The Shining (1980)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 6 out of 10

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Starring: Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd

Rated: R

Genre: Horror, Drama, Mystery

Runtime: 142 minutes

Other Versions: The Shining (1997)

When Jack Torrance (Nicholson) signs up to be the caretaker for the Overlook Hotel while it's closed for the winter, he has no idea what sorts of horrors await him, his loving wife Wendy (Duvall), and their son Danny (Lloyd).  Even stories of some of the horrors that occurred in he hotel are not enough to dissuade him, and he cheerfully takes the job, thinking that it's going to be the easiest money he's ever made.  All he has to do is keep the elements outside from affecting the hotel; keep the boilers burning, etc.  Easy.  And besides, it will give him time to work on his writing; something which Jack has been having quite a bit of trouble with lately.  Everything is going to work out pretty well for the Torrances.  But, there are things lurking in the shadows; things the family is certainly not prepared for.  Danny claims to have an "imaginary friend" named Tony, a little boy who supposedly lives in Danny's mouth and hides in his stomach.  Not only that, but he's having visions.  Visions of things that have happened and things that have yet to occur.  Bloody things happened in this hotel, and bloody things are yet to come.  The hotel starts to have an effect on Jack, as well, turning him from loving husband and father to a maniacal killer; will Wendy and Danny be able to stop him, or will all of Jack's worst nightmares come true?

Stanley Kubrick's The Shining is one of those films I felt I just had to experience, especially as a lover of classic horror cinema.  I had constantly seen the title listed alongside with other "classics" such as The Silence of the Lambs and Psycho.  "If you're interested in these sorts of films, " I told myself, "then you had better watch The Shining."  I had been trying for months to watch it, but either found myself too busy, or found that my friends weren't very interested in watching with me.  And half the fun of watching a scary movie is watching it with a friend.  So, finally, I seized my opportunity (and my brother/movie buddy) this summer, and sat down to watch it one rainy Friday afternoon.  While The Silence of the Lambs and Psycho far exceeded my expectations, The Shining left me feeling a bit disappointed as it fell just shy of the mark.

I guess you could say that a chunk of my disappointment stemmed from the fact that I had put too much stock in this movie completely knocking my socks off.  Now, normally, I go into this films, attempting to keep my expectations as neutral as possible.  Not LOW, per se, but neutral.  That way, I won't be swayed by prior prejudices.   But, this was one film that I was excited about.  Probably because it had been on my "To-Watch" list for about three years.  And even before that, it was one of those films that I was pretty interested in watching, but just too scared to actually pick up.  That being said, I've been waiting to watch this movie for years--that's a lot of expectation.  However, high expectations only covered a small portion of my frustrations.  My issue I think, deals with Kubrick's directing style.  I'll have to check out a couple more of his films, but I'm starting to think I'm just not a Kubrick fan.

For me, Jack Nicholson was wonderful.  He absolutely stole the show, and as I watched the film, I found myself silently wishing that there would be more Jack scenes.  He was deliciously creepy.  And I love that sort of character in a horror film.  Not those that are outright scary, or horrible, but those that are creepy and still very human.  I love those sorts of villains.  There is just something so sinister about characters who just become sort of unhinged.  It makes it scarier because it makes you wonder if something like this could happen to anyone; your dad or your brother; neighbor, cousin, sister, grandpa, etc.  Very creepy.  But, there is more to Nicholson's portrayal of Jack Torrance than just a crazed ax-murderer possessed by evil spirits.  He's a family man, a loving husband and father, and he makes us feel for him.

Villains like Hannibal Lecter don't exactly illicit sympathy.  He's more of the guy who gets voicemail messages sounding something like this: "Hey, Dr. Lecter.  I just wanted to let you know that I'm not going to be able to make it to your dinner party on Saturday.  Nothing personal, but I just don't feel comfortable attending an event where I can't be sure if I'm going to be a member of the party or the dinner."  Jack Torrance, however, is a sympathetic character.  There is one scene, in fact, where my heart simply melts for him.  Wendy rushes to his aid after hearing him screaming and crying in his sleep, apparently from a nightmare.  Startled, he falls to the floor, and sits there, drooling, blubbering, and sobbing, as he tells her that he had the most awful dream, where he killed both her and Danny, chopping the bodies up into little pieces.  The pain is so raw, so real, you can't help but feel for him.  In those few minutes, all of Jack's behavior up to this point and afterward is put into perspective: he's not a bad man.  He's just under the influence of forces he cannot control.

Shelley Duvall was also wonderful as her respective character Wendy.  With her big eyes and sweet disposition, it was hard not to like her.  I think she also provided a wonderful foil to Jack's character, in that while he was dealing with frustration, anger, addiction, and possessive spirit, she's a quiet, gentle presence, who calmly puts up with everything that happens, while still maintaining order and reason in the family.  She's reserved, but strong.  And even though she's strong, she's still vulnerable, and that makes us root for her.  She's the underdog, and we don't want anything to happen to her.

Above all else, this movie was just very strange.  Much of it didn't make any sense.  I was confused, very creeped out, and mostly left with more questions than answers when all was said and done. All in all, it was a decent movie, but it just didn't wow me.  I guess if someone came up to me and said, "CS, should I watch The Shining?"  I guess I would say yes.  It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great either.  Still, if you're interested in the genre like I am, I think it's just something you should check out.  At least you'd get all the references from Internet memes, right?

The Notebook (2004)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 8.5 out of 10

Director: Nick Cassavetes

Starring: James Garner, Gena Rowlands, Ryan Gosling, Rachel McAdams

Rated: PG-13

Genre: Drama, Romance

Runtime: 123 minutes

The story starts at a nursing home.  Duke (Garner), an elderly gentleman, comes to read to Allie (Rowlands) one of the patients suffering from dementia.  And he tells her the story of a whirlwind summer romance between Noah (Gosling), a persistent, but poor young man from the country, and Allie (McAdams), a pretty rich girl whose family is staying in the area for the summer.  The two fall deeply in love, but their economic differences threaten to tear them apart.

