Search
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday (1993) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
Jason Voorhees is believed to be dead, but his murderous rampage lives on. He's able to transfer from body to body, but each host deteriorates at an incredible rate and he has to switch frequently. Meanwhile, Steven goes to meet Diana one night, who happens to be his ex-wife's mother. She has something very important to tell Steven. You see, Diana is the sister of Jason Voorhees and Jessica, Steven's ex, is his niece. Steven and Jessica have a baby named Stephanie, as well.
According to Creighton Duke, a bounty hunter, the only way anyone can kill Jason is by destroying his heart and it has to be done by a blood relative. Not only that, but he can also be reborn by transferring into the body of another Voorhees. So after Diana is killed in a scuffle with "Jason," that only leaves Jessica and Stephanie. Steven has no choice, but to protect his family even though he's believed to be the one who killed Diana and has the police hot on his trail every step of the way.
For a Friday the 13th film, the acting in this is surprisingly good. It still has a few actors that make you groan, but the actors who get the most face time are decent and get the job done. In fact, I probably would've rated this a few points higher if it wasn't for a few factors. The main one being that Jason is a worm. Not only that, but he's like this demonic worm thing that the sphincter-blasting worms in Dreamcatcher would probably find attractive. If they hadn't tried to give Jason this supernatural explanation and had something else in its place, this would have been a lot better.
Jason, like the actual Jason with the hockey mask, is really only in the film for maybe ten to fifteen minutes tops. So that hurts the film, in my eyes. They also made Jason make all these weird noises this time around. He was wheezing, breathing heavily, groaning, and grunting. It didn't fit the character. He was generally silent up until this film and is again in Jason X. So...what the hell? It's a disappointing sendoff overall for a film labeled as The Final Friday. I guess it wasn't completely pointless. We did get the Freddy Vs Jason tease at the end, which wasn't really followed up on for ten years. But I digress...
According to Creighton Duke, a bounty hunter, the only way anyone can kill Jason is by destroying his heart and it has to be done by a blood relative. Not only that, but he can also be reborn by transferring into the body of another Voorhees. So after Diana is killed in a scuffle with "Jason," that only leaves Jessica and Stephanie. Steven has no choice, but to protect his family even though he's believed to be the one who killed Diana and has the police hot on his trail every step of the way.
For a Friday the 13th film, the acting in this is surprisingly good. It still has a few actors that make you groan, but the actors who get the most face time are decent and get the job done. In fact, I probably would've rated this a few points higher if it wasn't for a few factors. The main one being that Jason is a worm. Not only that, but he's like this demonic worm thing that the sphincter-blasting worms in Dreamcatcher would probably find attractive. If they hadn't tried to give Jason this supernatural explanation and had something else in its place, this would have been a lot better.
Jason, like the actual Jason with the hockey mask, is really only in the film for maybe ten to fifteen minutes tops. So that hurts the film, in my eyes. They also made Jason make all these weird noises this time around. He was wheezing, breathing heavily, groaning, and grunting. It didn't fit the character. He was generally silent up until this film and is again in Jason X. So...what the hell? It's a disappointing sendoff overall for a film labeled as The Final Friday. I guess it wasn't completely pointless. We did get the Freddy Vs Jason tease at the end, which wasn't really followed up on for ten years. But I digress...
Steve Fearon (84 KP) rated Halloween (1978) in Movies
Sep 5, 2018 (Updated Sep 5, 2018)
John Carpenter's Slasher still stands tallest
Contains spoilers, click to show
That theme song starts.
You feel it somewhere deep inside, that feeling that something special is going to happen.
Halloween is THE Slasher, with a silent antagonist, an over-the-top performance from Donald Pleasance, the introduction of Jamie Lee Curtis, and the establishment of John Carpenter as one of the foremost purveyors of horror.
Patiently paced, with little time given to explanation of exposition, we are taken on the slow build up of tension as we go from the legendary intro sequence, to a breakout at the asylum, through to the stalking of teenagers by the man in the William Shatner mask.
Lots of shots of Myers just watching, waiting, judging, which could be interpreted as boring on paper, but it is just the right side of unnerving, and it is this constant threat which means the viewer is constantly scanning the edges of the screen, looking for our antagonist.
It contrasts beautifully with the naivety and innocence of his victims, who are just trying to enjoy Halloween as most teenagers are wont to do.
