Barren Lives (1963)

It’s crazy to go on. We’ll never get there.

“Barren Lives” is set in 1940's Brazil and shows a migrant family in the depths of poverty and what steps they take to survive.

I didn’t enjoy this movie. Every minute was agonizing and I just wanted it to be over. But I didn’t hate it because that was the point. The slow-moving plot, repressive heat, and the constant suffering of the family made for a tough watch. 

Director Nelson Pereira dos Santos makes you suffer alongside the family to the point of exhaustion.

Every aspect of the film has been calculated to create a depressive mood.  Shot in black and white, colour doesn’t exist in this world. Everything is dry like the creek bed  and deadly like the sun. The soundtrack is minimal and the viewer will notice the silence in many scenes where there’s no dialogue and only ambient sound.  What little music exists is mostly composed of a whining violin that persists like a hungry mosquito. Long shots of repetitive motion show the monotony of their lives and character flaws lead to tragic mistakes.

At every turn the family suffers. Whenever things go well, the situation soon sours. The father finds employment but his boss underpays him. They’re hired to look after cows but the drought starts to kill them. At times it seems the whole world including the environment is against them.

As well violence can be found throughout the film both visited upon and perpetrated by the family for survival and reveal the harshness of the world.

I can’t say I’d recommend this movie because it wasn’t a good watch. In fact, this review is meant to save you the 100 minutes I believe you’d waste watching this. It was both brutal and interesting but not something I would ever re-watch.

"Phantom Thread" (2017)

Imagine a fairy tale where Cinderella plays the villain, where the story begins as a romance but then slowly twists into a horror movie. Lush costuming and soft colours hide a sinister aggression that slowly unfolds over the course of the movie.

As with all Paul Thomas Anderson films, there is a soft precision in “Phantom Thread” that confidently sets the viewer in the period, allowing for the film to take other liberties that play against expectations. The plot for example, lulls the viewer into a false sense of familiarity before taking two separate twists that completely change the nature of the entire film.

The two main characters Woodcock and Alma are layered with multitudes, both equally fascinating and terrible in their own fascinating way.

Woodcock is petulant, exacting and unforgiving. He doesn’t suffer fools, nor does he permit his routine to be interrupted for anything or anyone. His attention to detail makes for an amazing designer with impeccable clothing but an unapproachable grump in social situations. One needs only look to how he treats his clients, his sister and even his muses to understand how he views everyone else. Everything subservient to his work and all who don’t lend themselves to this are anathema to him.

His strange relationship with his mother and sister seem to have rippled out to affect how he treats all women and coaxed him to retreat into himself and away from the world. It’s no coincidence that he lives in the same house that he works in. It’s both economic but also safe and comfortable. Some might say claustrophobic and stifling.

Alma is mysterious and her introduction would seem to indicate that she’ll just be one more muse in Woodcock’s long line of discarded women. At first she appears shy and clumsy, somewhat mousy and incredibly naïve category. After all, what woman would agree to visit the house of a man she’s just met or agree to strip down to her negligee for him? But as the film progresses we learn that under the surface Alma, is far more devious and sinister than at once conceived.  

His previous pattern involved choosing a live dress-form to clothe and copulate with but Alma balks at this tight control. Here Alma finds an ally in Cyril and isn’t so easily bullied. Oh she plays along as you can see in the second breakfast scene. She butters her toast in silence and moves with mute exactness. But as soon as she’s married she exaggerates her former behaviour, possibly to play with her newfound power. And as Woodcock has married her he seems incapable of even voicing his discontent. Instead we’re left to watch him squirm as he likely never has in his entire life.

What he and the audience don’t notice is that she was never weak or naive. She’s in fact very daring and it’s only when she starts to push back against his routine, fights his wish to control her outer appearance and inner thoughts that we see the real Alma. She forces Woodcock to acknowledge their relationship when previously he made no concessions or allowances for the women in his life, including his muses.

She is the aggressor, the one pushing for physical intimacy while he’d rather work. Their relationship in fact is at first an outgrowth of his work. He fits her for dresses, exhibits them and works under his harsh gaze. But she wants more and won’t be bullied by either him or Cyril. In fact she puts up with quite a lot of verbal abuse and refuses to leave when her situation is made uncomfortable. In fact in the second half of the film the balance of power shifts to her after she makes a drastic decision that moves the film into uncharted territory.

Difficult to categorize but pleasurably unpredictable, “Phantom Thread” is a quiet, unassuming film that hides a myriad of secrets that will change how you view the characters.

"Arrival" (2016)

Louise Banks (Amy Adams) is a linguist and university professor trying to teach a class when news breaks that a ufo has touched down in Montana, causing no little amount of panic among her students, her mother and humanity in general. She seems unphased though and images hint at a tragedy that may be taking up more space in her thoughts. 

Despite her preoccupation though she’s contracted by the military to help communicate with the aliens thanks to her translation skills. Joined by theoretical physicist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) she must learn their language in order to find out why they’re here. Timing is everything though as eleven other ships have landed all over the world with eleven other governments trying to do the same thing Banks is. 

The aliens are well-conceived in that they are so ‘other’ from what we are. Their appearance, their speech, their language and the way they perceive the world are entirely differently. They aren’t a facsimile of humans in any way. 

As well, beautiful cinematography is paired with an evocative soundtrack but those aren’t the reasons you’ll want to rewatch this. There’s a twist at the end that will make you think and without giving anything away the circular theme found throughout was appreciated as was the communication versus action aspect of the story.

The pace does slow down in the middle considerably which accompanied by long shots and a lack of physical action made the film drag. Also, Renner’s character felt wasted. It would have made more sense for his character to be a fellow linguist than a theoretical physicist as his skills aren’t utilized to the same level as Banks’. Seeing them collaborate over language would have made their bond more believable as the chemistry between the two was lacking.

If you’re interested in a sci-fi story that will cause discussion after the film, try this one on for size.

"Nixon" (1995)

"Always remember: others may hate you. But those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself."

President Richard Nixon is alone with his thoughts, listening to his tape recordings and reflecting on a life that is about to come crashing down around him. Haunted by the past and surrounded on all sides by enemies waiting for his fall, he finds himself trapped within his failures, suffocating under the weight of his memories.