The Notebook has sort of become one of those films that girls just naturally watch.  Kinda like Nicholas Sparks' A Walk to Remember.  Now, normally, I'm not one for chick flicks.  I mean, I enjoy them every once in a while, and have actually been starting to like them more as I get older, but usually, I tend to shy away from them.  When my roommate suggested we watch it together, however, that was a completely different matter.  Unless I'm completely opposed to the film, I'll almost always watch something with a friend if they suggest it.  After all, if they like the movie enough that they would ask me to watch it with them, then it must be pretty good.

The Notebook was surprisingly good.  I say "surprisingly" because more often than not, Nicholas Sparks' books and movies get a reputation for being drippy, sappy, and pretty terrible.  But, this one was pretty good.  It was sad though; very emotional.  And by the time I was finished, I barely needed even the slightest provocation to burst into tears.  I'm an emotional person, so perhaps it was just me, but I think that most of those who have seen this film will agree with me.

When it wasn't heartrendingly sad, it was very romantic.  I think it's safe to say that many girls secretly want to have a guy like Noah.  He's funny, outgoing, adorable, and totally obsessed with Allie.  Who wouldn't want to be in her shoes?  The many lovely scenes of Allie and Noah together were touching and sweet.  Life just seemed so perfect.  And as the plot begins to complicate itself, the audience is drawn right into the sad and tangled love story, wondering where it will all end, just as Allie wonders what will be the ending of the story Duke is reading to her.

All in all, it was a good (if not emotional) movie.  I enjoyed watching it very much.  It was cute, funny, emotional, passionate, and romantic.  Although, I will say that the ending was incredibly sad, so you should probably bring along a box of tissues to go with your popcorn.  Ladies, this is probably not the right movie to make your boyfriend watch with you; I'm sure he won't enjoy it nearly as much as you would, unless he doesn't mind being a cuddly shoulder to cry on.  However, it would be perfect to watch with your gal pals.

City Lights (1931)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 9 out of 10

Director: Charles Chaplin

Starring: Charles "Charlie" Chaplin, Virginia Cherrill, Harry Myers

Rated: G

Genre: Comedy, Drama, Romance, Silent

Runtime: 87 minutes

Charlie Chaplin's little Tramp stars in this touching film about friendship and love.  On one of his walks the Tramp befriends a blind flower girl (Cherrill) who sells her wares on the street corner.  Desirous to help her, the Tramp tries to earn some money for her so that she can travel to Vienna and get an operation that will restore her sight.  Meanwhile, the he also befriends an eccentric millionaire (Myers), whom he stops from committing suicide in a drunken depression.  This new friend is only too happy to help the Tramp, but only when he's completely drunk.  When sober, he's a totally different person.  While trying to cope with the split personality of his rich friend, his love for the beautiful flower girl, and the series of rotten jobs he must perform to earn the money, the Tramp struggles for his fairytale ending.  But, will he get it?

I first heard about this movie from a little book about Charlie Chaplin that I found in a used book shop in Florida.  I've always thought Chaplin to be an interesting and iconic character (although I'd only seen one of his films) and still fondly remember my friend Sergio dressing up like the Tramp for a publicity stunt for our college's film club. This, however, was the first time I had actually seen a full-length Chaplin silent film, and I loved it!  The Tramp was both adorable and funny, and the storyline was so perfect, both in writing and performance, that one cannot help but be sucked into the story!  As an introduction to Chaplin's silent performances, City Lights perfectly rises to the occasion!

The plot is both romantic and funny, touching, suspenseful, and heartbreaking.  What more could one ask for in a film?

Chaplin of course, stole the show.  The Tramp is not one of the most iconic figures of cinema because of pure luck!  The character has obvious appeal.  He may be poor as dirt, with a hat and coat that are too small, and pants and shoes that are too big, but he sure doesn't live his life as a poor man!  In fact, this feisty little character seems to imagine himself to be a gentleman, even going so far as to treat his millionaire friend's butler as his own!  However, even though Chaplin is wonderful, I don't think it would be enough for him to carry the entire film on his shoulders.  The Tramp was supported by a delightful cast, with Virginia Cherrill's flower girl completely melting everyone's hearts, Myers's millionaire providing wonderful conflict and comedic relief, and Florence Lee playing the part of Cherrill's kind, gentle grandmother.

Although I enjoyed the entire movie very much, I have to say that for me, the best part was the ending.  The final scene of the film brought tears to my eyes, but, to prevent spoilers, I'm not going to tell you what actually happens ;)

The Fisher King (1991)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 9 out of 10
Director: Terry Gilliam
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Robin Williams, Mercedes Ruehl
Rated: R
Genre: Drama, Comedy
Runtime: 137 minutes

Jack (Bridges) finds his life spiraling out of control after a sarcastic comment he makes on his radio program leads a man to pull off a mass shooting in a local bar. After Jack hits rock bottom, he finds a savior in Parry (Williams), a crazy homeless man who believes in a world of knights, quests, and the Holy Grail. Unknown to Jack, his new friend is actually one of the victims of Jack's thoughtless comment.

I initially picked up this film for two reasons. One, it was starring Robin Williams, and I honestly think that guy is amazing. I could rant on and on about Robin Williams, but I don't think I'll bother you all with that right now. Two, it was about a homeless man who believed in knights, dragons, and the Holy Grail. I've been in love with Arthurian literature since my seventh grade English class where I first read about the adventures of Arthur, Gawain, Percival, and Lancelot. Seeing that both these wonderful components were in the same film was simply tantalizing, and I had to check it out.