Yes this film is relatively tame compared to the films that have come after, but few can touch the pure sinister feel and atmosphere that Carpenter creates, and it is a simply iconic entry in cinema history.
Watch it for what it is, a genre changing horror film, that changed all that followed it.
No Myers, No Friday 13th, No Scream, No Nightmare On Elm Street.
Its that important.
You feel it somewhere deep inside, that feeling that something special is going to happen.
Halloween is THE Slasher, with a silent antagonist, an over-the-top performance from Donald Pleasance, the introduction of Jamie Lee Curtis, and the establishment of John Carpenter as one of the foremost purveyors of horror.
Patiently paced, with little time given to explanation of exposition, we are taken on the slow build up of tension as we go from the legendary intro sequence, to a breakout at the asylum, through to the stalking of teenagers by the man in the William Shatner mask.
Lots of shots of Myers just watching, waiting, judging, which could be interpreted as boring on paper, but it is just the right side of unnerving, and it is this constant threat which means the viewer is constantly scanning the edges of the screen, looking for our antagonist.
It contrasts beautifully with the naivety and innocence of his victims, who are just trying to enjoy Halloween as most teenagers are wont to do.
Yes this film is relatively tame compared to the films that have come after, but few can touch the pure sinister feel and atmosphere that Carpenter creates, and it is a simply iconic entry in cinema history.
Watch it for what it is, a genre changing horror film, that changed all that followed it.
No Myers, No Friday 13th, No Scream, No Nightmare On Elm Street.
Its that important.
The Great Movies Iv
Book
No film critic has ever been as influential or as beloved as Roger Ebert. Over more than four...
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Polar (2019) in Movies
Jul 5, 2020
The Black Kaiser - 8/10
Polar is a 2019 neo-noir/action movie based on the Dark Horse Comics, webcomic series Polar: Came From The Cold, written by Victor Santos. It is directed by Jonas Akerlund and written by Jayson Rothwell. Starring Mads Mikkelsen, Vanessa Hudgens, Katheryn Winnick, and Matt Lucas.
Duncan Vizla, a.k.a. "the Black Kaiser" (Mads Mikkelsen), is an assassin for the Damocles corporation. It is company policy that all assassins retire at age 50. He checks with a doctor about his health which is good and his accountant about his wealth; which having made the maximum pension fund contributions as possible, has him set for life. In 14 days, on his 50th birthday, he'll be entitled to a payout of $8 million dollars. Mr. Blut (Matt Lucas), has Vivian (Katheryn Winnick), Duncan's handler, contact him for one last mission. Unbeknownst to Duncan this is a plan to have him killed to avoid paying out his pension.
This me was awesome despite what critics say. I read a lot of bad comments talking about it being abhorrent and vulgar. It is rated TV-MA and not for kids and it is very adult. Plus it is a movie about assassins, people who kill for money, so what do you expect. I was surprised how much I liked the Black Kaiser character, since he didn't speak much during the film. Almost felt like a spaghetti-western in some ways, with the silent gunslinger aspect to it. I thought the film was very well done when it came to the acting, the action, and the plot. I'm sure that there are points to what the critics have said but the movie was too awesome for me to care. One thing, the main bad guy i didn't much care for. He did get me to not like him and with acting that's harder than getting people to like you. Also I enjoyed the group of assassins who are employed with the Damocles corporation, for the most part they were pretty interesting and diverse and added something extra to the film. And I was not prepared for Vanessa Hudgen's character but she had a surprising role and did very well too. I give this movie a 8/10.
Duncan Vizla, a.k.a. "the Black Kaiser" (Mads Mikkelsen), is an assassin for the Damocles corporation. It is company policy that all assassins retire at age 50. He checks with a doctor about his health which is good and his accountant about his wealth; which having made the maximum pension fund contributions as possible, has him set for life. In 14 days, on his 50th birthday, he'll be entitled to a payout of $8 million dollars. Mr. Blut (Matt Lucas), has Vivian (Katheryn Winnick), Duncan's handler, contact him for one last mission. Unbeknownst to Duncan this is a plan to have him killed to avoid paying out his pension.