This film covers the length and breadth of Nixon's life, with Anthony Hopkins in the titular role. He does a great job of bringing the 40th President to life. While he looked nothing like the man, Hopkins adopted several of his affectations that translate well on the screen, the barking voice and the jutting teeth. There are also several moments where a flick of his tongue gives him a rather reptilian look.

Hopkins and Director Oliver Stone manage to present a story that explains rather than excuses the man for his actions. Surprisingly they create a somewhat sympathetic character in Nixon, showing him to be a man eventually consumed by guilt. Burdened by the religious expectations of his mother and the ghosts of two dead brothers, their memory hung like a weight around his brain. But we're also shown the petty creature behind the mask, the man who remembered all who'd wronged him, punishing them in his own way, years later. He is always the wronged party, always on the defensive no matter the circumstance. He was a man continuously left unsatisfied by his successes, driven by feelings of inferiority that would eventually lead to his own destruction, encouraging viewers to both pity and loathe him.

While a lengthy film, the use of music lends an amount of emotionality to scenes and creates tension that drives the story forward.

Where the film fell flat was the extraneous use of visuals to illustrated emotion and memory. They felt jarring and random, interrupting the scene and drawing the viewer out of the film. Instead of added to the overall tapestry of the story they rather cluttered it. As well, it felt like overkill for the film to imply that Nixon was involved in the Kennedy assassination.

I would recommend watching the film primarily for the Hopkins and the supporting characters. They bring these characters to life, providing viewers with a front-row seat to Nixon's rise and fall.

All the President's Men (1976)

On June 17, 1972, five men broke in to the Watergate Hotel with the intent of bugging the Democratic National Headquarters. By many, including a number of newspapers it was believed to be an unimportant crime. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post believed otherwise and it was their persistence that ended up uncovering one of the biggest political scandals in American history. 

As is fitting in a story about journalists we begin with a blank page. Soon enough though we're treated to a great visual of a typewriter stamping out a date, the keystrokes layered with gunshots and whip-lashes to give the scene some punch, foreshadowing the writing of many articles. From there we are treated to stock footage of President Nixon addressing Congress, the triumph before the fall.

The casting of Redford and Hoffman was a genius move as the two play off against each other well. You really believe their enthusiasm and dedication to following every lead, even when it appears hopeless. Apparently the two learned each others lines so they could talk over and interrupt one another, creating more organic conversations. The addition of Jason Robards also lends an amount of gravitas that helps to anchor the newsroom, lending an authenticity to the reluctance and risk taken by the Washington Post to publish stories on the Watergate scandal.

One detractor is the almost non-existent soundtrack. For the first 30 minutes there's no music whatsoever and after it's used too sparingly. In a political thriller music can be key to inform viewers to mood, character motivations, foreshadowing, etc. Without it, there are noticeable gaps where music would have helped elevate and fill out the scene. As well, there were a long of takes that dragged on and the lack of music left those scenes feeling stale and hollow.

As well the lack of transition scenes was a little jarring for some. With a movie like this, running at a breakneck pace and so packed full of information in the vein of names and numbers, it's important for the viewer to understand where and when they are at all times.  Transitions can help ease this verbal overflow and not leave the viewer confused over people, places and things.

There's a complete lack of tension in the movie until Woodward's meeting with Deep Throat where whistling is heard in the background. Before that point the Watergate scandal and the newspaper articles felt completely separate. Here they come together and the possible danger these men are putting themselves in, becomes palpable. These journalists aren't just uncovering a story; they may be risking their lives.

If you're looking for a good movie about journalists and or a political thriller I would highly recommend this film.

Captain Blood (1935)

Up that rigging, you monkeys! Aloft! There's no chains to hold you now. Break out those sails and watch them fill with the wind that's carrying us all to freedom! 

Peter Blood is a physician with the unfortunate luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. He treats a patient involved in the Monmouth Rebellion, attempting to overthrow the of King of England and gets caught up amongst the rebels. For his involvement by association he's branded a traitor and sentenced to death. His fate is commuted though when the king is persuaded to sell the prisoners into slavery for profit and thus begins the long descent for Blood who protests his innocence at every opportunity, imagining every man shares the same scruples as himself. It's only upon arriving in Port Royal and encountering Arabella Bishop and her father the governor that Blood comes to realize the permanence and inherent danger in his situation. Arabella grows attached and does her best to help him but his pride gets in the way and when given the opportunity for escape and revenge he takes it, becoming the pirate of the title.

This was the movie that really introduced Errol Flynn to the world. Before this he had only played bit parts, non-speaking and supporting roles. This was his first starring part in America and boy what an entrance it was. He was charismatic and energetic, his big smile and bright laugh lighting up the screen. And there's no doubting the chemistry between him and Olivia de Havilland, despite the lack of development for her character.

The film also stars Basil Rathbone as a rival pirate captain and there's a great 'swashbuckling' scene between the two. Rathbone was actually a recreational fencer in his free time so if a real fight had broken out he would likely have wiped the floor with Flynn.

As well the film benefits from an epic sweeping soundtrack by Erich Korngold, lending some majesty to scenes with a thinner budget. It also gives the film a fighting chance against another swashbuckler of better quality made in the same year "Mutiny on the Bounty" though the latter would beat it out for Best Picture.

One complaint would be that the film is rather feast or famine when it comes to pacing and plot. The good parts come in waves and with the film nearly three hours long it can drag at times. This leads to a lack of tension and even Flynn can't distract from this. Though the film received Academy Award nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Writing and Best Sound Editing there were better naval films made in the same year which makes this feel like a diet pirate movie.

Gettysburg (1993)

”In the morning, there's to be a great battle. Tomorrow or the next day will determine the war.”

The Confederate army had crossed into Pennsylvania from Virginia, pushing into Union territory to force the North to concede defeat. The two armies converged on Gettysburg, a town of little note until July 1 1863. Over the next few days it would serve as a battleground for some of the bloodiest fighting of the American Civil War. The battle didn’t spell the end of the war but it was most likely the turning point for both armies. This seemingly inconsequential battle outside a small town in Pennsylvania was a heavy blow against the Confederate army thanks to poor tactics, incompetent officers and a bullheaded commander unwilling to listen. It all could have gone very differently if not for a few key reasons and one can only imagine what the United States would look like today if the South had won. The movie itself presents a small window into the war, only several days during which the Battle of Gettysburg took place but it provides us with a glimpse of a different time when a country was torn apart.