I once heard somewhere (and for the life of me, I can’t remember if it was in a movie, YouTube video, or somewhere else entirely) that you know it’s going to be a serious film when Robin Williams has a beard. And, I guess you can say that The Fisher King falls into that category. However, it’s not all sad and serious. There are quite a few rather funny moments, such as when Robin Williams strips off all his clothes and goes running naked through Hyde Park. The serious bits are well choreographed, though, and you can really feel all the pain and the emotion in each of the characters.

I think one of the best things about this film is just how many interesting characters you have. There’s Robin Williams as Parry, the delusional homeless man who believes he must retrieve the Holy Grail from the mansion of a local architect on the Upper West Side. Jack is beaten down, cynical, and depressed, but still shows that spark of humanity that brings him to reach out to Parry, even though all his life, he’s been selfish and unsympathetic. Anne (Ruehl) is Jack’s girlfriend, the tough as nails video rental shop owner with a soft spot she tries so desperately to hide. And don’t forget two of the most interesting characters: Lydia (Amanda Plummer), the offbeat object of Parry’s affections, and “Venice” (can’t find who played him) the emotional, colorful homeless man Jack and Parry meet during their time together.

This is a powerful, gripping movie; alternating comedy and serious drama with relative ease. If you’ve seen some of Robin William’s other films, such as Jakob the Liar (1999), you’ll understand what I mean. All in all, it was a wonderful viewing experience, and provided a good evening’s entertainment. While I won’t go so far as to say it was my favorite movie, I will say that not only does it grab and hold your attention, but it really makes you think. Our actions don’t just affect us. They have consequences that reach out farther than we may realize. And even though we make mistakes, we can still have a chance at redemption. It may not make everything right and normal again (some things simply cannot be undone), but we still have a chance at forgiveness. Also, it shows that you can’t just judge someone because of who they are or what they’re like. Sometimes, we become the way we are because of things that have happened to us; things that are completely beyond our control. Yeah, this movie carries a couple pretty heavy messages, but it does so in such a way that it’s not too much to take in all at once. It's touching, emotional, funny, romantic, all rolled into one.

This is a perfect film for anyone who enjoys Robin William’s drama/comedies, is interested in the Arthurian legends, or wants a movie with a feel-good ending.

The Help (2011)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 9 out of 10

Director: Tate Taylor

Starring: Emma Stone, Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, Bryce Dallas Howard

Rated: PG-13

Genre: Drama, Comedy

Runtime: 146 minutes

Skeeter Phelan (Stone) always seems to be out of place.  After returning from four years of college, she finds that she's not exactly on the same page as everyone else in her town of Jackson, Mississippi.  Her mother (Allison Janney) is pressuring her to find a husband, while her two best friends Hilly Holbrook (Howard) and Elizabeth Leefolt (Ahna O'Reilly) who are already married and have children, are trying to set her up on a date with Mr. Holbrook's elusive cousin, who can never seem to make any of their dates.  While asking Elizabeth's African American maid Aibileen (Davis) for help on her housekeeping advice column (a job she hopes will be a stepping stone to something greater), Skeeter gets a crazy idea: asking the black maids around Jackson to help her in writing a book about what life is like working for the white people in the racist South.  The two of them recruit Minny Jackson (Spencer), Aibileen's smart-mouthed friend, who besides being the best cook around, also just happens to have been fired by Hilly Holbrook, and is not above getting revenge.

I first heard about The Help through my college book club.  It was the first book we were given to read, and by far my favorite. As soon as I heard there was a movie coming out, I had marked the dates on my calendar, and waited eagerly for August to roll around.  Of course, with any film adaptation there are going to be changes, and I'll admit that I was pretty worried that the movie would not live up to my expectations.  Rather, it far exceeded them!  The Help really brought the characters to life, making an amazingly enjoyable 2+ hours!

I was really impressed with the cast (Stone, Davis, Spencer, and Howard were AMAZING!), but the set was perfect as well.  This wasn't just filmed in some back-lot in Hollywood; it was actually filmed in Mississippi!  You totally got a feel for the location!  For the duration of the film, it almost felt like you were right there in Jackson!  It was engaging, exciting, and very fun to watch.

While The Help is mostly billed as a drama, it does have it's comedic bits.  Minny is hilariously sassy, and I just loved the antics of little Mae Mobley (Eleanor Henry) and the ditsy Celia Foote (Jessica Chastain).  By filling the cast full of such interesting characters, the heavy topic of the story was lifted somewhat, and made more bearable.  After all, this is a film about racism in the South.  It feels real, it feels powerful.  It was both eye opening, and realistic to see a story like this told from the point of view of the African Americans involved.  Especially, growing up as a white woman in today's world, I never really saw the story from this side.  I always knew that racism was wrong and that it was an ugly thing, but I never got to see right into the minds of the women who were a part of it.

All in all, this is a wonderful movie.  It was uplifting, humorous, inspiring, and powerful.  If you read the book, don't hesitate to see this; for the most part, I felt that it stayed pretty true to the original story.  On the flip side, if you like the movie, be sure to read the book!  This is a great film for all kinds of people-- go with your book club, your gal pals, your mom or your daughter; women of all ages (13+) will be able to find something to love about this movie :)

Kidnapped (1971)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 7 out of 10

Director: Delbert Mann

Starring: Michael Caine, Lawrence Douglas, Vivien Heilbron

Rated: G

Genre: Drama, Historical, Adventure

Runtime: 100 minutes

Other Versions: Kidnapped (1938) (1948) (1952) (1956) (1960) (1963) (1978) (1986) (1995) (2005), Schusse unterm Galgen (1970)

Based off of Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novels Kidnapped and Catriona/David Balfour, Kidnapped is a story of revenge, adventure, and patriotism.  When David Balfour (Douglas) (following the death of his father three years previously) goes to his uncle Ebenezer (Donald Pleasence) for his inheritance, he gets far more than he bargained for, including a murder attempt and being sold into slavery by his uncle.  While on a ship heading to the Carolinas, he makes the acquaintance of Scottish revolutionary and rebel Alan Breck (Caine) and warns him of the captain’s plan to rob and possibly murder him.  After fighting off the corrupt crew, the two form a fast friendship that continues from the ship to the Scottish highlands, where they are on the run from the British soldiers who want Alan dead.  Complications arise, however, and soon they are not only trying to keep themselves out of prison (or worse: the gallows), but they also have to clear the name of Alan’s kinsman James Stewart (Jack Watson) who is to hang for a murder that Alan committed.

