This week I watched
Ricki and the Flash,
Sin City, Saturday Night Fever, Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Intolerance, Birth of a Nation,I watch movies every week and then write down my thoughts.
Read my previous reviews!My rating is simple, Watch It, It Depends, Skip it.
 |
| Ricki and the Flash - If only it were over in a flash. |
Ricki and the Flash (2015) Watch Ricki and the Flash
Written by: Diablo CodyDirected by: Jonathan DemmeStarring: Meryl Streep, Kevin Kline, Mamie Gummer, Rick Springfield Rated: PG-13Plot:Ricki (Meryl Streep) abandoned her husband Pete (Kevin Kline) and three children to pursue her dream of being a rock star. With her daughter Julie (Mamie Gummer) devastated over a divorce, Ricki takes a break from her cover band to see her daughter.Verdict:It's got two or three good scenes amid the predictable, trope filled, plot. The performances aren't bad but every single story beat is so predictable and trite. A great cast saves it from being absolutely terrible, but that is far from an endorsement. This could have been a decent movie if explored the over the hill, never made it wannabee, but this movie is as deep as a rain drop.
Skip it.Review:I wasn't going to watch this movie. I had a feeling it wouldn't be good, but I heard a review that persuaded me to check it out. What a mistake. I should have gone with my first instinct.
I expected better singing from the first scene. She gave up her family to head a cover band? Couldn't it at least be a good cover band? I was still holding out hope for this movie, it should have been incredibly depressing, but it wasn't. It wavers between rebuking a deadbeat mom and making fun of a mom trying too hard to be a cool rock star.
Ricki works as cashier to make ends meet. She gets a call from her ex-husband that her daughter is devastated over a divorce and is coerced to be there for her daughter. She doesn't want to come back. She's a real mom of the year contender. The movie is heavy on tropes, the struggling rock star, the care free mom, the dysfunctional family, ugh.
This is one of those movies I knew fifteen minutes in I wasn't going to like it. The question then was how much would I dislike it (hint: a lot).
We get a great scene depicting just how terrible Ricki and her daughter are. In a coffee shop they are having an argument with each other. They are being distracting and rude, but when a patron asks them to keep it down, both mother and daughter blame the guy, tell him to leave, then make fun of him and his daughter. They're a real class act. If the goal of the movie was to make me hate these people, mission accomplished.
Of course no cliche dysfunctional family movie would be complete without a dinner at a fancy restaurant. It's not a bad scene, but it could have been good. It's not, but it could have.
Ricki, her uptight ex Pete, and Julie then smoke some pot because the movie has to reinforce the care free rocker stereotype.
Of course Ricki is threatened by Pete's wife Maureen. Big shocker. Maureen drops the reality bomb on Ricki. She cuts Ricki don to nothing which was actually satisfying. It's about time someone did it. Ricki's a birth mother, but not there mom. Maureen has taken care of them since the kids were teenagers.
Ricki returns to her cover band and delivers a painful train of thought speech decrying her kids hate her and she should take the blame. Then she finally admits she likes Greg the lead guitar player in her band and everything is suddenly okay.
Ricki is invited to her son's wedding. She doesn't want to attend and ruin her deadbeat mom status, but Greg convinces her to go. She receives lots of stares at the wedding and not just because she's the black sheep. It's because she wore a black leather jacket over her dress. Maybe it's a metaphor. She desires to stand out, wearing this false facade of a rock star, or maybe I'm giving this movie WAY too much credit. Probably the latter.
This movie excels at awkwardness, but it scenes where that probably wasn't the goal an they were hoping for heartfelt.
Ricki doesn't have any money (they used that joke every chance they got) to give her son and daughter in law, but being a musician she can give that. I thought this would be the part where Ricki performs an original song apologizing for how terrible she was and is, but no, it's just a Bruce Springsteen cover. And then it ended, which made me incredibly thankful.