This me was awesome despite what critics say. I read a lot of bad comments talking about it being abhorrent and vulgar. It is rated TV-MA and not for kids and it is very adult. Plus it is a movie about assassins, people who kill for money, so what do you expect. I was surprised how much I liked the Black Kaiser character, since he didn't speak much during the film. Almost felt like a spaghetti-western in some ways, with the silent gunslinger aspect to it. I thought the film was very well done when it came to the acting, the action, and the plot. I'm sure that there are points to what the critics have said but the movie was too awesome for me to care. One thing, the main bad guy i didn't much care for. He did get me to not like him and with acting that's harder than getting people to like you. Also I enjoyed the group of assassins who are employed with the Damocles corporation, for the most part they were pretty interesting and diverse and added something extra to the film. And I was not prepared for Vanessa Hudgen's character but she had a surprising role and did very well too. I give this movie a 8/10.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Silent Hill: Revelation (2012) in Movies
Jul 7, 2019
Why?
So this movie came out 6 years after the first one. That tells you something, that six years for sequel to come is too late.
Also dont forget that this movie is in 3d cause that was a trend for horror movies in the late 2000's.
Plot: DescriptionFor many years, Heather Mason (Adelaide Clemens) and her father, Harry (Sean Bean), have been on the run from dangerous forces she does not understand. Heather continues to be plagued by terrifying nightmares and frightened by her father's disappearance, and on the eve of her 18th birthday, she discovers that she is not who she thinks she is. The revelation leads her deep into the demonic world of Silent Hill, where she may become trapped forever.
It has a great cast, but doesnt know what to do with them.
I forgot that this movie excist, because it shouldnt excist. Unlike the first one which was 2 hours long this one was 90 mins long. Its still very slow paste.
Dont watch this film its a waste of 90 mins.
Also dont forget that this movie is in 3d cause that was a trend for horror movies in the late 2000's.
Plot: DescriptionFor many years, Heather Mason (Adelaide Clemens) and her father, Harry (Sean Bean), have been on the run from dangerous forces she does not understand. Heather continues to be plagued by terrifying nightmares and frightened by her father's disappearance, and on the eve of her 18th birthday, she discovers that she is not who she thinks she is. The revelation leads her deep into the demonic world of Silent Hill, where she may become trapped forever.
It has a great cast, but doesnt know what to do with them.
I forgot that this movie excist, because it shouldnt excist. Unlike the first one which was 2 hours long this one was 90 mins long. Its still very slow paste.
Dont watch this film its a waste of 90 mins.
The Silent Fountain
Book
'Atmospheric and foreboding this is the perfect contemporary homage to the gothic tradition.' - The...
Season Camera - AUTUMN
Photo & Video and Travel
App
+ Get 50% off (FLASH SALE starts now!) + Camera with seasonal colors, SEASON CAMERA's 'AUTUMN'...
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Big Trail (1930) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“The Indians are my friends…” Breck Coleman – John Wayne
Not exactly a statement that would exemplify the Career of a man rightly or wrongly associated as being the Cowboy of the Cowboy and Indian movies. But there is no doubt that John Wayne was certainly one of the biggest western stars of cinema.
And The Big Trail is where it really begins for Wayne, but this 1930’s classic was a box office failure, coming not only at the dawn of sound film, but at the time of The Great Depression. It would be another decade by the time “The Duke” wold be born and John Wayne would take his crown as the western superstar which we all know today.
But The Big Trail, originally entitled The Oregon Trail, is not really a John Wayne vehicle. He was a relative unknown actor alongside stage talent, many of whom were drafted into Hollywood at this time simply because they could give a decent vocal performance, as many a silent star was falling, failing to adapt the talkies.
But again, sound is not the selling point of this movie. This was one of a handful of films which pioneered the 70mm film format, in this case, Fox Grandeur, or Grandeur 70. A none anamorphic widescreen format, which whilst not the first attempt, nor the first 70mm film format, it was the nearest to which would succeed later.
2oth Century Fox would change cinema in 1953 with the release of the first CinemaScope film, The Robe, a year after the debut of Cinerama, but Grandeur more closest resembles Todd AO, a format which is still technically used today though in a somewhat different way. The secret to CinemaScope’s later success was in many ways the reason for the failure of Grandeur and that was the fact that CinemaScope was an anamorphic process, screening the image from a regular 35mm film and expanding with the lens, therefore making it a lot cheaper to adapt existing projectors and auditoriums.