I first became interested in the story of Kidnapped when my friend Sarah gave me a copy of the book, which I loved.  So, when Sarah mentioned that there were several movies, my interest was piqued.  When she mentioned that the 1971 version starred Michael Caine as the dashing Alan Breck, I couldn’t resist.  After weeks of trying to get our schedules to work, we were finally able to watch this allusive film.  And….it was pretty bad.  I’m not going to lie; this film was kinda dreadful.  But, I still gave it 7 out of 10 for a very important reason; it was one of those films that is so bad that it’s good.  Unlike many of my fellow film critics, I don’t review films strictly based off of how good it was as a film.  For example, I don’t solely focus on the cinematography or the sets, acting, or screenplay.  I tend to focus more on how the film made me feel in general; on how my overall viewing experience was.  That’s because I hope that the people who read Cinema Sweetheart aren’t just looking for films that are “cinematographically” perfect, but rather films that are enjoyable to watch.

There are so many things I could say about this film.  The screenplay, for example, seemed to jump all over the place.  If you’ve not read Kidnapped or Catriona, you’re bound to be confused for quite a bit of the movie. (I’ve only read Kidnapped, so I was confused for a lot of it, myself!)  Everything seems to jump around.  Large pieces of Kidnapped are removed, and are replaced with wonderful selections of awkward starring, awkward touching, and awkward camera angles that pan in on faces with blank or awkward expressions.  Oh, and don’t forget awkward phrases that can be construed as something very different, like when Alan commands David to quickly “rub” himself.  Furthermore, the entire timeline from Stevenson’s novels seems to be altered in a very unusual way.  David’s story begins years earlier than it was supposed to, and yet, scenes from the second book are inserted into the plot of the first as though they were always there.  This includes characters like James Stewart and his daughter Catriona (Heilbron), who don’t come into play until the second novel.  The whole beginning is sped through at mach-10, and the ending leaves the audience confused and a bit dissatisfied.

The characters were hilarious.  Michael Caine’s adaptation of Alan was very different from the version in the books.  First, he had a ridiculous hair style that curled at the edges.  How he managed to keep his hair looking foppish and undisturbed for the entirety of the film is beyond me.  Plus, he lacked his characteristic blue jacket, and wore an interesting number done in brown plaid.  Everything matched.  He was also far more serious than the character in the book.  Stevenson’s Alan is short, pock-marked, unattractive, and vain (almost comically so).  Caine’s Alan was tall, handsome, regal, and proud, with a serious, purposeful air about him for the entire film.  His Scottish accent, however, left much to be desired.  Even though Caine is British, he almost sounded like an American trying to pull off a really bad Scottish accent, although I will say that it got better as the film progressed.  Speaking of which, Vivien Heilbron also had an accent worth mentioning.  When she is first introduced, it was impossible to detect a Scottish accent at all.  But, by the end, she had a pretty decent one.  How does that make any sense?  You either have an accent or you don’t.  You don’t go from sounding like an American to sounding like a Scott over the course of a couple of weeks, especially if you’re born in Scotland to Scottish parents in a Scottish highlands clan!

I also found David to be very funny.  First of all, he had the most interesting hair style, with a silly little ponytail that was impossible to identify for most of the film.  Was it a bun?  Was it a random clump of hair?  Was it a ponytail?  Yes it was!  Plus, he goes from clueless, slightly stupid youth to an intense rebel, determined to do everything in his power to see James Stewart cleared of the murder charges against him.  What makes this humorous is just how dedicated he is.  In fact, he’s more interested in saving James than James’s cousin (Alan) and daughter (Catriona) are!  Why?  I honestly have no idea!

Despite all its faults, there is one thing that the movie had going for it.  The scenery was absolutely beautiful.  Filmed on location in Scotland, it was easy to see just why Alan was willing to die for his country.  It was gorgeous.  I’m sure that Scotland has become more urbanized since 1971, but I would still love to travel there someday, just to get a glimpse of the scenes I saw in this movie.

There was one other thing that worked to this film’s benefit: it was funny.  Even when it wasn’t meant to be funny, it was funny.  Sarah and I could not help laughing at all the awkward close-ups, starring, expressions, wtf moments, and dialogue.  Sometimes, the best movies are those that are so bad that they are good.  Those are the ones that make you laugh out loud, and are the ones that friends tend to talk about for a long time afterwards (well, at least my friends and I do).  These are the ones you reach for on a rainy day or on a late sleepless night, simply because you know you’re going to enjoy the experience.

This is a good movie for anyone who has read Kidnapped and Catriona, and is looking for an interesting (albeit confusing) film adaptation.  It’s also good for anyone who doesn’t always need to take their film viewing too seriously, or for anyone who enjoys watching films that are (as Sarah's dad so eloquently put it) "not great cinema".