It could have been really interesting to explore a deadbeat mom, but Streep is made out to be some kind of hero saving the day, while taking very little responsibility. We get a drunk speech defending her dream chasing, citing Mick Jagger who gets away with it so she should be able to do it too. This movie could have even explored the struggling artist that's an anachronism is the modern world, but that's just a punch line every other scene. Take the angle of what Ricki gave up for her dreams, the commitment she had, yet she's still chasing that dream that will never come. The tone of the movie is completely wrong. I reject the premise that everyone is happy at the end of this movie. They shouldn't be.
 |
| Sin City - A graphic novel brought to life in style and story. |
Sin City (2005) Watch Sin City
Written by: Frank Miller (graphic novels)Directed by: Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino (special guest director) Starring: Mickey Rourke, Jessica Alba, Benicio Del Toro, Clive Owen, Bruce Willis, Rosario Dawson, Powers Boothe, Rutger Hauer Rated: RPlot:Intertwining stories of corruption in the fictional Basin City, a hoodlum seeking revenge for a dead prostitute, a truce hanging in the balance between cops and the girls of Old Town, and a cop having to protect a girl once again from the same assailant.Verdict:Sin City has a unique graphic novel inspired look. The visuals, stories, and characters are striking. The movie maintains an intensity throughout, the stories overlapping just enough to tie everything together.Watch it. Review:I've seen
Sin City before, but it's one of those movies I wanted to watch again to see if it was style over substance, especially since I didn't really like
Sin City: A Dame to Kill (
read the review).
The visuals look great. The contrast of the black and white and the hard lighting make this look like a graphic novel. It just wouldn't work in color, and it probably wouldn't work for any other movie.
The movie is heavy on voice over, but it hearkens to the comics and the film noir style.
Marv (Mickey Rourke) wakes up next to a dead prostitute, Goldie. She was killed while they were sleeping and the cops have been called. The action is larger than life as Marv bursts through the door and dispatches the cops. He goes to his favorite low life bar and vows to avenge Goldie for the sole reason that she was nice to him.
The bar is the one location where the character's paths intersect. The stories, like the style is dark and twisted, with a lot of blood and gore. You'll soon realize this movie likes trench coats. Most characters have one or want one. It really does look great.
Shelly (Brittany Murphy), who we saw at Marv's bar earlier is with Dwight (Clive Owen). When Shelly's ex Jackie Boy (Benicio Del Toro) knocks down her door, Dwight puts him in his place. Jackie Boy and his crew travel to Old Town, where the women are the law and the cops stay out. Jackie Boy gets killed and it's revealed he's a cop. His death breaks the truce between the cops and Old Town unless they can dispose of the body.
Chasing a child kidnapper, Detective Hartigan (Bruce Willis) defies the warnings of his partner (Michael Madsen) and enters the building, subduing the kidnapper, Roark Junior, only to then be shot by his partner. Senator Roarke (Powers Boothe) convicts Hartigan for the murder of his son and the assault of the girl he saved, Nancy. Hartigan's only chance of parole is admitting he did it, which he refuses to do. Nancy writes Hartigan every week but when the letters stop he admits to all the crimes so he can get out and ensure Nancy is safe
Sin City has energy, intensity and engaging stories that overlap, exploring revenge, redemption, and the twisted location of Basin City. While the look is distinct, it helps serve the stories. The problem with the sequel was weak stories. That, and the style of this movie is something you can only do once. Even in the sequel, which is the only movie that has a legitimate claim to reuse this style, it felt like a facsimile.
 |
| Saturday Night Fever -More than just a dance movie. |
Saturday Night Fever (1977) Watch Saturday Night Fever
Written by: Nik Cohn (story), Norman Wexler (screenplay) Directed by: John BadhamStarring: John Travolta, Karen Lynn Gorney, Barry Miller Rated: RPlot:Tony Manero (John Travolta) is a teen from a blue collar family frustrated with life, his friends, and his inability to change it. Saturday nights when he's on the dance floor is the only time he can leave it all behind.Verdict:This is more than just a dance movie. It's a stark look at a kid who dreams big, but can't escape the life he's in. It's really well directed. The dance numbers which admittedly aren't bad, overshadow the depth of the story.