I’ve wanted to watch this movie ever since reading Killer Angels by Michael Shaara as the film is based on the book. It closely follows the story, leading us chronologically through each day of battle culminating in the triumph of the Union over Johnny Reb. I really appreciated that several aspects of the book were carried over into the movie such as both sides of the conflict being shown and given equal screen time. The viewer sees that the Union and Confederate soldiers are formal, polite and well-spoken, allowing us to see the dynamics of conversation and everyday life, including the variety of music and song that permeated the camps before and during the battle which I found pleasantly surprising. It brought to mind the idea that these were ordinary men, mostly volunteers and not career soldiers, who had left homes and families with little understanding of what they would be facing.

The opening credits were both entertaining and informative. Photos of the participants are overlaid with the actors portraying them and some of the resemblances are uncanny. I also appreciated both the performances of Jeff Daniels, who I’m consistently surprised by, and Richard Jordan. Both gave performances that made me feel for the character. Daniels as Chamberlain had this quiet, concerned quality and Jordan as Lew Armistead choked me up when he spoke about not wanting to meet his friend in battle who happened to be fighting for the other side. Everyone else left me rather cold, including Martin Sheen as General Lee which I did not expect.

It was interesting to watch a 20 year old film and see how much cinematics have changed in such a short time. I expected a regular amount of quick cuts throughout but instead found a film composed of long takes. At times this was frustrating, partly because I felt it slowed the action down as quick cuts could have been used to great effect during the battle. Long takes can be effective when used properly, they can amp up the tension but I don’t feel it was used to full effect here. The battle scenes could have been shot more dynamically and occasionally it felt as if they were being shot at angles that didn't take full advantage of the scope of the battle. I did however get a chill during the various shots of lined cannons firing in succession. This, combined with the technology available at the time, made the film seem more like a History Channel documentary. I did appreciate the lack of gratuitous violence as the film could easily have tipped into a gorefest. Instead, the portrayal of death and destruction felt authentic. It did however, feel as if there was a lot of untapped potential in this film.

One of the issues I had with the movie was the viewer didn’t get the great internal dialogue present in the book. In Shaara’s work, the reader could see into the hearts and minds of the major players and empathize with their situation, how they would be forced to fight friends and fellow countrymen. This made it easier to care about and worry for men on both sides of the conflict. The connection with the movie characters isn’t as well established as the story rests entirely upon the visuals, omitting an important aspect of the book. As a result, there wasn’t as much tension built around character survival as I didn’t care about about everyone living through the battle.

Running close to four hours though, this movie feels overlong. Some of the dialogue feels stale, stretching out scenes to an interminable length. And then, when we finally reach the battle scenes, they are less than eletric. The movie just doesn't measure up to the book. That doesn't mean it's a bad movie though. If you’re looking for a visual representation of what the Battle of Gettysburg looked like, filmed where it took place 130 years later, watch this movie. I also cannot recommend enough the soundtrack composed by Randy Edelman. It is spectacular.

"The Wind" (1928)

“Injuns call this the ‘land o’ the winds’ – it never stops blowing here-“

Letty Mason, played by Lillian Gish, is traveling to stay on her cousin’s ranch is warned that the constant wind raging in the area will drive her to insanity. Destitute and out of options, Letty ignores this prophetic counsel, only to incur the wrath of her cousin’s wife. Driven out of the house by jealousy, Letty goes from one bad situation to another, finally settling on marriage to Lige, a man she neither knows nor loves in order to put a roof over her head. Her husband is not pleased to discover this, but has more important things to worry about, like the wind. Combine this fractious relationship with a ‘norther windstorm and an amorous stalker and you have a tension-filled ending replete with madness, death and a vast array of great visual effects.

The story was adapted from a book brought the attention of MGM by Lillian Gish herself. She was interested in adapting and got the go ahead from ‘boy wonder’ Irving Thalberg. She was also able to choose her director, Victor Sjostrom and her leading man, Lars Hanson. The film wasn’t without issues though. The wind scenes were shot in the Mojave Desert with the help of aircraft propellers. The propellers and the desert made for a somewhat miserable shoot. The propellers blew smoke, sand and hot air at the crew while they were operating, meaning everyone had to wear eye protection, bandanas, long sleeve shirts and grease paint. As for the desert, temperatures reached 120 degrees at their height, meaning the film stock had to be packed in ice to keep it from melting. And poor Gish scalded her hand when she touched a door handle it was so hot out.

Letty is a sweet if naïve girl. She’s kind but doesn’t understand how her actions affect other people. She befriends a man on her way to the ranch, unaware of his nefarious intentions, cozies up to her cousin, making his paranoid wife crazy and toys with the emotions of two men who want to marry her. Gish plays Letty as wide-eyed and vulnerable. As the wind begins to affect her psychologically, Gish shines, using her eyes, face and arms to full effect. This is especially evident in my favourite scene where Gish is staring out the window in horror, the insanity growing on her face and she realizes what she’s staring at. There were times I thought she was a little over dramatic with the arms and eyes but on the whole she did a superb job of conveying her emotions. I also wish that there had been more of a buildup to the madness caused by the wind but from the beginning Gish seemed to be afraid of it.

The wind itself is also a character, constantly harassing the characters, including Letty. It invades every space of their lives. You can see this when Old Sourdough tries to sweep up the sand tracked into Letty and Lige’s house, opening the door to throw it out, only to have the wind blow in a new mess of sand. Also, at some point Letty’s given up washing the dishes with water and switches to sand. This is a great visual and also a possible hint at her growing madness as she seems to do this rather absentmindedly. I did expect a little more in terms of transitions and the tension and conflict at the end is over rather quickly. After viewing this I wonder what a director like Hitchcock would have done with the material. As well, the ending is rather abrupt and doesn’t fit with the previous motivations and feelings Letty has when it comes to the wind. The film makes a 180 turn at the end. This was done at the insistence of the studio, essentially undercutting the buildup that had come before. I think sticking with the original ending would have had far more of a visual and emotional impact.

