any story that there is in this film. Dan Aykroyd is also very forgettable, playing another questionable character in regards to his contribution to the story.

Spielberg himself later stated that what killed the comedy from 1941 was the amount of destruction and the noise level that drowned any humour out of it. Originally, the character of Wally (Bobby Di Cicco) was supposed to make an impact on everyone else within the story, which would have created a structural link, however, Bob Gale (screenwriter) said that this was lost in post production. This unfortunately leads us with a mix of differing characters that do not really have any relation to each other leading us to question their purpose. In the end we do not particularly care about what happens to the characters, which shows the lack of character depth implemented, but they are enjoyable to watch and mostly all likeable. We are only watching for the comedic set pieces, which it does deliver on.

Parts of the film were apparently based on real events according to Bob Gale. It is true that Los Angeles believed that there was a Japanese plane above in '41, so they started shooting into the sky, but in fact nothing at all was there! I like the idea of this as it keeps the comedy, knowing that some parts actually happened. The special effects are also brilliant as with any Spielberg film, especially considering it is without CG, however, as Spielberg himself said in later years this may be its downfall. Too much effects and too many explosions!

Altogether, the film did get some bad reviews, but it was NOT a box office flop. Columbia and Universal both came away happy with the profits it made, and I think it's a rather good, fun, and crazy film too. For any haters of this film at least you can surely admit that Spielberg made it up to you by bringing out a cinema classic just two years later with Indiana Jones...

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

Spielberg's first sci-fi - A truly unique film of psychological admiration and fascination

[8/10 · 26 November 2021]

In Spielberg's first step into sci-fi we find a truly unique film of psychological admiration and fascination. John Williams made one of the most famous soundtracks ever with the tension filled 2 notes in Jaws, this time he adds 3 more notes to create a spectacular sound that mimics the ringing of a door bell between the humans and aliens struggling to communicate.

'The Ten Commandments' plays on the TV early on, acknowledging the film's links to the Old Testament. The tower of Babel was formed to reach the heavens just as the Devil's Tower is marked as the place where humans and aliens can finally begin to understand each other. It is also the place where a struggle to understand each other takes place, it is a language unknown to us just like the creation of differing languages at the Tower of Babel. Roy (Richard Dreyfuss) almost displays a Moses like character of being a prophet, especially with his face burnt from the ship's lights just as Moses' face shined at the sight of God.

The climax is a wonderful spectacle of brilliance. It is one of Spielberg's most gripping scenes in his career but all it displays is a spaceship and some humans playing music to each other. Literally. It is beautiful work formed from the collaboration of Spielberg (Director/Writer), John Williams (Composer), Vilmos Zsigmond (cinematographer), and Douglas Trumbull (Visual Effects) among other talented individuals.

The use of family is very important in the first half of the movie. However, when Roy watches on as the aliens make contact in the film's mesmerising finale, I almost forget all about him and his family. All I want to see is this ship play music with these scientists. When we cut back a minute later to see Roy watching on it is just a reminder that this is still his story, but by now it almost feels like our story. We have been in just as much wonder as Roy as to what is going on in the sky and now all we want to do is find out. Spielberg understands this and allows us to do so whilst also wrapping up segments of the story without pulling us away from the beauty of the moment.

It is a film that stays very real and does not allow itself to fall into fantasy, which sounds strange to say about a sci-fi film about aliens forcing a man to become obsessed with a strangely shaped natural tower. It is a psychological sci-fi. People call this film odd because it is kept so real, we are so used to alien's being associated with fantastical universal wars and ridiculous special effects. However, Spielberg's most prominent effect in Close Encounters is the use of lights. A common Spielberg trait, beams of light are not alien to us. He holds our hand and gradually walks us through the experience of the film to help us understand this phenomenon. We slowly learn each aspect of these extra-terrestrials along with Roy (Richard Dreyfuss), so, by the time the gigantic mother ship rises above devil's tower we are in the same disbelief and awe as Roy and everyone else watching on. It is as though we are also witnessing aliens coming down to earth along with everyone else, it is our first view of a real spaceship. Even at the end we only see the aliens from afar through a stunning glimmer of light.