The Wolf Man (1941)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 10 out of 10

Director: George Waggner

Starring: Lon Chaney Jr., Claude Rains, Maria Ouspenskaya

Rated: PG

Genre: Horror, Drama

Run Time: 70 minutes

Sequels: Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), House of Frankenstein (1944), House of Dracula (1945), Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)

Remake: The Wolf Man (2010)

After his brother's tragic death, Lawrence "Larry" Talbot (Chaney) returns from America to his family's estate in Wales.  While fixing his father's telescope, he catches sight of the beautiful Gwen Conliffe (Evelyn Ankers) whose father owns the antique shop in town.  When he takes Gwen and her friend Jenny (Fay Helm) to see the Gypsy camp and get their fortunes told, Jenny gets attacked and killed a wolf who turns out to be Bela (Bela Lugosi) the Gypsy fortune teller who is cursed to become a werewolf.  When Larry goes to save Jenny, killing the wolf, and finding himself bitten in the struggle, Bela's mother Maleva (Ouspenskaya) warns him that now, he too will become a werewolf when the moon rises. 

I discovered the classic Universal Horror Films when I was either a sophomore or junior in high school.  I used to watch them with my dad (still do sometimes, although not much anymore, since I started college).  This was the first one we watched together and it has always been my favorite.  Larry is so human, so easy to connect and sympathise with.  I instantly fell in love with the character (it also helps that he's played by the incredibly handsome Lon Chaney Jr., but that's beside the point).  After watching this film, I threw myself into checking out all the other Universal Horror Films, and I've seen most of the standard cannon: Dracula (1931), Frankenstein (1931), Bride of Frankenstein (1935), The Mummy (1932), and The Wolf Man.  I still need to see The Invisible Man (1933).

I love everything about this movie, but since I could rant on and on for ages, I'll be extra sure to keep it short.

I've always been squeamish about horror films because there was too much blood, or too much violence.  However, older films prove that you don't need blood and violence to be scary.  And even better, they don't need to rely on sex to hold the audience's attention.  In fact, the audience of The Wolf Man doesn't even get to see that much skin, not even Larry's.  When he opens his shirt to show Maleva his wound, he barely even unbuttons it.  One or two buttons are undone, and you don't even get to see anything.  Not saying that I think it was necessary, but I think it was nice that the director didn't need to focus on sex appeal like today's films do.

The Wolf Man is a wonderful springboard into the other Universal Horror films.  I've thoroughly enjoyed watching it again, and again, and again.  If you're interested in scary movies, but don't like sex and gore, then this is a good film to start with.  If you've enjoyed Bela Lugosi's Dracula and Boris Karloff's Frankenstein, then The Wolf Man might be a good film to watch next.  Interesting fact, Lon Chaney Jr. was one of the only Universal actors (if not the only one) to play all of the classic horror monsters: the Wolf Man (The Wolf Man, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, etc.), Frankenstein's Monster (Ghost of Frankenstein), Dracula (Son of Dracula), and Kharis the Mummy (The Mummy's Tomb, The Mummy's Curse, etc.).

Becket (1964)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 10 out of 10

Director: Peter Glenville

Starring: Richard Burton, Peter O’Toole, John Gielgud

Rated: PG-13

Genre: Drama, Historical, Religious

Runtime: 150 minutes

A story of friendship, betrayal, and honor, Becket is a stirring drama that is not to be missed.  King Henry II (O’Toole) is a mischievous rogue, spoiled rotten twat, and the ruler of England a few generations after the Norman invasion.  Thomas Becket (Burton), his best friend and partner in crime, is a bitter Saxon, who is unable to find real love or compassion for anyone but himself.  After making him a nobleman in Norman society, Henry gets his friend appointed first as archdeacon, then as Chancellor, and Archbishop of Canterbury.  However, once he gains this high position, Thomas comes to find religion and compassion, and for the first time, he begins to defy the will of the king, rather than accepting his every order without question.  What results is a series of events that would shake the very foundations of their friendship.

I was first drawn to this film for two main reasons: one, Richard Burton was acting in the title role.  Although I’m not extremely well-versed in the filmography of this actor, I’ve always been a fan.  My first introduction to Burton was through the musical Camelot, where he played the role of King Arthur.  And in my Classical film class, I was able to view scenes from a few other Richard Burton films, including The Robe (1953).  There is something about Richard Burton, some commanding force that he displays so perfectly, that makes him wholly delightful to watch.  The second reason I wanted to watch this film was because of the story.  After having studied The Canterbury Tales three times now for school, the name Thomas Becket is very prominent in my literary vocabulary; after all, the whole point of the book is a pilgrimage to his grave!

Even though Richard Burton was obviously my reason for watching the film, I must say that Peter O’Toole was wonderful as well.  While Becket obviously made changes in his philosophies as the movie progressed, it was a bit subtle.  However, it was very powerful watching the changes that Henry was forced to go through because of his friend’s decision. The movie opens with a very serious, mature Henry II at the tomb of Thomas Becket.  Not more than ten minutes later, we see Henry as he used to be: mischievous, immature, and free.  It leave the audience wondering what had happened to this man that he would be in the condition we see at the start of the film.   O’Toole plays the transformations flawlessly.

This was a wonderful, wonderful movie.  Despite the length (two and a half hours), I sat enthralled by the story and the characters.  Even though we know what is going to happen at the very start of the film (Becket will die), we do not actually know how these events are to come about, and therein lies the suspense.  It is not a clean cut plot, either.  I mean to say, there is not just one reason why everything falls apart.  When Thomas starts refusing to listen to Henry’s commands, sides are taken, and things start to build up.  Becket finds an ally in King Louis VII of France (John Gielgud) and the tenacious young monk Brother John (David Weston).  Henry, in turn, appeals to corrupted members of the Church, who are upset that Thomas has taken power away from them.  But, through it all, despite their differing loyalties, one cannot forget that these two men once had a beautiful friendship; and where did it go?

