Change Your Image
peytone
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Scrawl (2015)
Incoherent
Scrawl is an incoherent mess. If I hadn't read the plot synopsis before I watched it I would've had no clue what was going on. The storytelling and editing choices made here are bizarre and completely ruin the admittedly interesting premise.
Most people, no doubt, will seek this movie out because it is Daisy Ridley's first feature film (filmed before Star Wars: The Force Awakens). I'll give this movie one thing: Daisy's performance here, at its best, is pretty darn good. Sure, she is given some garbage dialogue at times, but she makes the best of the material and shows some nice range. Though she is the biggest one on the poster, her role in the movie is limited.
I know this is an indie film, and I certainly did not expect big-budget stuff. However, good editing and story structure can be done on any film with any budget. Talent is something different than scope or budget. Shots are cut between with hardly a care, there are random and incoherent montages, bizarre dialogue, you name it. It was honestly a chore to watch this; Scrawl represents the worst of independent film.
Skip this one. Do not waste your time and money.
The Whistler (1944)
Dull
I love classic films, but one of my greatest pet peeves about them is long, uninteresting dialogue scenes. This film has got plenty!
The plot is at least intriguing. There's this guy who thinks that his wife is dead, so he hires a hit-man to kill himself off. Midway through the movie he realizes his wife is alive, but he is unable to call off the murder.
Where this film is lacking is in its execution. The cinematography is bland and uninteresting, and the performances here, except for J. Carroll Naish, are dull. This movie manages to take an interesting premise and make it boring by sheer unimaginative filmmaking.
I know this is a low budget movie, but you know what? So was Night of the Living Dead. That movie at least had a spark of imagination and creativity.
I actually stopped watching this 3/4 of the way through. I don't know for certain how it ends, but that doesn't matter to me, for I was not invested in the story at all. Ugh.
Don't waste your time here.
High Society (1956)
Pretty good. More enjoyable than The Philadelphia Story!
I was somewhat disappointed with the original version, The Philadelphia Story, when I watched it. Though James Stewart's acting was great, for some reason the movie just wasn't too enjoyable for me.
When I found this movie, until I read the synopsis I had no clue it was a remake. That being said, I think that High Society made some improvements over its predecessor. The casting in both movies is no doubt great. Many people enjoy Katharine Hepburn in TPS, but I found her annoying.
I am a little biased towards Grace Kelly in general but I enjoyed her performance much better than Hepburn's. Making this story a musical helps liven up the whole thing and makes it more enjoyable to see. My favorite was the jazz song by Louis Armstrong and his band with Bing Crosby. Plus, three great musicians are in the cast. What more could you ask for?
The ending in both flicks is the same. I'm not giving too much away but I think it comes out of left field (less so in this one). I guess this divorcée romance type of story isn't my cup of tea. Another pet peeve: this movie loves wide shots. Perhaps there are too many.
Overall, the performances here are very enjoyable, both acting and musically, and you will be charmed to no end by Grace Kelly and entertained by the music. If you didn't care for The Philadelphia Story, you'll find that High Society improves a story a bit and is overall more fun.
7/10 stars.
Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933)
A Mixed Bag
I watch a lot of classic films, particularly classic horror, and Mysteries of the Wax Museum had been on my watchlist for a long time. I was familiar with the work of Fay Wray and Lionel Atwill, and had seen the remake starring Vincent Price.
For those of you unfamiliar with the story; Atwill plays a wax sculpter in London whose gifted hands are maimed in a fire that destroys his failing wax museum. Years later, he sets up shop in New York, and resorts to (spoilers) more grisly methods of making new figures: casting molds from dead bodies.
Meanwhile there's a snappy reporter (Florence, played annoyingly by Glenda Farell) who is one bad story away from getting fired. She investigates a recent "suicide" that happened over New Years' and lo and behold, suspects that the dead woman ended up as Atwill's Joan of Arc wax figure. Atwill takes a liking to her roommate Charlotte (Fay Wray) who resembles the figure of Marie Antionette from his former museum. He then plans to use her body as the mold for it.