It depends. Review:It's much more pessimistic than I anticipated. Tony isn't trying to escape his life, he's just trying to cope, be it flashy polyester suits or moves on the dance floor. His path in life is already carved out, but does he even realize it?
I was expecting something between
Dirty Dancing and
Grease, but was pleasantly surprised. It's be no means a happy movie. Every character has a fairly sad arc.
This movie has a great opening, iconic and often parodied. In just the first few minutes it reveals it's more than a dance movie, belying the fact that Tommy's character is living a dream he can't afford. The themes still have relevance. This kid is immersed in pop culture, Farah Fawcett, Bruce Lee, and Rocky.
It's really well directed with a lot of style. Tommy and his friends are stuck in a blue collar world, wanting to get out. They're frustrated and you wonder if they even know why. As Stephanie tells Tony, "You're nowhere on your way to no place."
Tony has a decent job at a paint store, but he has bigger dreams. At home his mother lauds his brother a priest. He's asked why he can't do something like that. When his brother quits the priesthood, his parents want to blame him.
While the movie delves into class, it's got a lot of dancing too. Travolta has moves. Tony wants to win a dance competition and ditches his partner for someone better, Stephanie. He falls for his new partner who had been involved with an older man. The acting is well done in this. When Tony meets Stephanie's ex, you know exactly how he feels without him having to say a word. Tony quit his job to help her move, chasing a girl that said she wasn't interested.
He gets his job back. As he looks at the other two employees, older men who have been toiling their lives away at the paint store, you wonder if Tony realizes where he's headed. He wants more but does he have any idea how to get out? The movie has a few of these really great subtle moments.
In one of the final scenes, one of Tony's friends Bobby is standing on the bridge railing. Bobby has become increasingly distressed after getting his girlfriend pregnant. I wondered if he would jump. If it wasn't him, it could be Annette who had just been assaulted.
Saturday Night Fever showcases Travolta's dancing and the soul crushing realizations of being stuck in an endless loop.
 |
| Frankenstein - It is ALIVE! |
Frankenstein (1931) Watch Frannkenstein
Written by: John L. Balderston (based upon the composition by), Mary Shelley (from the novel by), Peggy Webling (adapted from the play by), Garrett Fort & Francis Edward Faragoh (screen play), Richard Schayer, (scenario editor), Robert Florey (contributor to treatment, uncredited), John Russell (contributor to screenplay construction, uncredited) Directed by: James WhaleStarring: Colin Clive, Mae Clarke, Boris Karloff Rated: --Plot:Henry Frankenstein endeavors to bring the dead back to life, having assembled a single man from multiple dead bodies.Verdict:It's not bad, though obviously dated. The story and characters have been copied multiple times, making the movie seem less fresh. I was hoping for more in every scene, more emotions, more scares.
It depends.Review:I like that the credits don't reveal the actor playing 'the monster'. This is an older movies that gets to the point. It avoids overly long setup and back story. While it's got a camp vibe to it, you can't deny at the time it had to be impressive. I've seen this story so many times the original effect is nearly lost on me, but I can still appreciate what this movie did. I like the concept and the simplicity of the story, but I'm always hoping for more in every scene. There's a disconnect. It's never scary as I'd like it to be and never as emotional as it should be.
"It's alive!" The scene where the monster awakes is a classic. The set looks great.
Scared of fire and reacting violently, the doctor locks the monster up, assuming it's violent. The monster kills before escaping. As corny as it is to say, the monster is misunderstood. I understand the monster is scared of fire and why he threw the girl in the water. I also understand the village's reaction. They're scared and threatened. The monster becomes trapped in a wind mill and the villagers burn it down. That which was never meant to be, is brought to an end.