There are some amazing shots from this movie as well as special effects. There is a scene where Letty and Lige are pacing in separate rooms with the shot tightly focused on their feet. Their faces aren’t visible and yet we feel their emotions through their body language. I also enjoyed the scenes with Cora, the jealous wife. There’s one in particular where she’s cutting up a cow with a large knife, in contrast to Letty who’s playing with Cora’s children. You can see her anger and jealousy towards Letty build as she wipes the knife on her butcher’s apron and tries to embrace her own child. The child, repulsed by her bloody hands runs to Letty instead. Gish, who essentially carries the movie, also has a variety of good scenes in which the madness of the wind encroaches on her home, her person and then her mind. In terms of special effects, I loved the various shots of sand blowing against a window which had a very ethereal quality. There’s also a great shot of a tornado, headed straight for town as well as a ghost horse representing the spirit of the wind which haunts Gish’s character.

This is a movie I would definitely watch again and I would highly recommend it for those who love silent movies.

Movies Seen

#

12 Angry Men (1957)
27 Dresses
The 39 Steps (1935)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

A

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)
The African Queen (1951)
All About Eve (1950)
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
All the President's Men (1976)
Amadeus (1984)
American Graffiti (1973)
Anna Karenina (2012)
An American in Paris
Anastasia (1956)
Annie Hall (1977)
The Apartment (1960)
A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)
The Awful Truth (1937)

B

Back to the Future (1985)
Ball of Fire (1941)
Batman Returns (1992)
The Bells of St. Mary's (1945)
The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
Big (1988)
Bikini Beach
The Birth of a Nation (1915)
Black Narcissus (1947)
Blade Runner (1982)
Mr. Blandings Builds his Dream House
The Blind Side (2009)
The Blue Dahlia
Born Yesterday (1950)
Boys Town (1938)
Brave (2012)
Breakfast at Tiffanys (1961)
The Breakfast Club
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
Bringing Up Baby (1938)
Broadway Melody (1929)
Bullitt (!968)

C

Cape Fear (1962)
Captain Blood (1935)
Captains Courageous (1937)
Casablanca (1943)
A Christmas Carol (1951)
Citizen Kane (1941)
City Lights (1931)
Clue (1985)

D

The Dark Knight (2008)
Dead End
Mr. Deeds Goes to Town
Defiance (2009)
Destry Rides Again
Double Indemnity (1944)
Dracula (1931)
Drive (2011)
Duck Soup (1933)

E

East of Eden (1955)
Easy Living (1937)
The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

F

A Fish Called Wanda
Forbidden Planet
The French Connection (1971)
From Here to Eternity (1953)

G

Gaslight (1944)
Gattaca
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953)
Gettysburg (1993)
The Ghost and Mrs. Muir
The Godfather (1972)
Going My Way (1944)
Goodbye Mr. Chips (1939)
Gone With the Wind (1939)
Grand Hotel (1932)
The Great Escape (1963)
The Great Train Robber (1903)
Gunga Din (1939)

H

The Hangover (2009)
A Hard Day's Night (1964)
Heaven Can Wait
The Heiress (1949)
Hellboy 2
High Noon (1952)
His Girl Friday (1940)
Holiday (1938)
Hondo 91953)
Howl's Moving Castle
The Hunt for Red October

I

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
In the Heat of the Night
Invictus
Iron-Jawed Angels
It Happened One Night (1934)
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)

J

Jamaica Inn
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1942)
Jumper

K

The Kid
The King and I (1956)
King's Row
Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)

L

The Lady Eve (1941)
The Lady Vanishes (1938)
Laura (1944)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Leave Her to Heaven (1945)
Lifeboat (1944)
The Life of Emile Zola (1937)
The Lion in Winter (1968)
The Little Foxes (1941)
Love Laughs at Andy Hardy


M

M (1931)
Macbeth (1948)
Macbeth (1978)
Made for Each Other
Made of Honor
The Major and the Minor (1942)
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
A Man for All Seasons (1966)
The Man who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)
Meet Me In St. Louis (1944)
Midnight Cowboy (1969)
Miracle on 34th Street (1947)
The Miracle Woman (1931)
The Miracle Worker (1962)
Modern Times (1936)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1974)
The More the Merrier "(1943)
Morocco (1930)
The Most Dangerous Game
Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1935)
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)
Mutiny on the Bounty
My Mad Godfrey (1935)

N

The Natural (1984)
A Night at the Opera (1935)
Night of the Hunter (1955)
Nixon (1995)
Never Back Down
North by Northwest (1959)
Now, Voyager

O

Oliver! (1968)
Once Upon a Time in the West (1969)
On the Town (1949)
On the Waterfront (1954)
The Other Boleyn Girl
The Ox-Bow Incident

P

Passchendale (2009)
Penelope
The Phantom of the Opera (1925)
The Philadelphia Story (1940)
Pinocchio (1940)
Pollyanna (1960)
Ponyo
Pretty Woman (1990)
Pride and Prejudice (1940)
Prince Caspian (2008)
Psycho (1960)
The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985)

Q


R

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Random Harvest (1942)
Rear Window (1954)
Rebecca( 1940)
Rebel Without a Cause (1955)
The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)
Roman Holiday (1953)

S

Sabotage
The Scarlet Empress (1934)
The Scarlet Pimpernel (1935)
The Searchers (1956)
Serenity
Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954)
Singin' in the Rain (1952)
Shadow of a Doubt (1943)
Shanghai Express (1932)
The Shop Around the Corner (1940)
Sixteen Candles (1984)
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1938)
Some Lie it Hot (1959)
The Sound of Music (1965)
Soylent Green
Spartacus and the Ten Gladiators
Spiderwick Chronicles
Spirited Away
Splash (1984)
Stagecoach (1939)
Stage Door (1937)
Stalag 17 (1953)
Star Trek
Steamboat Bill Jr. (1928)
The Stepford Wives (2004)
Strangers on a Train (1951)
Sullivan's Travels (1942)
Sunset Boulevard (1950)
Super 8 (2011)
Superman
Suspicion (1941)

T

Terminator: Salvation
The Thin Man (1934)
The Three Faces of Eve (1957)
They Shoot Horses Don't They? (1969)
This is Spinal Tap (1984)
Top Hat (1935)
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
A Trip to the Moon (1902)
Tron (2010)

U

V

Vacation from Marriage

W

WALL-E
Went
the Day Well
West Side Story (1961)
Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)
Winchester '73 (1950)
The Wind (1928)
Witness (1985)
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
The Women (1939)

X

Y

Young Bess
Young Frankenstein (1974)
Young and Innocent

Z

Anna Karenina (2012)

"I was eighteen when I got married, but it was not love."