This is a film that must be watched in the cinema for the full effect! You will no doubt be in complete awe as the sound reverberates around the theatre and the lights beam through the screen. No, this is not my favourite of Spielberg's movies, but I believe that it is possibly his most genius motion picture. It is a story that grips you until the very end, not particularly because of its use of supporting characters but because of the way Spielberg presents the aliens as a genuine possibility of fact rather than fiction. In 5 years' time he'll eventually introduce us to a little extra-terrestrial but for now we live in wonder.

Jaws (1975)

A masterful classic that still lives up to this day!

[9/10 · 25 November 2021]

The first summer blockbuster, the big breakthrough for Spielberg, and the shoot that ended up tripling its schedule! Jaws is a monster of a film that changed not only the moviemaking world but also the beach-goer's confidence. It is as though we are born with the knowledge of this movie. As a very young child I genuinely believed the Jaws 'Dun...Dun' always played before a real life shark attack was about to take place, I hadn't even seen the film! Something said constantly about this movie is that the terror comes from not showing the shark but from simply suggesting it. Where and when is the shark going to pop up next? This was an idea that Spielberg developed mostly due to the issues with the repeatedly breaking mechanical shark but taken also from the master of suspense himself, Hitchcock. "There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it".

An important aspect of Jaws is that it shows the audience reasons to care for the characters rather than telling them to care. "Give me a kiss", "why?", "cause I need it". Chief Brody's (Roy Scheider) vulnerable side is very evident and so he is a man we can have sympathy for, we care about his family and so we care about him.

The film is also very aware of what it is doing to its audiences. Brody is transfixed looking at a picture-book about sharks; he can't believe what he's seeing. Though he jumps out of his skin when his wife (Lorraine Gary) comes up behind him. We saw this coming so it was not a shock for us but it is a joke on the film itself. It is almost a cliche today but It's one of those friendly nods to the audience letting us know our director is conscious of what we're going through together.

The hunt to get the shark doesn't actually start until over midway through the film. The film doesn't simply delay the hunt of the shark, it builds towards it. No one would argue that the first half of the film is slow or uneventful. A testament to the writer's brilliance of structure and timing, knowing when to unleash the beast.

This is Spielberg's first film where he establishes his trademark of guiding our eye throughout each scene without drawing attention to the craft. He captures multiple angles in one take to help keep a flow to the story and an intrigue in what the characters are saying to each other. Never allowing a moment to become boring. You feel like you are in the scene with the characters. The second that you notice the way he moves the camera or blocks the scene is the moment you fall out of the movie and become a viewer. We are just as helpless as Chief Brody as we watch Alex Kintner be torn apart from afar, a point of view from Brody's powerless position.

Finally, it is Brody who kills the shark, not Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) nor Quint (Robert Shaw). It is the protagonist who we have watched struggle for almost 2 hours with a beach full of people, a thoughtless mayor, and a 25-foot great white shark, 3 tons of him! It is a satisfying end. Brody kills the shark by himself while the mast of the boat sinks into the ocean like a clock hand ticking to its conclusion. Soon there will be nothing left on the surface as though the shark has consumed the film itself, but one perfect shot put a stop to that.

Overall, a masterful classic that still lives up to this day. Even most of the mechanical shark shots still remain stunning and sometimes horrific. The film stays away from fantasy and sticks itself in reality which is why so many become afraid of the sea after this experience. I would have loved to discuss the making-of process more but for any Jaws fans or anyone who is interested then I would suggest you read The Jaws Log, written by one of the screenwriters for Jaws, Carl Gottlieb.