 |
| Bride of Frankenstein - |
Bride of Frankenstein (1935) Watch Bride of Frankenstein
Written by: Mary Shelley (suggested by: the original story written in 1816 by), William Hurlbut and John L. Balderston (adapted by), William Hurlbut (screenplay), Josef Berne and Lawrence G. Blochman (adaptation, uncredited), Robert Florey (story, uncredited), Philip MacDonald (adaptation, uncredited)Tom Reed (contributing writer, uncredited), R.C. Sherriff (adaptation, uncredited), Edmund Pearson (screenplay, uncredited), Morton Covan (adaptation, uncredited) Directed by: James WhaleStarring: Boris Karloff, Elsa Lanchester, Colin Clive Rated: --Plot:Henry Frankenstein is encouraged by Dr. Pretorius to create a mate for the monster.Verdict:The sequel surpasses the original. The one was more focused and did a better job of humanizing the monster. It shares a lot of similar scenes with the original.
Watch it.Review:This picks up right where the first ends, even providing a quick recap and a retcon so the monster survives. We get a scientist crazier than Frankenstein, Dr. Pretorius. He showcases tiny people he created. The editing was awesome with regard to the time. It looked really good. As man wasn't made without woman, Dr. Pretorius wants to create a companion for the monster. The monster is loose in the woods and stumbles upon a blind monk. The monk takes care of the monster. You wonder if the monk doesn't realize there is more to the monster or doesn't care. Both men are outcasts that just want a friend. This was a really great sequence. Of course it doesn't last. Two hunters lost in the woods stumble upon the cabin and are compelled to stop the monster.
The lab set looks great, and it's very reminiscence of the first movie. It's nearly a beat for beat recreation. The woman the scientists create doesn't like the monster. The monster destroys the tower himself, the female companion, and Dr. Pretorius. He somehow realizes he'll never find solace.
 |
| The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari -A silent film that isn't bad. |
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) aka Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari Watch The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
Written by: Carl Mayer, Hans Janowitz (story)Directed by: Robert WieneStarring: Werner Krauss, Conrad Veidt, Friedrich Feher Rated: --Plot:A story about an insane asylum director and his sleepwalking patient who predicts the future. Verdict:A silent film isn't the easiest thing to watch, but this isn't bad. Creepy and suspenseful, it feels like an amateur film with promise, and that is a compliment. If you want to watch a silent film, and I don't know why you would, this might be the ticket. Despite the very few number of silent films I've seen, this is easily my favorite.It depends.Review:I wasn't expecting much coming off of two of D.W. Griffith's acclaimed silent films that didn't land for me. When the title cards appeared with jagged backgrounds and uneven lettering, forcing me to decipher whether I saw words or an impressionist painting, I was concerned watching this would be a chore. Luckily the font changed.
It was much easier to keep up with what was happening in this compared to the other two silent films I watched. The set design which is more stage play that movie adds to the eerie effect. Like the artwork, it's twisted and surreal. It's creepy looking even for 1920.
Dr. Caligari's show involves the sleepwalker Cesere, who resides in a coffin and predicts the future. A man asks Cesere when he'll die, and is told "tonight." The dead man's friend investigates and discovers that Dr. Caligari is an insane asylum director, using his patient Cesere to imitate an old fable. The story is distilled to it's basic elements. A contemporary movie remake would feel bloated as back story and character arcs would be shoehorned in.
A silent film is a difficult watch today because it's outdated. We're so much better at telling stories now. Even
The Artist (2011) didn't go full silent, benefiting by modern camera work. Despite that, no one wanted to produce it. It's success was an anomaly. This movie is film class or film history material, the average viewer won't enjoy it.
 |
| Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages - Impressive scale and scope. |
Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages (1916) Watch Intolerance
Written by: Hettie Grey Baker, D.W. Griffith, Mary H. O'Connor, Frank E. Woods (titles, uncredited), Tod Browning (uncredited), D.W. Griffith (scenario), Anita Loos (titles), Walt Whitman (poem "Out of the Cradle Endlessly Rocking", uncredited) Directed by: D.W. GriffithStarring: Lillian Gish, Douglas Fairbanks, Spottiswoode Aitken Rated: --Plot:Four stories with common themes depict the cruelty and intolerance against love and charity. The stories depict the fall of Babylon, Christ's crucifixion, the St. Bartholomew's massacre in France, and the love story of a man and woman.