Princess Anna Arkadyevna Karenina is part of the upper crust of Russian aristocracy whose rather bland 'just so' life is turned upside-down upon meeting Count Vronsky, a handsome cavalry officer. Their mutual attraction flies in the face of her status as a married woman and mother. Left with choosing either her husband and child or a passionate affair, she picks the latter, compromising her loveless marriage and her social status. As she fights to keep both disparate desires from slipping away, she spirals off into delusions and paranoia, leaving the audience wondering how she will extricate herself from the corner she's painted herself into.

I loved Knightley's costumes in this film! The opulent furs and fabrics, coupled with a troupe of feathers and diamonds make for a spectacular wardrobe. Knightley and period films go together well but I've always felt that there was something of a disconnect between what she says she's feeling versus her facial expressions and body language. It makes any emotional reaction difficult to believe because there's no visual evidence. I did buy into the frantic energy that manifested as the film progressed. She seemed to be in earnest over a myriad of things including her son, Vronsky and what other people of her social set thought of her dalliance.

I thought Jude Law did a great job in his role as Karenin. He perfectly fit his costume which gave his character an "Old World" look. He was the one character who looked like he actually belonged in the Russia of the 1870s. He exuded a calm personality, not given to fits of anger. He seemed very practical, very logical but not very loving. In fact, he treated his marriage and his wife more like an obligation he's expected to fulfill. He couldn't comprehend Anna's infidelity, as if he couldn't imagine she would have wanted more out of their marriage other than her child, fine clothes and place in society.

Johnson didn't work for me as Vronsky. I think part of the large problem was the lack of chemistry between him and Knightley. It's something you can't fake and was sorely needed in this movie. Knightley and Law have a cold, almost contractual relationship which is as it should be but I didn’t feel any heat between Knightley and Johnson. My understanding of her character was that the entire point of her affair was that she’d never been in love before, having married her husband for reasons other than emotional attachment. Vronsky was supposed to spur this sensual awakening within her where she experiences what it’s like to truly love a man and thus, make the fatal choice of choosing to be with him. I wanted to see burning looks from across the room, the barest touch to ignite a conflagration between the two but even rolling around naked seemed more of a formality for the sake of the plot that a consummation of passions. Overall the relationship between the two fell flat.

Matthew MacFadyen stole the show as Stiva however. He had this whole WC Fields look going on with bright costumes and this overlarge mustache. And when he smiles! It's the widest smile and it lights up the whole room.

The story has a very surreal feel to it as large swathes of the film take place in an old run down theatre, re-purposed as various locations, such as an office, a train station and a cafe. On one hand this makes the film stagnant, despite the amazing set design changes and gives the film a confined feeling, very much like a play. I was hoping to see some great sweeping landscapes, taking advantage of the vastness of Russia. This film took a different approach though, bringing the locations into the theatre so I applaud the risk. The sets were beautiful though, my favourite being the train station, all covered in steam and snow and bathed in a soft blue light.

I wasn't sure what to make of the singing that intermittently popped up or the balletic movements peppered throughout. It made for very fluid movement, especially during the dance scene which had a very ethereal feel to it, but I wasn't sure why it was in the film. As well, the pace was rather frustrating for the first half of the movie. It runs at breakneck speed and doesn’t give the viewer a chance to absorb what’s been said or even enjoy the scenes. The sets are sumptuous and as someone who appreciates period films, I wanted to luxuriate in them, not watch them pass by like so many train cars. During the second half, after things started to slow down there is this great scene between Kitty and Levin. Very little is said but they speak through a set of alphabet blocks. It's a very quiet yet intimate scene that really speaks to who their characters are.

My final verdict is that the film is very pretty but Tolstoy's message is either non existent or buried so far underneath layers of silk, fur and snow as to be unrecognizable to anyone other than a Tolstoy scholar. I would definitely recommend it to anyone who likes period films but I wouldn't expect to fully comprehend what Tolstoy was trying to say without reading the book first.

Morocco (1930)

Amy Jolly, played by Marlene Dietrich, is a singer making one last effort to survive by coming to Morocco. On the boat she meets a rich man, La Bessiere, played by Adolphe Menjou, who is more than kind. Once settled in a cabaret she locks eyes with philandering French Legionnaire, Private Tom Brown, played by Gary Cooper. The two come together, despite misgivings about the opposite sex and can't quite work out their feeling before parting ways thanks to responsibilities and misunderstandings. This leads Menjou to step in and pick up the pieces. When Dietrich and Cooper get another chance Dietrich makes a shockingly romantic, though perhaps misguided decision.

Dietrich plays a cool customer with a world weariness about her. She holds herself apart from people, worried of getting too entangled in relationships, especially with men. This aloofness works well with Dietrich’s personality. Usually clothed in dramatically luxurious costumes here her most sensational outfit is the tuxedo she wears at the cabaret. At several points she loses that chill demeanor and we peel back the mask. Watching Dietrich in distress was painful, mostly due to the fact that her lack of control felt unnatural. The scenes in which she panics wasn't believable, possibly because in all her other roles exudes this calm and collected personality and she usually plays strong women. Coming from another actor, perhaps Fontaine or funnily enough, de Havilland, I could believe the self-sacrifice. For Dietrich it seemed like a compromise she would never make, especially for a man with commitment issues. It would be easier to accept that she stays in Morocco and chooses to be on her own.