I'll skip to the climax, because there's really not a lot worth mentioning before it. Atwill manages to trap Charlotte in the lower chambers of his building. In the standout scene of the film, he gets up from his wheelchair, and moves closer toward Charlotte, telling her that as his Marie Antoinette, she will always be beautiful. She hits him in the face, and his "face" crumbles off, revealing his startling burned visage (wow!). The good guys and the cops corner Atwill in his chamber, about to douse the now-manacled Charlotte with boiling wax. The heroes break in and shoot him dead, and he falls into the vat of wax.
Forgive me if my summary was a bit choppy. It was hard to separate the main narrative from all the boring subplots in my head. This film is, as the title of my review suggests, a mixed bag. The story is pretty solid, and the opening scene where Atwill's business partner burns his old museum down (for insurance money) is pretty good. Afterwards, screen time (for a while) is mostly given to the supporting characters. This is where I started to lose interest. Glenda Farrell's character was, in my opinion, annoying. She talks way too frequently, and too quickly, and with too much 1930s slang for my taste. Any scene with her in it really slows the movie down for me. The other supporting characters are pretty dry, save for Fay Wray, who does an impeccable job in this film. Also worth mentioning is Arthur Edmund Carewe, who plays one of Atwill's thugs.
The film spends too much time with dry, poorly acted characters, thus taking away the seriousness of the picture. Until the end, I felt hardly a moment of suspense. There are good scenes in the film, I just think that the boring scenes outweigh them. The set design is worth mentioning though, and adds an air of creepy atmosphere. Unfortunately, most of the actors inhabiting the sets were not as good.
I was disappointed by this film. Other horror films of the era surpass it in both quality and performances. Atwill, though gives a good performance and I will be definitely checking out other starring roles he did. Final word: watch if you're curious, but don't expect much.
Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari (1920)
A Bit Dated and Overrated, but Still Interesting
As a young adult, most would be surprised that I watch classic films. Since it is October, I decided to check out The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, a film I had heard much about while researching classic horror. Many consider this to be the first true horror film, and its influence can be seen in films like Frankenstein (1931).
This genre-influencer is about a carnival trickster named Caligari who shows off a somnambulist (sleepwalker) named Cesare at a fair one day, and magically wakes him up. Creepily portrayed by Werner Krauss, the doctor seems to know nothing about a series of murders that suspiciously occur in the town while he is there. Mystery ensues as the protagonists (whose names I can't remember even though I watched this less than 30 min ago) try to figure out who Caligari really is.
Being familiar with silent movies, I was prepared for a bit of slowness. This is usually something I can deal with, but I did not like how slowly the intertitles scrolled and how long the takes lasted. The pace was uneven a bit because of this. I found the plot very predictable, especially the fact that Cesare is the murderer, because the shadow in the wall during the murder scene is clearly him. The filmmakers try to fool us by having our heroes arrest an actual murderer, but to me it was an obvious red herring. However, the twist ending (which I will not spoil here) genuinely surprised me and left me glad to have finished watching the film.
The sets in this film rely on the German expressionist art movement. They are a bit jarring to look at at first, and are noticeably fake, but I got used to seeing them as the film progressed.
The performances by Krauss and a young Conrad Veidt (whom you may remember from Casablanca) are very good. The main character is also good, though I forget his name.
Overall, there are better silent horror flicks out there. I would recommend Nosferatu (1922) or The Phantom of the Opera (1925) rather than this film, especially Nosferatu, which is still chilling to watch. Caligari, I feel, has lost a bit of its remarkability in the 96 years since its release, probably because it influenced many other classic horror motifs and tropes which appeared in films like the Universal Monster movies, of which I have been a longtime fan. People who may watch this film will come across elements that are now cliché. Only watch this one if you really want to; the ending makes it worth viewing for horror buffs, but be prepared for a slow ride towards it.