Grandeur on the other hand was a larger film format and required a complete upgrade to theatres and therefore, especially at the dawn of the depression era, was financially untenable. Only two theatres in the U.S. would ever show this film in its widescreen glory, with rest showing the alternate 35mm Academy version.
And this film, had SIX versions shot simultaneously, in four different languages, 35mm and 70mm, each requiring different takes with different cameras or casts. This was an incredible feet but one which would soon be reduced with the use of audio dubbing, subtitles and ability to pan and scan.
The problem with this film is simple. It has a loose plot but no real twists and turns. This is almost a documentary following the wagon train trail across the west as group of pioneers make their way to the better life and building the United States, or at least personifying the romantic version of it.
But the film’s pacing and visual style works best through the widescreen lens, a beautiful journey with the untamed west as backdrop, but this is not the the version that most people have seen. The majority only saw the 35mm version which is 20 minutes shorter, edited more quickly and simply doesn’t have the visual flare of the Grandeur version. And without this vast visual canvas, the thousands of extras and props are almost cut from the film, a film with now feels a bit pointless and bit wayward.
Starring an unknown, though despite his hammy acting, Wayne manages to hold his own, the pacing is rushed and the fact that this is an epic journey which we are embarking on with them is somewhat lost.
The widescreen version’s main failing is the sound, which is inferior and poorly mixed in comparison to the 35mm cut, which is crisper and louder, but sound was never going to this movie’s strength and it was still rudimentary at this point. But on a visual level, considering the age of the print, the cinematography is up there as being some of the best, with scale and dare I say, “grandeur” about it.
This is an interesting film to watch now, though unless you are a strong western fan, I would say that it will not thrill, though as a peace of cinematic history, it is littered with footnotes and it very watchable.
And The Big Trail is where it really begins for Wayne, but this 1930’s classic was a box office failure, coming not only at the dawn of sound film, but at the time of The Great Depression. It would be another decade by the time “The Duke” wold be born and John Wayne would take his crown as the western superstar which we all know today.
But The Big Trail, originally entitled The Oregon Trail, is not really a John Wayne vehicle. He was a relative unknown actor alongside stage talent, many of whom were drafted into Hollywood at this time simply because they could give a decent vocal performance, as many a silent star was falling, failing to adapt the talkies.
But again, sound is not the selling point of this movie. This was one of a handful of films which pioneered the 70mm film format, in this case, Fox Grandeur, or Grandeur 70. A none anamorphic widescreen format, which whilst not the first attempt, nor the first 70mm film format, it was the nearest to which would succeed later.
2oth Century Fox would change cinema in 1953 with the release of the first CinemaScope film, The Robe, a year after the debut of Cinerama, but Grandeur more closest resembles Todd AO, a format which is still technically used today though in a somewhat different way. The secret to CinemaScope’s later success was in many ways the reason for the failure of Grandeur and that was the fact that CinemaScope was an anamorphic process, screening the image from a regular 35mm film and expanding with the lens, therefore making it a lot cheaper to adapt existing projectors and auditoriums.
Grandeur on the other hand was a larger film format and required a complete upgrade to theatres and therefore, especially at the dawn of the depression era, was financially untenable. Only two theatres in the U.S. would ever show this film in its widescreen glory, with rest showing the alternate 35mm Academy version.
And this film, had SIX versions shot simultaneously, in four different languages, 35mm and 70mm, each requiring different takes with different cameras or casts. This was an incredible feet but one which would soon be reduced with the use of audio dubbing, subtitles and ability to pan and scan.
The problem with this film is simple. It has a loose plot but no real twists and turns. This is almost a documentary following the wagon train trail across the west as group of pioneers make their way to the better life and building the United States, or at least personifying the romantic version of it.
But the film’s pacing and visual style works best through the widescreen lens, a beautiful journey with the untamed west as backdrop, but this is not the the version that most people have seen. The majority only saw the 35mm version which is 20 minutes shorter, edited more quickly and simply doesn’t have the visual flare of the Grandeur version. And without this vast visual canvas, the thousands of extras and props are almost cut from the film, a film with now feels a bit pointless and bit wayward.
Starring an unknown, though despite his hammy acting, Wayne manages to hold his own, the pacing is rushed and the fact that this is an epic journey which we are embarking on with them is somewhat lost.
