2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

“The Ultimate Trip”

Science fiction has come a long way from its inception in literature and art, but in 1968, the greatest conversion to film took place in the form of an ultimate trip.

2001: A Space Odyssey is Stanley Kubrick’s epic masterpiece of space and exploration. The film follows a storyline, spanning 18 months, of mankind’s discovery of the origins of the human race and set out on a quest to retrieve that information. The crew of the mission is aided with the state-of-the-art computer technology of the HAL 9000 series, which can mimic the human brain.

The film is broken up into four different sections, all continuing the same story and sticking to a similar narrative.

It is with the advanced technology aiding the astronauts that put forth one of the major themes of the film: the dependence we are having on computers. It’s more of science fiction now than it was back in the 1960s with the rise of technology. Another major theme is the evolution of man. The artifact that is discovered is interpreted to be the key finding out how we got here and how we came to be. It plays a very significant role in the film.

Other significant roles are the different directions that Kubrick contributed. The cinematography of the film was spectacular. The wide-set shots and the narrow circular set of the setting applied to the sense of confinement and claustrophobia.

Also, not to mention the visual effects that basically won this movie over. The dazzling and blinding rays of lights brought alive the trip and the depiction of extraterrestrial life on the planet Jupiter.

Another way that this movie achieved so greatly, I think, is the minimal use of dialogue. What this movie basically consists of are extravagant shots of the space shuttles and the open space accompanied with the equally extravagant orchestra playing over these shots. The minimal use of dialogue adds ambiguity to the film’s themes and eventual climax. It opens up interpretation to the characters’ true thoughts of their actions.

At over two hours long, 2001 didn’t bore me. I watched with my full attention and gave a hundred percent of my mind to it to decipher the silences.

2001: A Space Odyssey is a brilliant masterpiece that marvelously brings alive the themes space exploration, evolution, the dawn of man, and extraterrestrial. I give this film a remarkable and lengthy 5 out of 5.

X-Men: First Class (2011)

“The story begins.”

Many writers reinvent franchises with a fresh new start and change the story completely. They disregard the previous timeframe and events and make their own. While some are disappointing, this example was a surprising one.

X-Men: First Class is the 2011 prequel to the X-Men franchise.

And I say prequel loosely.

The film follows young Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr as they both are exposed to different views on mutants in the world and team up with the CIA to protect the world from the Hellfire Club. The Hellfire Club is a terrorist group run by mutant Nazi Sebastian Shaw, who is attempting to use The Cuban Missile Crisis to start a war between the humans and the mutants.

The film introduced new characters to the franchise such as Havok, Angel Salvadore, Darwin, Banshee, and Azazel, and featured previous popular characters such as Mystique, and Emma Frost, obviously Professor X and Magneto, and a small chuckling cameo of Wolverine.

This film is the perfect movie to watch to kick off your summer. It seriously is an entertaining movie on many levels including the action scenes, the story, the laughs, and other parts. It could qualify as a stand-alone film, but only because it totally disregards events and characters from the previous films. Havok is actually Cyclops’ younger brother, Emma Frost is part of the Hellfire Club in this film but is actually the sister-in-law of Wolverine in his film (which is by far the worst of franchise). It’s actually the first of a proposed trilogy meant to reboot the franchise with dark elements, similar to Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies.

Another thing about the film is the slow start it had. It took its sweet ass time getting to know the characters, although the character development was best we’ve seen in a X-Men movie in a while.

There’s also the fact that it doesn’t necessarily live up to its title. With the subtitle of the film, you’d expect the majority of the film would be them in costumes fighting the Nazis and other battles that would lead up to the climax. But they were only in the costumes for a good one-fourth of the movie, where the action really went down.

X-Men: First Class is definitely an improvement of the past two films and an excellent start to a proposed new franchise. Director Matthew Vaughn did everyone a favor and worked a whole new direction with a fresh new cast and explosive effects. I give this film a 4 out of 5 and you can watch it now in theatres.

The 400 Blows (1959)

“The French masterpiece of adolescence in the 1950s.”