This was a powerful, very moving film.  If you’re a fan of either Richard Burton or Peter O’Toole, I would highly suggest watching Becket.  Also, this might be of interest to English majors (especially those with a concentration in Medieval literature), because if it were not for Thomas Becket’s martyrdom, there would be no Canterbury Tales.

Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo, or The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 5 out of 10

Director: Pier Paolo Pasolini

Starring: Enrique Irazoqui, Margherita Caruso, and Susanna Pasolini

Rated: Not Rated

Genre: Religious, Historical, Drama, Biography

Runtime: 137 Minutes

Language: Italian (dubbed in English)

Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo is not exactly my first choice of film.  That's not to say that I don't enjoy a good theological film or anything like that.  It's just that when looking for the Gospel of Matthew in a movie form, I would normally turn to Godspell.  However, if you're in a somber mood, have about two hours to set aside, and are a well-versed Christian, this is surely a film you would enjoy.

Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo is basically what you would get if you fed the Gospel of Matthew into a screen-writing machine and handed out the completed piece as a script.  That's not to say that there aren't inaccuracies and changes made, but rather that the plot takes you straight from the Nativity to the Resurrection and everything in between--complete with choppy transitions and lots of speeches.

One frustrating aspect of Il Vengelo Secondo Matteo is that you really have to be a Christian to understand it.  Not enjoy it.  Understand it.  The film lacked transitions that make plots easier to follow, and besides that, there were very few details to designate who certain characters were.  Mary and Joseph were not named in the opening scene, and even later on in the film, it was difficult to tell who several of the characters (including John, Peter, and Judas) were.  All viewers had to go off of was the classic actions performed by them in Gospels.  I was also bothered by the lack of transitions between the scenes.  It was almost as though Pasolini decided that he wanted to change the scene, and he wanted to change it right that second, so he just jumped into it.  Now, it’s understandable if this is how the Gospel plays it out, but for the viewer, it can be a bit confusing.  We don’t have chapters and verses to break it up for us.

And of course, who can forget the dubbing?  Personally, the one thing I love so much about foreign films is the language.  I can’t understand any of it, but there is something delightful about listening to the sound of the French in Germinal or the Italian in Life is Beautiful.  However, with a dubbed film, I usually feel like I’ve been force-fed some sort of nasty meat-substitute in place of real beef.  What I mean to say is that it’s kind of shitty.  This was one of the better dubbings I’ve heard, but even so, I would have greatly preferred subtitles instead.  It was annoying when the English-speaking actors would rush through their lines because the Italian was shorter, or when you could see that the lips obviously didn’t match what was being said.

However, putting all my complaints aside, I have to say that there were several things that I really liked about this movie.  First, I loved the cinematography.  The sets were amazing; and when you were shown a scene, it wasn’t just a little piece of it.  Actually, the camera would pan out and show you everything…and it was beautiful!  When you weren’t panned out on the scenery, the camera was drawn close to all the faces…I loved seeing the faces.  There were so many people with so many unusual faces and expressions….it made you feel as though you were right there in the crowd coming to see Jesus; a sense of intimacy was produced with the film and the audience. 

Enrique Irazoqui was an amazing Jesus.  His commanding presence among the people was perfectly offset by the gentle smile he gave the children.  What interested me the most, though, was his appearance in general.  Strange as it may seem, I was surprised to see a short-haired Jesus.  The long-haired, bearded Jew has become the iconic picture of Jesus.  This one was a bit different from how I pictured him looking.  I was also a bit surprised by how serious he was.  I guess I always thought of Jesus as someone a little more kindly.  That’s not to say that Irazoqui was too harsh; just different.

All in all, I would say that this was a good film.  If you’re interested in Christian Theology, then you would probably enjoy this.  (I enjoyed it for that reason).  However be forewarned about the length and the terrible dubbing.  If you are able to find a DVD copy, you’ll have to tell me if they have it in the original Italian or not.  I had to watch an old library VHS, haha.

(On a side note, there is a version of this film in color.  Get the black and white variation; something is lost in the transition to color!)

Shakespeare in Love (1998)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 9 out of 10

Director: John Madden

Starring: Joseph Fiennes, Gwyneth Paltrow, Geoffrey Rush

Rated: R

Genre: Romance, Comedy, Drama, Historical

Runtime: 123 minutes

William Shakespeare (Fiennes) is in trouble.  Not only has he sold his latest play (which he has yet to write), but he finds himself unable to write, and does not have a muse to inspire him.  He finds his muse in the form of Thomas Kent (Paltrow), a young actor who is actually noblewoman Viola de Lesseps  in disguise.  The two of them fall in love, but, like any of Shakespeare's plays, there are complications. And what starts off as Twelfth Night soon becomes Romeo and Juliet.  Viola finds herself in an unwanted engagement to Lord Wessex (Colin Firth) and Shakespeare reveals that he's already married to someone else.  What follows is a beautiful, if not tragic piece.

Now, I'm sure that I'm going to get in trouble for this....but I have to say that I don't like Gwyneth Paltrow.  I really don't.  So, when I saw her name on the DVD box, I was hesitant to check this out.  But, I was in desperate need of a good romance (I was depressed by aspects of my own love life), and the plot sounded very tempting.  After seeing this film, I feel as though I owe her an apology.  I really enjoyed her performance; in fact, she was wonderful!  I loved the character of Thomas Kent (and of course, Viola).  The idea of a woman pretending to be a man is, of course, not foreign to Shakespeare's works, and I loved how it was incorporated into the storyline.

As an English major, I was delighted by the literary references that were scattered throughout.  However, I'm not much of a romantic, and I thought that many of the love scenes (mostly the bedroom scenes) dragged on.  However, there were plenty of moments that made me gasp and "awww!"  It was, all in all, a delightful film. 