This was Dietrich’s first Hollywood film and it shows. She wasn't fluent in English at this point and spoke all of her lines phonetically, very much like Bela Lugosi in "Dracula". She also sings and let me just say that I resisted to the urge to skip the scene. I thought it was terrible and while I've never thought much of her singing ability but she's done better. This only managed to detract from the cabaret scene which is one of the more interesting parts of the film. In it, Dietrich dresses up in a tux, much to the chagrin of the cabaret owner. She walks out on stage and is immediately booed. I liked how she calmly waited for the audience and watched as Cooper shouted them down. What follows is a gender role reversal where Dietrich is the one in the suit, serenading the man. At one point she walks up to a woman, takes a flower from her and then kisses her. Censors originally wanted this cut from the film as they deemed it inappropriate. Dietrich was cleverly able to argue that continuity would be ruined as following this, she tosses Cooper the flower which he tucks behind his ear. The audience wouldn't know where the flower had come from if they cut out the kiss. It's important to note that this film was made in the Pre-Code Hollywood era. It's more than likely that the Hays Code would have cut that scene had the movie been made after 1934.

I won’t deny that Coop is a total stone fox in that legionnaire’s uniform but he’s practically a two by four in this part, with a blasé line delivery and a fairly unlikeable character. I've read that some people thought he brilliantly underplayed his character, making for a subtle performance. That he so matter-of-factly delivers each line makes him sound like a nervous child performing at a local theatre company.

This film wants to be a romance but in the end, I only felt bad for Dietrich's character and didn't agree with the choices she made. There are better movies out there about self-sacrifice. If you’re looking for a good Dietrich or a Cooper film, look elsewhere. For a better Dietrich film, try ”Shanghai Express” which came out just one year later and is a better film by miles. It has better costumes, better acting, a better plot and some iconic shots. For Coop may I suggest ”High Noon” a movie for which he won Best Actor at the Academy Awards. Here his stoic acting style lends itself to the material

Random Harvest (1942)

"You are from the asylum, aren't you? Aren't you? "

John Smith, played by Ronald Colman, is a WWI veteran stuck in an asylum, suffering from shell shock. He can't remember who he is but lives with the hope that some day his family will come to claim him and take him home. When the end of the war is declared, in the celebration, Smith slips out and wanders into a tavern. He is befriended by Paula, played by Greer Garson who takes him under her wing. The two fall in love, get married and start a family. Smith, still trying to recover his past life is forging on with his new one. Unfortunately, on a job interview in Liverpool he is hit by a car, losing all memory of Paula but regaining his lost memories.

I like Ronald Colman but upon first learning that he was supposed to be a WWI veteran, I found it difficult to believe. Most soldiers in WWI were young men whereas Colman here very much looks his 51 years of age though I will admit that he does look very dapper in a uniform. I was finally able to suspend my disbelief when a couple came to look in on him, thinking he might be their missing son. When they replied in the negative, the look on his face was enough to break anyone's heart and after that point I was sold. As well, it was wonderful just to listen to him. He has one of the most beautiful speaking voices I've heard in older movies. It should also be noted that Colman was actually a WWI veteran, having suffered severe shrapnel wounds and gassing.

Greer Garson, noted queen of MGM during WWII, played Paula. Garson plays a rather strange role here as a singer/dancer with a traveling troupe. It felt very much outside the roles she normally plays but she looked very comfortable with her part. I didn't think much of her singing however as her voice has always seemed very breathy and doesn't much lend itself to song. I did however like the strength she showed in this film, especially during the third act. The situation she places herself in takes such courage of character that I felt desperately bad for her but the entire time I was on her side.

One of the issues I had with the film was the length of time that passes between before revelation for Colman. By my count 15 years(!) pass before we the audience receive any sort of payoff, an amount of time far beyond which I am willing to suspend my disbelief. This ridiculous span is longer than I believe even the Greyfriars Bobby would stick around.

As well, I thought it was far too convenient for all the aspects of Paula and John's previous relationship to just disappear. After you watch the film you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. There was no mention of this aspect of their life despite the loss and it's never addressed later in the film. These two spent years together and it felt very much as if it was only used as a plot device to bring them together rather than an integral part of their relationship and a set of cumulative experiences that you can't just erase.

I did enjoy this movie and I would recommend. I would say though that it's worth checking out of the library but don't worry about buying a copy.

M (1931)

Berlin is being stalked by a child killer and it won’t be long before he strikes again. This shadowy figure is absent from much of the film but is ever present in the minds of the populace. When another child disappears, paranoia and anger boil over as the authorities and criminal elements come together to stop the killings. Amazing cinematography and one of Peter Lorre’s best performances make this one of the prime noir films in the genre.

While the film is a fictional story, it feels more like a documentary than anything else. We don’t follow one character and there is no protagonist. The camera is ambiguous, neither damning nor adoring Lorre’s character. Instead, we are like a detached observer that watches the story from over the shoulder of everyone. We aren’t omniscient and instead follow around police, private citizens, beggars and criminals and hover over their machinations. This lack of information cranks up the tension not only for the viewer but for the characters as well. It allows for everyone we see to remain a possible suspect and feeds the frenzy that is the mob in their insatiable hunt for the child killer. Strangers accost each other in the street and make unfounded accusations. Any man speaking to a child is viewed with suspicion. Police search every shrub, examine every scrap of paper and essentially make life difficult for those committing crimes small and large. The pressure envelopes the city and the searchers close ranks around Lorre’s character, driving him into ever-smaller spaces until they think they have him trapped.

Peter Lorre is absolutely amazing in this, one of his first movies. He was only 26 at the time and if you have any doubt about his abilities, wait until near the end when begins his monologue. He is absolutely riveting! Watch for the use of mirrors in the movie and how Lorre interacts with them. He speaks about being pursued and the mirror serves to double his image. ”It's there all the time, driving me out to wander the streets, following me, silently, but I can feel it there. It's me, pursuing myself! I want to escape, to escape from myself! But it's impossible. I can't escape, I have to obey it. I have to run, run... endless streets. I want to escape, to get away!” He doesn’t actually spend much time on screen but his presence is palpable in every moment. He is a pathetic figure who actually engenders sympathy, not what how one would normally expect to feel for an antagonist.

I also appreciated the other characters we meet like Inspektor Karl Lohmann. Usually I would expect the head of police to be a bumbling fool but Lohmann plays a very intelligent man with a sixth sense about criminals. Evidence of this is laid bare in the speakeasy when he’s checking documents and catches the forger and the thief. I also really liked the meeting of the crime bosses. Their props helped to inform on their criminal pursuits without having to put words to their line of work. One man playing cards is clearly a card shark and one man who keeps pulling watches from his pocket is obviously a master thief.
There is a great scene which switches between the police meeting and the crime bosses meeting. Traditionally these groups are on the opposite end of the morality scale but here they hold separate meetings about the same issue. It is invariably for different reasons but we see how this one man has brought them together. I rather like the crime bosses approach better though as we got to see the wonderful beggar network and their underground grocery store where they resell half eaten sandwiches and half smoked cigars. There’s a great little scene with the cigar man laying out his spoils by size and type. He almost succumbs to lighting a rather large stogie but on second thought decides to keep it for resale.