The widescreen version’s main failing is the sound, which is inferior and poorly mixed in comparison to the 35mm cut, which is crisper and louder, but sound was never going to this movie’s strength and it was still rudimentary at this point. But on a visual level, considering the age of the print, the cinematography is up there as being some of the best, with scale and dare I say, “grandeur” about it.
This is an interesting film to watch now, though unless you are a strong western fan, I would say that it will not thrill, though as a peace of cinematic history, it is littered with footnotes and it very watchable.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated News of the World (2020) in Movies
Jan 17, 2021
Strongly Acted and Directed
Pound for pound, Tom Hanks is the best actor of this generation. From his big screen debut in SPLASH to his Oscar Nominated turn in BIG to his back-to-back Oscar wins for PHILADELPHIA and FORREST GUMP to more recent works like SULLY and THE POST, Hanks’ “everyman goodness” quality shines through the screen and makes him a screen presence that cannot be ignored.
And in his latest effort, the Paul Greengrass Directed NEWS OF THE WORLD, Hanks uses every molecule of his screen presence to keep the audience’s attention in a slow-paced, moody character study.
Based on the novel by Paulette Jiles, NEWS OF THE WORLD takes place in a post-Civil War Texas where a former Confederate Captain makes a living by going from town to town and reading the news to them. A chance encounter with a twice orphaned young girl alters the lives of both of them.
Writer/Director Paul Greengrass is most known for quick-cut action films like the BOURNE series or the criminally underrated GREEN ROOM, so he would seem - at first glance - as an unusual choice to adapt and direct this character study, but look further at Greengrass’ resume and you will find - in films such as UNITED 93 and CAPTAIN PHILLIPS - an ability to tell a story that is driven more by character than by action.
And this combination of Director and Actor works well for NEWS OF THE WORLD is a languidly paced piece that has a somber mood and look but Greengrass avoids the temptation of lingering on scenes or pictures too long (and there are some wonderful images captured by Greengrass and Cinemotgrapher Darius Wolski) to tell a story of a man who needs to rediscover and remake himself.
And Hanks is more than equal to the task of bringing the pragmatic, introspective Captain Jefferson Kyle Kidd character to life in a way that makes him intriguing and not boring. Hanks ability to show inherent decency in a look or a gesture is the stuff of legends and when he speaks, you listen. Which is good for Hanks is in every scene in this film and his performance needs to strongly capture the audience for this film to work - and he is more than equal to this task - so strong is Hanks in this role that I would not be surprised if there is another Oscar nomination in Tom’s near future.
Newcomer Helena Zegal is “just fine” in the other main role in this film - the young girl that Captain Kidd encounters, Johnna. This young girl is silent and shut down for most of the film and Zegal performs “shut down and silent” well. Also along for brief cameo roles of characters that Captain Kidd encounters on his journey is a bevy of wonderfully cast character actors that include Mare Winnigham, Ray McKinnon, Bill Camp and the always interesting to watch Elizabeth Marvel.
As is often the case in these sorts of films, the music/soundtrack becomes a vital part of the story that unfolds and 8 time Oscar nominated composer James Newton Howard (THE PRINCE OF TIDES) is more than up to the task. The music is another character in this film and helps set the mood along the journey.
But make no mistake, this is Hanks’ film - and he is VERY good in this. Like MIDNIGHT SKY (reviewed last month), this movie will not be for everyone - and many, many folks are going to tell me that they checked this movie out on my recommendation and were bored by it. But…if you click into the mood, motion and energy of what Greengrass is showing, you will be rewarded with an emotionally rich and complex character study.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And in his latest effort, the Paul Greengrass Directed NEWS OF THE WORLD, Hanks uses every molecule of his screen presence to keep the audience’s attention in a slow-paced, moody character study.
Based on the novel by Paulette Jiles, NEWS OF THE WORLD takes place in a post-Civil War Texas where a former Confederate Captain makes a living by going from town to town and reading the news to them. A chance encounter with a twice orphaned young girl alters the lives of both of them.
Writer/Director Paul Greengrass is most known for quick-cut action films like the BOURNE series or the criminally underrated GREEN ROOM, so he would seem - at first glance - as an unusual choice to adapt and direct this character study, but look further at Greengrass’ resume and you will find - in films such as UNITED 93 and CAPTAIN PHILLIPS - an ability to tell a story that is driven more by character than by action.