I'd recommend reading both Romeo and Juliet and Twelfth Night before watching this movie, or if you've already seen it, before watching it again.  There are various references that the average viewer might not pick up on if they haven't read them.  (And please don't say "I haven't read Romeo and Juliet, but I know what happens, so I don't have to."  There are references you wouldn't get if you hadn't of read it.  There is so much more than falling in love, potions, and death!)

This was one of the best movies I've seen in a while!  Normally, I don't like romances because I find them to be too predictable and "drippy".  But, this was one that I actually enjoyed very much, and I'd love to see more like it.  It appealed both to my English major persona, and to my inner romantic (apparently, there is one, deep down :P).

Jane Eyre (2011)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 10 out of 10

Director: Cary Fukunaga

Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell

Rated: PG-13

Genre: Drama, Romance

Runtime: 120 minutes

Jane (Wasikowska), a young woman near death, finds herself at the home of St. John Rivers (Bell) and his sisters.  They take her in and save her life, only asking who she is and where she comes from.  She calls herself Jane Elliot.  Flash back to about fifteen years previously, and the story of Jane Eyre begins.  Raised by an aunt who hates her, and sent to a boarding school where she is abused, Jane eventually is able to free herself from the torments of her childhood, and becomes the governess to Adele Varens (Romy Settbon Moore), the illegitimate child of Edward Rochester (Fassbender), her dark, brooding employer.  Jane catches his eye and softens his heart, but soon learns that Rochester harbors a very dark secret; one that threatens all he holds dear.

As an English major and a lover of Gothic literature (Jane Eyre falling into this category), I was thrilled beyond belief to see that there was a Jane Eyre movie coming out. In fact, I've been waiting for months for it to come to theatres!  And Fukunaga's interpretation did not disappoint!  Besides a stellar cast, the plot was well adapted, and the cinematography was perfect.  I especially love what they did with Jane and Edward's relationship.  Reading the book, I always had a certain image of Rochester, but after seeing the film, I feel as though I've softened a bit more toward him.  That's to say, I've always loved the character, but Fassbender breathed new life into him, and only made me love him more.

I think that my biggest disappointments had to involve the few places in the film where the original story was deviated from.  For example, I had been looking forward to seeing the infamous "Gypsy" scene, but it was sadly omitted.  Also, I was a bit annoyed that the ending did not completely hold up to that in the book (although, I still thought that they did a wonderful job!) 

Finally, my last complaint has to do with my favorite character: Rochester.  Fassbender's Rochester is too attractive!  One of the main characteristics of Jane and Rochester is that they are not very attractive.  Jane is supposed to be plain (and while Wasikowska is beautiful, they managed to make her "plain" enough).  But Rochester is supposed to be almost ugly; and as a female college student who went with a group of gal-pals, I can honestly say that this Rochester was handsome!  (of course, that's not a bad thing, per se...more of literary purist complaint than anything else).

This is a must-see film for all English majors and anyone who has ever loved the works of Charlotte Brontë!  Also, if you happen to be a Mr. Darcy fan-girl, you might want to check out Rochester; he's my personal favorite ;)  Even if you are not acquainted with the book, but happen to love a good drama, then you'll have to check this out!  If you don't know much about the book, however, please, please, please don't look up a summary!  You'll enjoy this so much more if you're completely surprised!  Of our group of four girls going to see the film, one of us was completely uninformed about the plot and storyline.  Her reactions were among the best, since everything was a complete surprise!

Batman Begins (2005)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 9 out of 10

Director: Christopher Nolan

Starring: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Cillian Murphy

Rated: PG-13

Genre: Action, Drama, Crime

Runtime: 140 minutes

Sequel: The Dark Knight (2008)

There is nothing like a good superhero action movie!  And as a Marvel girl, I would normally satisfy my superhero fascinations with Spider-Man or the Fantastic Four.  DC Comics and Batman?  Not really my cup of tea.  Well, that’s what I thought until the Esteemed Film Critic loaned me his copy of Batman Begins and suggested I check it out.  Would it betray my Marvel sympathies to say that I absolutely loved it?  Batman Begins is a wonderful introduction into the world of Bruce Wayne, the dark avenger who cleans up the street by turning criminals’ fear against them.

After witnessing the death of his parents and seeing their killer released from prison, Bruce Wayne (Bale) travels to Asia and falls in with the lowest of the low in an attempt to figure out what it takes to drive a man to crime.  While there, he becomes the pupil of Henri Ducard (Neeson) and Ra’s Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe), members of a dark organization bent on wiping out evil and corruption by any means necessary; and their next target is Gotham.  As his image of his mentors is shattered, Bruce finds himself in direct conflict with those who once trained him.  While trying to overcome his own demons, Bruce Wayne takes on the identity of the Batman, and sets out to turn the fear that criminals inflict on others back on themselves; fighting fear with fear.  Meanwhile, in Gotham, a new villain is on the rise: the Scarecrow, who uses a panic-inducing neurotoxin and a burlap scarecrow mask to strike terror into the hearts of his victims.  Will Batman be able to stop him?

As I said before, I’m normally not a DC Comics fan.  More often than not, I find the plots and characters to be too dark for my tastes.  While it is true that Batman Begins is a very dark film, I would have to say that I had no real qualms about it.  In fact, I enjoyed it tremendously.  Christian Bale brought so many dimensions to the role!  Bruce Wayne was a wonderful character; dark, troubled, and although rich, influential, handsome, and strong, also so very, very human. 

Not going to lie: I was surprised to hear Batman speak.  I had been expecting the guttural, almost animalistic grunting that has come to be associated with Christian Bale’s interpretation of the character from The Dark Knight.  Not to say that I was disappointed, of course, just surprised.