The Sugarland Express (1974)

Brilliant debut - One to watch but far from a masterpiece

[7/10 · 24 November 2021]

In Spielberg's first cinema released feature film we watch a well put together car chase movie starring Goldie Hawn and William Atherton as the married hijackers.

This is a very solid, entertaining, and emotional film with a sense of innocence streaked throughout it. The couple involved are obviously doing something very wrong but at the same time the screenplay has helped us to feel a connection to them or at least an understanding to why they're doing this criminal act. The couple are in pursuit of their baby after Hawn breaks her husband, Atherton, out of prison. Our understanding comes from our primal instincts of love and survival which the hijackers have set their objection around.

Although we come to have an appreciation for Hawn and Atherton's characters, ultimately, we do not want them to succeed. If anything, we simply wish that they might come to a resolve or realise the wrong that they are doing. Spielberg shoots close up to the people in the car (Hijackers & policeman), helping to build a relationship between the audience and characters. Gradually the shots become more elegant and beautiful too as the relationship builds. William Atherton's character creates a link between the extreme hysteria of Hawn and the solemn morality of the police.

Spielberg is constantly moving the camera, which you could argue is a must for a road movie. However, he is sure to sustain our interest by moving the camera forward with the story, only stopping its movement when the journey stops or when character's debate. Looking at an early example - The camera tracks back with the couple as they attempt to leave the prison undercover. Facing the camera at first until finally with their backs to camera by the end, leaving this place behind, leaving the camera behind. In the same shot we find ourselves in an unexpected close up as Hawn leans into the shot and kisses a threatening snitch. With one take Spielberg has moved the story forward while creating obstacles for the characters to overcome, which they do in close up to exaggerate its importance in the moment.

As early as 1974 Spielberg is incorporating one of his signature shots. A reflection in a window showing us what the character is looking at. This avoids cutting 2 shots together, making the moment smoother and all about the expression on the character's face. This time, reminding Atherton of the threat of the situation. The foreshadow of his future spread over his face.

Overall, a good movie and a brilliant debut for one of cinema's greatest film directors. One to watch but far from a masterpiece.

Savage (1973 TV Movie)

Interesting early Spielberg project with some fatal screenplay downfalls

[6/10 · 23 November 2021]

Savage is Spielberg's final TV movie before moving into features with 'The Sugarland Express'. He made 3 films for TV and I may argue that they got gradually worse. 'Duel' 8/10 thriller that takes a simple concept and sustains it for 90 minutes. 'Something Evil' 7/10 horror with a basic haunted house plot that manages to entertain without inspiration. 'Savage' 6/10 crime drama with an intriguing story that is beaten down by the lack of character depth and reason to be invested in the plot.

From the get go the personalities in this TV movie are very cliche and 2 dimensional. I feel I know as much about the characters at the end of the film as I did at the beginning. They are on a constant monotone line which kills any entertainment we may get from the story. Why do these people need to solve this case? What is on the line for them if they fail to uncover the truth? I do not know.

The screenplay does have some potential but it is let down by a poor set up to the story which introduces the characters poorly. However, there are a few nice moments in this picture. The strange death does lead to some intriguing mystery which finalises with a skilfully shot scene in the TV studio. We watch these silhouettes as though we are seeing something that we shouldn't have access to. Almost a cliche today is hiding the camera behind parts of the set to give a feeling of something secret taking place, but Spielberg switches this into an almost film-noir style encounter between the helpless and the powerful.

Overall, a good basis for a story but poorly executed in the screenplay. However, Spielberg still manages to form a couple of well shot and intriguing scenes with what he's got.

By the Sea (1915)

The first banana slip gag!

[30 April 2020]

By The Sea is a short film by Charlie Chaplin during his time at his 2nd film studio, Essanay. Apparently, it is the first film to have a man slip on a banana peel. So, surely that's enough reason to give this film a watch?

Unfortunately, it is nowhere near one of Chaplin's best, or even near an average Chaplin film. There are really only 2 comic moments. 1. When he slips on the banana peel. 2. The men's hats being flown around in the wind. There are a few other moments which may produce a giggle from audiences but nothing enough that will make you want to watch it again.