And this combination of Director and Actor works well for NEWS OF THE WORLD is a languidly paced piece that has a somber mood and look but Greengrass avoids the temptation of lingering on scenes or pictures too long (and there are some wonderful images captured by Greengrass and Cinemotgrapher Darius Wolski) to tell a story of a man who needs to rediscover and remake himself.
And Hanks is more than equal to the task of bringing the pragmatic, introspective Captain Jefferson Kyle Kidd character to life in a way that makes him intriguing and not boring. Hanks ability to show inherent decency in a look or a gesture is the stuff of legends and when he speaks, you listen. Which is good for Hanks is in every scene in this film and his performance needs to strongly capture the audience for this film to work - and he is more than equal to this task - so strong is Hanks in this role that I would not be surprised if there is another Oscar nomination in Tom’s near future.
Newcomer Helena Zegal is “just fine” in the other main role in this film - the young girl that Captain Kidd encounters, Johnna. This young girl is silent and shut down for most of the film and Zegal performs “shut down and silent” well. Also along for brief cameo roles of characters that Captain Kidd encounters on his journey is a bevy of wonderfully cast character actors that include Mare Winnigham, Ray McKinnon, Bill Camp and the always interesting to watch Elizabeth Marvel.
As is often the case in these sorts of films, the music/soundtrack becomes a vital part of the story that unfolds and 8 time Oscar nominated composer James Newton Howard (THE PRINCE OF TIDES) is more than up to the task. The music is another character in this film and helps set the mood along the journey.
But make no mistake, this is Hanks’ film - and he is VERY good in this. Like MIDNIGHT SKY (reviewed last month), this movie will not be for everyone - and many, many folks are going to tell me that they checked this movie out on my recommendation and were bored by it. But…if you click into the mood, motion and energy of what Greengrass is showing, you will be rewarded with an emotionally rich and complex character study.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Hell's Angels (1930) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Big budget, elaborate air combat scenes which resulted in several deaths and Gimmick after gimmick… This has to be the Howard Hughes’ World War 1 epic, Hell’s Angels.
Where to begin?
Well, we follow the Routledge two brothers as they join the war effort and the Royal Air Corps. in 1914 and whilst one is a somewhat cowardly womaniser, his brother is the noble heroic type who spends the film being screwed over bey everyone in one way or another, but most notably by his girlfriend, Jean Harlow, who is so annoyingly wrong for him that it is a relief when he has heart is broken by her in the third act.
But like mots aspects of this plot, this is as messy and disjointed as everything else. We are given a story line to follow for two hours, as Hughes indulges his legendary love of flying to create some of the best dog fight sequences ever committed to film. They are real, epic and effective in conveying the thrilling danger of these world war one battles.
But this is a film of gimmick. Pushing the pre-code envelope with sex and bad language, this was originally conceived as a silent movie and was re-written and re-shot to become the sound movie whcih we have to today and there in clearly lies the problem. What we end up is a movie cobbled together, with silence sequences being converted to sound, the poor acting from its star James Hall as the idealistic Roy Routledge, Jean Harlow, replacing the original silent star Gretta Nissen for this sound version, excelling in her role as his trampy girlfriend and Ben Lyon as the weaker brother, Monte, but the real star of this show are the special effects.
But of the human stars, Harlow, presented here in the only colour footage known to exist of the tragic star, who would die at the young age of 26 just seven years later, probably delivers one of the best performances in the whole picture, certainly outshining her male co-stars.
Of the special effects though, the use of 2-tone Technicolor, which was actually shot with the Metrocolor system but processed by Technicolor, in one sequence as the group are all together at a party, as well as the classical use of tints during some other scenes, add a vibrancy to the project. But this also can have a jarring effect, especially as we leave the colour scenes and wrap up thet sequences in black and white.
But the model effects, notably the munition raid at the end and the Zeppelin bombing London scenes are spectacular, especially for the time. The other notable gimmick which has yet to be transferred to the small screen, was the original use of what was called Magnascope back in 1930.
This was obviously only used at high end theaters but this paved the way for what IMAX are doing now, by blowing up the aerial scenes into a larger screen format from the 1.20:1 ratio which the the rest of film was presented. But when you add all this up you have got a mess!