We all think that movies and television programs today are trying the poison our youth, but it’s been going on for more than three decades.

The 400 Blows is the feature length directorial debut of French New Wave director Francois Truffaut. It follows the young developing life of 14 year old Antoine Doinel, a troublemaker seen through the eyes of his teachers and parents. He commits petty theft, runs away from home, and unsuccessfully tries to attempt to achieve academic success and win his parents’ trust.

The film was a pioneer of the French New Wave movement, where existentialism themes were brought in and the rejection of classical cinematic forms took place. It’s also considered the defining film of the movement. It explored the young encounters of a boy whose own conscience was doing the right thing and just living life.

Truffaut achieves his directing in this film. He perfects a well narrated story influenced by the old classic Hollywood and the realism of Italian cinema. His skill of unfolding the narrative is relevant to the unfolding of Antoine’s struggle to be good.

The irony of Antoine’s struggle to be good is that he can’t be good. Nature didn’t make him that way; he was raised and taught to rebel.

I really liked this movie, but weirdly enough, I was waiting for it to end. Not that it bored me, but to me, maybe it was taking its sweet ass time to wrap up its conflicts. I also find it amusing, that earlier I was watching the UK series Skins and thinking how much affect it has on teens, but then watching this, I wonder if this movie had the same effect on teens the same way Skins has the same effect on teens today. It’s interesting to think that Antoine is somewhat an ancestor, precursor, or prototype to the kids of Skins.

The 400 Blows is a French masterpiece and carries out all the perks of being a teenager, backed up by well direction from Truffaut. I give it a classic 5 out of 5 stars.

The King's Speech (2010)

“God save the king.”

Royal families are always perfect…well almost always. Prince Harry wore a swastika, Prince Charles had a much speculated divorce, followed by his ex-wife’s, Princess Diana, untimely death. And King George VI “bloody well stammered”.

The King’s Speech is a 2010 drama film based on the true story of King George VI. The story follows George VI (played by Colin Firth) , who was then a Duke of York, as he tries to cure his stutter in time for when he inherits the throne. His wife Elizabeth, played by Helena Bonham Carter, then hires Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush, to help him.

The film was a historically accurate portrayal of the King’s later life, just until he inherited the throne. One thing I fully realized when watching this film was that the film’s title doesn’t necessarily refer an actual document used to persuade its listeners, but instead it referred to the human communication. I found it amusing and appealing about this revelation. Another thing I gathered from this film is the bravery of taking actions and not being afraid of the public eye; King George underwent therapy sessions under discretion. It seriously is an inspiring movie.

An absolute favorite of this film is the cinematography. I loved the shots of the scenes and way that every set seemed wide and huge. It was played out very well and looked a little quirky and eccentric, but it also played out significantly in the dramatic scenes.

Another love for this film is the art direction. The way the sets were brought alive was vivid and displayed royal life like it is, beautiful and imaginative.

Of course, the greatest factors in the cinematography and art direction skills are the actors, and in this film, they were extraordinary. Firth played the King as a helpless reluctant heir who will literally give anything than to rule. Rush played the speech therapist as a man with no fears or regrets. He is not afraid of insulting the king. Bonham-Carter also did a splendid job as Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. She was very supportive and took the job of loyalty to her husband.

Truthfully, after watching this film win Best Picture and Best Actor for Colin Firth at the 83^rd Annual Academy Awards, my well said reviews for this film weren’t based on its accolades. For the longest, I was positive that The Social Network would win, but rather abruptly, the critical and commercial success this film was garnering changed my mind.

The King’s Speech is beautiful masterpiece of courage and dignity that inspires an individual to take stand and not to give up. I reward this film a deserving 5 out of 5 and you can buy it now on DVD.

Nosferatu (1922)

“A Symphony of Horror”

And now ladies and gentlemen, the greatest adaptation of the classic horror novel Dracula…well sort of.

Nosferatu is the 1922 German black-and-white silent horror film loosely based on Bram Stroker’s novel Dracula. It follows a real estate agent Hutter who travels to Transylvania to sell a house to a weird and creepy man, Count Orlok. But, little does Hutter know, that Orlok is beyond anything he can ever imagine. He is the stuff of horror.