The story is very slim and not completely clear. Edna Purviance stars in a role that is not necessary. I can only see the point of her being there so that there's a bit more of a story to the non-existent plot. Any excuse to film at the beach! Chaplin is still in a stage where he did not worry about camera work, just as long as he could capture the whole scenario in one plain camera angle.

In Chaplin's early days he would sometimes make up the story as he went along, I feel it is likely that he did the same with this short. It is by no means awful, but it is one that you may think at the end 'hmm, that was decent', and then proceed to forget you ever watched it.

6/10!

The Wishing Ring: An Idyll of Old England (1914)

A sweet and enjoyable film from 1914!

[7/10 · 30 April 2020]

I have recently read about Maurice Tourneur's The Wishing Ring. The writer mentioned how the film is well edited. It was also mentioned that everything was filmed in Fort Lee but made to look like England. Tourneur chose buildings that looked English and he even built a Church to cover the fact that the Hudson river was behind it!

This is a very well made film from Tourneur. It is pleasing and it keeps you interested throughout. The actor's performances are also very good and enjoyable to watch. Vivian Martin is starring in her first film here and she does it with the confidence of any experienced actress. She is very vivacious and a total joy to watch.

The Wishing Ring is far from perfect. It is fairly well put together but some scenes can seem slightly confusing why they have turned up at this location. However, it is well directed, well acted, and well shot. It is an enjoyable watch.

The Tramp (1915)

Chaplin's films only get better and better!

[29 April 2020]

I have been studying Chaplin's films starting from his early days at Keystone in 1914. Most of his work at Keystone is similar - a few comic moments, usually in a park or at an auto race, where a brick is usually thrown in someone's face and it mostly always ends in a chase sequence. Now Chaplin has recently moved to The Essanay Film Company where his films gradually start to become better and more meaningful.

The Tramp is the first movie in which Charlie is known as 'The Tramp'. And it is a good film to start at! It flows well, has some very funny moments, and even has moments of pathos which Chaplin would begin to use much more to his advantage. Compared to his later work The Tramp is not quite as good. But it is quite unfair to compare when this is the first time he attempted to create a sad ending in one of his pictures. This is a big moment and is quite a milestone in his work.

The Tramp character has definitely reached its most loveable moment so far in this short also. He is a kind little fellow who is trying to help and, usually, he is only harming others by accident. The Tramp's obliviousness to some of his doings just add to the humour and creates an innocence about him. If you're a fan of Chaplin then this is definitely one to add to your list!

Orchids and Ermine (1927)

A fun and enjoyable watch!

[7/10 · 29 April 2020]

Orchids and Ermine kept a steady pace going throughout the film. There were no scenes or segments that lacked or destroyed the pace of the movie. Every scene hit well with me personally.

The film is not one to get overly excited about. It is an easy-going romantic comedy from the silent era of the movies. It is a fairly simple story to follow even with characters being thought to be someone else (all part of the plot).

Colleen Moore does a brilliant performance in this short feature film, only lasting 1 hour 5 minutes. She is a star of the era and she truly represents the 1920s. She plays a very likeable character who is easy to watch and always provides a great moment with a close up.

This is not a film that has, or will ever, become a classic. But it is a film that you can watch and enjoy!

Sherlock Jr. (1924)

Brilliantly Worked Out Gags

[8/10 · 28 April 2020]

Sherlock Jr. is one of Buster Keaton's best films, and possibly his greatest. The film starts somewhat slow as it sets Keaton up to be a struggling wannabe detective. There are some comedy moments that play well and the opening is rather enjoyable.