You might notice the lack of music or really any sound at all in this film. It could easily be explained away by the fact that this was Lang’s first movie with sound but when you consider that he could easily have chosen to stay with the tech used for silent movies and didn't, this argument falls apart. Instead this feels like a deliberate and measured decision. On one hand it gives the movie this hollow centre where music could have been used to heighten tension, elicit an emotional response and/or inform the viewer about a scene or a character. The lack of music does make scenes more poignant however, as they force the reader to really watch what’s going on instead of letting the music set the tone. For example, the scene at the end where the town confronts Lorre’s character is visually stunning and music isn’t necessary. In fact it would detract from the gravity of the situation. Really the only important music in the film is when Lorre’s character whistles. It’s his identifier as he spends much of his time facing away from the camera and comes in the form of “In the Hall of the Mountain King” by Edvard Grieg. It also creates an ominous atmosphere as you’ll notice that he only whistles it at certain times.

The film does have a clinical or procedural feel to it in how Lang presents a set to the viewer. In some ways though it felt like a Master Class on cinematography. As well, Lang sets up this cloying claustrophobia of suspense well known to Hitchcock fans. The movie develops a narrowing focus that begins with the city at large and then shrinks down into the dark corners of Berlin. The closer we get to Lorre the slower the action.
I loved almost everything about this movie but the ending was dissatisfying in that Lang seems to be trying to make the movie into one with a message instead of letting it stand on its own. The scene with the mothers detracts from everything Lang had constructed up until that point. I would have preferred the movie end on the scene just previous. In any case though I would highly recommend this film

"Leave Her to Heaven" (1945)

This movie, told in flashback, shows Richard Harland, a writer, traveling home after spending two years in prison. Over the course of the film we learn how he came to end up in prison, regarding his relationship with two sisters. One, Ellen Berent, falls madly in love with him and they get married, merely on the basis that he reminds her of her father. Her adoptive sister, Ruth, is less blatant about her feelings but she’s obviously fond of Richard. Unfortunately for him, he married the sister who’s obsessed with him, who will “never let him go” and when others get in between her and her husband, tragedy strikes. This Film Noir shot in Technicolor is a chilling example of how quickly events can unravel people’s lives when love runs amok.

We meet Ellen, Ruth and Richard in a train scene where everything about Ellen seemingly separates her from her family, including her clothing. She has this imperious attitude with everyone though I suspect she would not have acted that way around her father. Throughout the movie we see how her and Richard’s relationship develops and we slowly come to an understanding about who Ellen really is, despite the face she puts on for everyone else.

Gene Tierney fit perfectly into the femme fatale role so common in that era and it doesn’t hurt that she has a stunning face. Darryl F Zanuck thought that she was the most beautiful woman in movie history and it’s that very juxtaposition between her looks and her actions in this movie that make the role so good. And consider this, Rita Hayworth was originally intended to play this role but turned it down. We know that she can play against type as in ”The Lady from Shanghai” but I’m not sure Hayworth could have been as icy as Tierney. Take for example, that scene in the boat, which is very reminiscent of a scene in ”The Little Foxes with Bette Davis. Both sit as still as rocks, actively not involving themselves in the scene, mouths firmly set, very chilling. Tierney also out acts everyone else. While I agree that she had a far juicier role, I think that people might not have taken her acting seriously because of her looks though it’s important to note that she was nominated for an Academy Award for this role. She is monstrous as Ellen but we delight in watching her play the character.

As for her sister Ruth, played by Jeanne Crain, I found her boring, annoying and saccharine, ugh. She seemed to melt into the background and her main character trait was that she liked plants. Really? How about you make her more of a rival to Ellen? Make her more interesting to make me believe Richard’s thoughts would start to stray, let us know more about her background and how she feels about Ellen and her adoptive parents. And then there’s Danny. Has there ever been child more annoying on film and is it wrong that I didn’t miss him at all when he wasn’t there? I did feel bad for the actor Darryl Hickman who was in the water so long that he caught pneumonia when they were filming that swimming scene. I don’t know if we’re supposed to identify with Ellen at all but at points I sympathized with her.

This film is essentially all desire and obsession and how it can destroy a person as well as everyone around them. This is a typical message drawn from Film Noirs but the fact that this is a colour Film Noir makes it special. The locations burst with colour and the settings are gorgeous, especially the lake, contrasting with the fact that the film is full of death and murder. Despite having some horrifying scenes this movie was Fox’s highest grossing picture of the 1940s.

I loved seeing Vincent Price in this because it’s nice to see him in roles when he was younger, before he moved into his horror movie phase. I laughed when the dog started barking after a knock on the door as I made a joke that evil was approaching and there he was! He was great, especially in the court room scene although it started to get a bit hyperbolic towards the end.

As for the moral of the story, it’s communication people. If Ellen had just talked to Richard about how she felt about their relationship, how she felt about her sister and how she wanted time alone with Richard because Danny kept turning up like a bad penny, this could have all been avoided. Possibly. Maybe. Probably Not At All.

Rating: If you're a fan of classic movies and like Film Noir, you should own this and not let it get too dusty from lack of attention.

"City Lights" (1931)

This post was originally intended for the Film Preservation Blogathon but I managed to screw that up. Instead it is here, blatantly overdue, for your reading pleasure.

"Tomorrow the birds will sing."

The Little Tramp, played by Chaplin, encounters a blind flower girl in town and falls head over heels. He wants to help her regain her sight and tells her he's going to pay to get her eyes fixed. Through no fault of his own, she assumes he's wealthy, a fact he doesn't correct. He then proceeds to do everything in his power to make money, from getting a job, to boxing, to asking his rich "friend" for a loan. This rich friend happens to be a suicidal drunk who Chaplin befriends and looks after. The two go on adventures but the fun only lasts as long as the friend is drunk. When sober, he forgets Chaplin and kicks him to the curb. Somehow the Tramp must continue the façade he's created and make enough money to help the girl he loves.