Verdict:The scale and scope is crazy. A movie with a production this big even today would be impressive. The story is interesting, but a silent film is a chore to sit through. It's a movie for film students, not for pure entertainment. I wouldn't want to watch it again. The technical achievement does not overcome the antiquated format.Skip it. Review:This movie was D.W. Griffith's response to the backlash his previous film
Birth of a Nation received. The backlash was warranted as
Birth of a Nation is racist trash.
I don't know whether Griffith is arguing that his viewpoint (assuming it's his viewpoint) should be tolerated or whether he has a right to tell a story no matter how vile it is. I don't really care either.
This movie's defining characteristic is it's massive scale. The main plot is a boy and girl that fall in love, but are separated for various reasons. The other stories are variations on the theme. The fall of Babylon is amazing to see. There are hundreds of people on screen, a huge castle, siege towers. Seeing something like this done practically in a movie today would be crazy, much less done one hundred years ago. While the scale is stagger, it is short on story.
The movie is complex, and by that I mean confusing. I admit my attention began to wander, but that's the movie's fault as is it's confusing narrative.
The world has created better movies since this one.
 |
| The Birth of a Nation - Racist propaganda! |
The Birth of a Nation (1915) Watch The Birth of a Nation
Written by: Thomas Dixon Jr. (adapted from his novel, play, novel), D.W. Griffith, Frank E. Woods Directed by: D.W. GriffithStarring: Lillian Gish, Mae Marsh, Henry B. Walthall Rated: --Plot:Against the backdrop of the civil war, the KKK emerge as heroes. Verdict:It's racist propaganda. It doesn't matter how people felt in 1915 or 1861. I can't believe this movie was made. Whatever the alleged technical achievement, it's overshadowed by outright bigotry. Not a single African American is portrayed in a positive light. How this film can be lauded is a mystery to me. Skip it.Review:Disclaimers at the front posit this as anti-war, stating it's intent is not to offend but to show the dark side of wrong and the bright of virtue. Just because you claim something, doesn't make it true.
It's a silent film with a lot of reading.
Maybe it's a landmark film in technical achievement, but just take my word for it. Even a dedicated film enthusiast is going to have a difficult time with this one, and that's not even accounting for the abhorrent racism. If you were to watch this, and I recommend strongly against it, find it on youtube and watch it at double speed.
The Stoneman brothers from the North visit their friends the Camerons in the South. When Lincoln drafts a Northern army, the South does the same. The Stoneman and Camerons join their respective sides, the war having divided friends. They even meet on the battlefield, and later lead armies.
The movie takes every available opportunity to depict African Americans as villains. It's overt and off putting. I imagine this movie was written by the South as if they had won the war and kept the wretched institution of slavery. The movie doesn't like people from the North either.
How did this film get made? Did no one complain enough to stop this film? Of all the things to watch in the world, I don't now why someone would pick this.
There is some history depicted in this movie, Lincoln's assassination and Lee surrendering to Grant.
The main history this movie relates is the abhorrent racism of the time, a time that let such a thing be made. This movie celebrates the KKK, urging the North and South to defend their Aryan birthright. Any movie that states this really can't use the disclaimer 'not intended to be racist. The first half of this movie is an attempt at history and to show how the war split families and friends. The second half dispenses with history and doubles down on the racist propaganda. The KKK are depicted as heroes.
If you still aren't ready to boycott this movie, understand that this movie is responsible for reviving the, at the time, defunct KKK. I'm ashamed to admit I watched this. I watched it because it's ranked on the top lists from Martin Scorcese, Harvard, The Guardian, Roger Ebert, the National Film Registry, Sight and Sound, and many more. In conclusion they are all wrong.
From the very first minutes the viewer begins to wonder why all the characters except the protagonist have the same voice and the same inflection, whether men, women or children. The story gives us the answer, as we face the story of a man in existential crisis that feels surrounded by a world made up of identical people. 