A couple other things caught my attention.  First, I was thrilled with the cast!  Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, and Gary Oldman are three actors I have loved in every movie I’ve seen them in; and while I’ve not seen enough of their movies to say that they are my favorite actors, I’ve always loved them.  So, of course, having all three in one movie was awesome!  Gary Oldman surprised me the most, though.  My usual image of him is the innocent and adorable Rosencrantz in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.  Seeing Oldman as an American Officer Gordon was a surprise to be sure!  But, I believe this just goes to show his versatility as an actor.

This is a film I would recommend very strongly, but only if you were interested in the action/drama/superhero genres.  If you are opposed to violence and intense action scenes, than this is not the film for you.  However, if you enjoy a good superhero film or are a Batman fan, then you must check this out!  This has most definitely propelled me to look more into the Batman series, although, not going to lie: at heart, I’ll always be a Spider-Man fan-girl :P

The Actors (2003)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 10 out of 10

Director: Conor McPherson

Starring: Michael Caine, Dylan Moran, Michael Gambon

Rated: R

Genre: Comedy, Drama, Crime

Runtime: 91 minutes

Foreign Film: Irish (DVDs are Region 2 only)

Anthony O'Malley (Caine) and Thomas Quirk (Moran) are two Shakespearian actors about to put on the show of their lives.  To help himself really get a grip on the villainous side of his character in Richard III, Anthony starts frequenting a bar full of gangsters and low-lives, and while there, comes across a very interesting situation: in Ireland's criminal underworld, a certain party owes money to another certain party, but neither of them have ever met.  Eager to get the money for himself, Anthony decides to enlist the help of Tom, a bit actor with no talent, convincing him that acting in a real life situation where there is something at stake would make him a better actor.  Tom, pretending to be his sister's English boyfriend Clive (Ben Miller), is able to not only get the money from the gangster Barreller (Michael Gambon), but also catch the eye of Barreller’s daughter Dolores (Lena Headey).  Things seem to be going perfectly, until the second party, to whom the money is owed, demands payment, and Tom and Tony find themselves scrambling to fix things before things get worse for them.

I absolutely love this movie!  The ridiculous plot, the spot-on casting, the wonderful disguises…The Actors has it all!  First of all: the plot.  This movie is totally improbable.  Even if Tony and Tom were able to pull off the heist, there is no way that they would be able to keep up the ruse for as long as they did.  Still, it’s one of those films where it’s more comedic because it could never really happen.  You have to suspend your disbelief and just enjoy it!  Second, the casting was perfect for this film!  I loved the many faces of Dylan Moran, especially his impersonation of the Scottish hit man Jacques.  Even when he was just simply Thomas Quirk, he was a loveable and sympathetic character.  However, the big dispute arises with Michael Caine fans, who say that this is one of his worst performances, and a disappointment.  I have to argue this last point.  Michael Caine’s performance is perfect; it’s his character that is despicable.

The only warning I have for this film is language.  There is minimal violence, no sex, and nothing particularly disturbing happens.  However, the film is liberally littered with f-bombs, and would not be appropriate for younger viewing audiences.  If you don’t like excessive language, you might want to avoid this film, although, I think that the movie as a whole more than makes up for the swearing.

Memoirs of a Geisha (2005)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 9 out of 10

Director: Rob Marshall

Starring: Suzuka Ohgo, Ziyi Zhang, Li Gong, Michelle Yeoh

Rated: PG-13

Genre: Drama, Romance,

Runtime: 145 minutes

Young Chiyo's (Ohgo) life has not been easy.  When she is just a child, her father sells her and her sister Satsu (Samantha Futerman) into the sex trade to buy medicine for their terminally ill mother.  The girls are separated, with Chiyo being taken to a geisha house, and Satsu disappearing from her life.  Chiyo is abused by her caretaker Mother Nitta (Kaoiri Momoi), and by the house's head geisha Hatsumomo (Li Gong) who is jealous of Chiyo's unusual beauty.  Just when all seems lost, she is taken under the wing of Hatsumomo's bitter rival Mameha  (Yeoh), the greatest geisha in the district.  Together, they work to make Chiyo (now called Sayuri) the greatest geisha in Japan, with the hopes of winning Mother Nitta's inheritance from Hatsumomo.

Oftentimes, people will tell you that movie adaptations are never as good as the books they come from.  However, Memoirs of a Geisha is one of those films that defies all the rules.  Having both read the book and seen the movie, I can testify that the movie is better by far!  This is a very visual story; the glorious kimonos, the elaborate geisha makeup, and the glory that is pre-WWII Japan is something that just has to be seen!  The cinematography is brilliant!

The casting was absolutely perfect for this film, as well!  First, Li Gong was amazing as the bitter Hatsumomo.  Her character was devious, jealous, and yet still very human; at many points in the film, I found myself actually feeling bad for her, only to have her flash her darker, uglier side and completely lose my sympathies again.  Hatsumomo is the perfect antagonist; you pity her and yet you hate her.

Even though he was not a main character, I was completly enthralled with the character of Nobu (Kôji Yakusho), the dark, brooding friend of the Chairman (Ken Watanabe); Chiyo's main love interest.  Nobu has been scarred in an attempt to save the Chairman's life during the war.  Because of this deformity, he's incredibly distant emotionally, to the point where he becomes brusque and almost unapproachable.  However, under the tough exterior lies a much gentler man, and Nobu's shy attempts to show affection simply melted my heart!

Over all, a good movie, one full of interesting characters, beautiful scenes, and shocking plot twists.  Even during the slowest scenes, I was not bored, and I could feel myself being drawn into the story from the very first scene!  A must see for fans of Arthur Golden's book, those with an interest in Japan, or anyone who enjoys a good drama.