The music at the beginning has a very Gershwiny sound. Very "Rhapsody in Blue" but it says that Chaplin composed the music. Was he copying or emulating Gershwin? "Rhapsody in Blue" came out in 1924 so it's possible.

The introduction of the Tramp is very cute. A Peace and Prosperity Monument is being given to the city and when its unveiled he's found to be sleeping on the uppermost statue's lap. I loved how he climbed down, getting his pants caught on the sword blade and while everyone's yelling at him, the American national anthem starts. Everyone stops out of respect and removes their hats; meanwhile poor Chaplin is just trying to stay on his feet. His fall looks effortless and organic. I didn't however, like the remainder of his descent from the statue. Sitting on the statue's face, hand and putting his foot on the knee felt forced. To me there was no need to draw out the gag, it accomplished its purpose, introducing the audience to the Tramp. Back in 1931 it may have been easier to get away with such stunts but to me it weakened the film and diminished the humour at the beginning of the scene.

At first I didn't like that Chaplin decided any dialogue would sound like adults in Charlie Brown. In 1931 sound was available for films. In fact, this very film has sound, just not anyone's recorded voice. It does work within the context of a Chaplin film though, as the viewer gets the gist of what the characters are saying and it adds humour to the visuals, utilizing sound without making the film a "talkie". Chaplin would go on to do something similar in "Modern Times"

We then meet the love interest, a blind girl selling flowers. She hears Chaplin climb out of a taxi cab and assuming he's a rich man, asks him to buy a flower. A car meant a certain amount of wealth at this point in history as the US was in the early throes of the Depression and things were only getting worse. Chaplin was smart here though as the film shows that he and the audience learn she's blind at the same time. After buying a flower with what are probably his last few pennies he stays to watch her, obviously smitten. I feel her story is a play for sympathy because not only is she blind and poor, she's also an orphan. Why not just give her a dog that gets run over too?

In terms of the technical aspect, it took Chaplin 342 takes to get the flower girl introduction the way he wanted it as he couldn't figure out how to show that she thinks the Tramp is wealthy. And when you consider that Chaplin wasn't on good terms with the woman playing the flower girl, Virginia Cherrill, I just cringe at the thought of that many takes. In fact, their relationship was so volatile that he fired her after she came back to the set late one day and intended to shoot the rest of the film with another actor, Georgia Hale. Cherrill knew that was impossible considering how much footage they'd already shot and said she would come back to shoot the rest of the movie at double her salary. Talk about taking advantage of a situation! All told it took Chaplin more than three years to complete "City Lights".

Later that same day we see Chaplin trying to settle down for the night on a bench. He then notices a man in a suit trying to kill himself in the river. The man is obviously drunk and as he puts a rope tied to a rock around his neck, Chaplin tries to stop him and they both end up in the drink. They climb over one another to get out of the river and I flash back to a very similar scene with Keaton in a change room in "The Cameraman" where Buster's trying to get into a bathing suit. Here though, Chaplin and the suit fall into the river a second time and at this point the gag feels stale. It would have been interesting to see how Keaton would have played this.

This event leads to some great gags in the next scene though as the suit, who is grateful to Chaplin, invites him home to celebrate their new friendship. Chaplin has a slew of very smart alcohol gags that we see on full display: the suit accidentally pours a whole bottle of booze down Chaplin's pants; Chaplin dabs a little alcohol on the back of his neck like perfume; Chaplin resorts to dumping an unwanted shot into his shirt pocket. The two friends decide to go head out on the town. There are several more gags at the restaurant there are several more gags, involving a cigar and a streamer. My problem was I could guess what was going to happen next. I'm sure at the time the movie came out these gags were fresh, but I've seen too many films with similar situations, including a very memorable "I Love Lucy" episode featuring Bill Holden and spaghetti. Chaplin's genius here appears to be his downfall as so many people have imitated him that the joke has become tired.

While his friendship with Suit is on again off again, depending on his sobriety, Chaplin continues his quest to make money to restore his girl's sight. He takes a job as a garbage man which he isn't very good at and then misplaces the soap and washes his face with cheese. Ew. When his garbage job doesn't pan out, he takes up a very short-lived career in boxing during which he tries to fix his match. Cheeky bugger! We also get an awesome scene of Chaplin dancing and dodging behind the referee to escape his opponent during a match. This was the best part of the movie, not only because of the lack of cuts but because of the humour and the choreography involved.

There's another scene at Suit's house involving cops and robbers. Fortunately Chaplin escapes to the flower girl's house and tells her to take his money for her operation. He thinks he'll never see her again and lies to her about it. It might sound weird but at this point I think Keaton's better at emoting with his face than Chaplin. The Tramp is caught and sentenced to jail, during which the flower girl has an operation, can see again and opens up her own flower shop with the money left over from her operation. Their situations now much reverse, the Tramp reappears, looking shabbier than ever and at one point gets angry, which I think he does better than when he's acting happy. The flower girl sees him and laughs, appearing to pity him but then she offers a flower and there's that wonderful moment where she realizes who he is. The ending is very touching though Chaplin's body language seems very childlike, biting a finger and smiling at her

Everyone seems to love this film and it's been lauded by critics for decades as one of the top films ever made. Orson Welles said it was his favourite film, Fellini praised the film and Kubrick rated it among his top ten films. James Agee ever said the final scene was the "greatest single piece of acting ever committed to celluloid". Some even quote this as Chaplin's best movie but I can honestly say that I don't feel the same way. I liked the movie but I believe "Modern Times" holds a far better claim to the title 'Best Chaplin Movie'.

My biggest problem was with some of the gags. Some were too predictable while at other times it felt like Chaplin was overplaying his hand with repetition. This speaks to how influential Chaplin and the invention of slapstick was to the movie industry and how the idea of humour evolves over time. I didn't mind that it was a relatively quiet film but at times it strayed into the saccharine and sentimental which I don't like. There is wiggle room considering this movie is over 80 years old but I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would, considering the hype.

Rating: Using my brand new rating system I would says that "This is worth checking out of the library but don't worry about buying a copy to keep."