But then, the film soon becomes 100x better as he literally steps into the movie that he is watching. We watch a sequence that maybe is not necessary for the overall story but what is a completely entertaining watch as the scenery changes in the movie he is in. Every cut is timed perfectly, even watching it back in slow motion is still a struggle to work out any unusual movements in his character between the scenery changes. It is brilliantly funny, especially when the scenery changes just as he is jumping into the sea to then jumping into a snow pit.

The rest of the film follows Keaton as he goes about as a habitually clever detective in the film he has entered. The gags are so brilliantly worked out that you don't know whether to laugh or to watch in amazement. You think that surely that gag was the greatest of the film but then he goes and tops it in the next scene. Keaton did all of his own stunts which makes it even more astonishing to watch, and sometimes rather intense especially when he passes over a train track being just inches from the moving train. It is a film that words cannot describe and that has to be seen to truly be believed. Sherlock Jr. represents the truly unique style of filmmaking from the silent era, something that you would never see any other time in the history of film.

If you're looking to get into silent film comedy, or just silent film as a whole, then Sherlock Jr. is a great place to start. Every part of the film is still as funny today as it must have been then. The timing is perfect. And the film is only 45 minutes long!

The Docks of New York (1928)

Beautifully shot. Worth a watch!

[7/10 · 27 April 2020]

The Docks Of New York was made in 1928, a year after The Jazz Singer introduced sound into the movies. The Docks Of New York is a good film, it is an interesting story that is somewhat simple and easy to follow.

This film is most of all beautifully shot. Shots that come to mind are the close up of the water as we see the reflection of a woman jumping into the sea. The shot then blurs, which is similar to a shot that appears nearer the end of the film. A point of view shot from the girl as she tries to thread a needle. The shot blurs, representing the tears filling her eyes and maybe even representing her thinking back to her suicide attempt. This is a beautiful scene and we truly feel for the characters. Altogether, this is a good film, not one of the best from the silent era, but one that is definitely worth a watch

In the Park (1915)

Reminiscent of Charlie's Keystone Days

[27 April 2020]

1915 is the year that we truly begin to see some of Chaplin's genius come through. The previous year consisted of slapstick comedy mostly with no real plot to follow. A lot of the time they made the story up when they arrived on set.

Unfortunately, In The Park seems to reminisce these films. Chaplin, now working at Essanay, has made a film that would not be out of place at Keystone (his previous studio). The scenario was somewhat hard to follow. We don't know anything about any of the characters so it is a struggle to care for what is going on. There are a few comedy moments but it is overall one to forget. The short ends with Chaplin helping a man commit suicide by kicking him into a lake, I'm not quite sure why.

As Chaplin would progress he would create many brilliant shorts and features. His Tramp character became more sympathetic. In this short The Tramp is quite rude and very dodgy. This short doesn't make us love the Tramp. It is not the worst of his films, but unfortunately, it is one to forget.

Paris, Texas (1984)

A great movie which needs to be watched!

[8/10 · 1 May 2015]

From seeing the poster and the summary of this film I thought it wouldn't be great and maybe slightly boring. However, I was very much shocked by the movie. It had a great story and, I felt, maybe the audience go through many emotions. I had not heard of this movie before I watched it, but now I think that this film deserves to get out there and become a classic. Basically to some up everything, I really do think that you should watch this film. If you like dramas then you'll love this. I don't want to give the ending away, but there are some certain scenes that will move you in a way that you will love. So again, watch this film for definite.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Saving Private Ryan is a great film

[9/10 · 18 April 2014]

Saving Private Ryan is a great film. The film's second scene, which is based on Omaha Beach on D-Day really makes the whole film 10/10, as if it wasn't for that scene, I would have probably given it an 8/10. This is because of the action in the scene, as Steven Spielberg shows a good example of what happened to the soldiers that day, and what a struggle it was. Other than the D-Day scene, the film is still amazing, as it provides lots of drama, such as the scene with the tense sniper game, and the parents daughter being taken. Also the part in the destroyed town, which is a big part of the story. Altogether Saving Private Ryan is a spectacular film, and I would recommend it to anyone.