Magnascope, technicolor scenes, tinted scenes, daring aerial battles, a half arsed love story and an image of world war which was a kin to that of Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor’s (2001) view of World War 2! But this is what this is. An early, lavish popcorn blockbuster, with little to offer but cinematic thrills, which it succeeds at without any doubt.
The action is great, the plot is mediocre to say the least but as film, it does offer a brief insight into how cinema audiences saw the Great War back in 1930 and you can not help but think that this audience was only nine years away from the next one as we watch this.
pictureBut the ending was grim, with noble ends rounding off a story of brotherly love and love of duty and country, seems overblown considering what we had had to sit through but still, by the end, is anybody really routing for the Routledge brothers to have a happy ending?
I certainly was not. But this ending is the nearest thing that this film has to a story arc, as is pays off the opening act where Roy risks his life fighting a duel for his cowardly brother against the very German officer who is about to have them executed.
Duty wins out and Monte sees the light at the end after a very melodramatic death scene.
But having said all that, this film is worth it for the action alone and for film buffs, the only colour footage of Jean Harlow.
Where to begin?
Well, we follow the Routledge two brothers as they join the war effort and the Royal Air Corps. in 1914 and whilst one is a somewhat cowardly womaniser, his brother is the noble heroic type who spends the film being screwed over bey everyone in one way or another, but most notably by his girlfriend, Jean Harlow, who is so annoyingly wrong for him that it is a relief when he has heart is broken by her in the third act.
But like mots aspects of this plot, this is as messy and disjointed as everything else. We are given a story line to follow for two hours, as Hughes indulges his legendary love of flying to create some of the best dog fight sequences ever committed to film. They are real, epic and effective in conveying the thrilling danger of these world war one battles.
But this is a film of gimmick. Pushing the pre-code envelope with sex and bad language, this was originally conceived as a silent movie and was re-written and re-shot to become the sound movie whcih we have to today and there in clearly lies the problem. What we end up is a movie cobbled together, with silence sequences being converted to sound, the poor acting from its star James Hall as the idealistic Roy Routledge, Jean Harlow, replacing the original silent star Gretta Nissen for this sound version, excelling in her role as his trampy girlfriend and Ben Lyon as the weaker brother, Monte, but the real star of this show are the special effects.
But of the human stars, Harlow, presented here in the only colour footage known to exist of the tragic star, who would die at the young age of 26 just seven years later, probably delivers one of the best performances in the whole picture, certainly outshining her male co-stars.
Of the special effects though, the use of 2-tone Technicolor, which was actually shot with the Metrocolor system but processed by Technicolor, in one sequence as the group are all together at a party, as well as the classical use of tints during some other scenes, add a vibrancy to the project. But this also can have a jarring effect, especially as we leave the colour scenes and wrap up thet sequences in black and white.
But the model effects, notably the munition raid at the end and the Zeppelin bombing London scenes are spectacular, especially for the time. The other notable gimmick which has yet to be transferred to the small screen, was the original use of what was called Magnascope back in 1930.
This was obviously only used at high end theaters but this paved the way for what IMAX are doing now, by blowing up the aerial scenes into a larger screen format from the 1.20:1 ratio which the the rest of film was presented. But when you add all this up you have got a mess!
Magnascope, technicolor scenes, tinted scenes, daring aerial battles, a half arsed love story and an image of world war which was a kin to that of Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor’s (2001) view of World War 2! But this is what this is. An early, lavish popcorn blockbuster, with little to offer but cinematic thrills, which it succeeds at without any doubt.
The action is great, the plot is mediocre to say the least but as film, it does offer a brief insight into how cinema audiences saw the Great War back in 1930 and you can not help but think that this audience was only nine years away from the next one as we watch this.
pictureBut the ending was grim, with noble ends rounding off a story of brotherly love and love of duty and country, seems overblown considering what we had had to sit through but still, by the end, is anybody really routing for the Routledge brothers to have a happy ending?
I certainly was not. But this ending is the nearest thing that this film has to a story arc, as is pays off the opening act where Roy risks his life fighting a duel for his cowardly brother against the very German officer who is about to have them executed.
Duty wins out and Monte sees the light at the end after a very melodramatic death scene.
But having said all that, this film is worth it for the action alone and for film buffs, the only colour footage of Jean Harlow.