This film started it all, seriously. Director F. W. Murnau couldn’t acquire the rights to Dracula, so he filmed this movie, which is referred to as the unofficial adaptation of the novel. Many things were changed for the film, such as the characters' names (e.g. Count Dracula to Count Orlok) and also the term “vampire” (in this film, vampire is referred to as “nosferatu”, the Romanian translation). Also, the myth that light is deadly to vampires was taken from this film.

I think it’s funny when I hear that this film was banned in Sweden due to excessive horror. And I laugh even harder when I hear that the ban was lifted in the early 70’s. I guess I find it amusing because, being 2011, I’ve seen scarier films. But, this film is truly horrifying. The music, the atmosphere, even the old sepia color of the film, are all factors as to why it is horrifying. And probably the most obvious factor is the nosferatu himself, played by the ever terrifying, and ugly, Max Schreck.

Murnau really does create a horrifying world in this film. The atmosphere he displays is very dark and eerie. It’s just so…atmospheric. The way that Orlok moves is also very spine-chilling.

The film was made during the Expressionist era, where artists tried to evoke someone’s mood and emotions. This film is an ideal example of German expressionism. And all the elements can be traced to the nosferatu, Count Orlok.

Nosferatu is a horrifying silent film that stirs up a person’s mood. I give the film a 5 out of 5 and you can buy it now on DVD or watch it on Netflix.

Les Diaboliques (1955)

“Don't Reveal the Ending!”

The conspiracy of a murder, I bet, can be really fun. It isn’t until that day that you start to get cold feet and want to back out. And things get a whole lot worse once the body goes missing.

Les Diaboliques is a 1955 French horror/thriller film about two women, the wife of a boarding school headmaster and his mistress, who conspire to murder the abusive principal. But after a fool-proof plan, the body turns up missing, with some horrifying incidents occurring afterwards. What follows is a shocking climax and a chilling ending, but don’t reveal it!

Alfred Hitchcock reportedly attempted to buy the rights for the film to adapt it from the novel of the same name. But French director Henri-Georges Clouzot bought the rights before him. Hitchcock is of course known for thrillers, and this would have been well for him. It’s very thrilling and does feature plenty of suspenseful scenes and moments. The nature of the crime itself was very chilling; drowning is a horrible way to die. Also the hundreds of things that can go wrong and derail the whole plan.

The wife, played by Véra Clouzot, was nervous from day one. Her anxiety throughout the whole film caused the audience to feel very uncertain of themselves, and the conspiracy of the murder. Even after the murder, and post-missing corpse, her deteriorating health matched the audiences’ loss of comprehension for the weird happenings involving the missing headmaster.

One thing I wasn’t feeling too certain for this film was the slow moving story. Despite the mystery surrounding the body going on after the 30 minute mark, I didn’t feel that there were enough jumps and scares, although I’m certain when the film came out in the 50s, it was a hoot.

The twist of the movie is definitely a plus. Director Henri-Georges Clouzot is known for thrillers and this film does in fact deliver the thrills. The way he takes over the small world of the headmaster’s wife and shatters it makes any character and any viewer of the film vulnerable to Clouzot’s methods.

Les Diaboliques is an eerie thriller and obvious prototype to later thrillers and horror films of the century. I give it a 4 out of 5 and you can buy it on DVD or watch it on Netflix.

Wait Until Dark (1967)

“The blinds moving up and down. . .the squeaking shoes. . .and then the knife whistling past her ear. . .”

Blind people. They’re so vulnerable and easily manipulated. But they are not at all stupid. So don’t fuck with a blind person.

In Wait Until Dark, Audrey Hepburn plays a young blind woman whose normal day suddenly turns horrifying when “several men” arrive at her house, concocting a story about her husband and one that involves a doll. The encounters then turn into a battle of the wits for the blind and the seeing.

The film featured heavy suspense and an intense story of situational irony. The viewer knows of the contents of the doll and the reason for the strong desire of it, but what they’re actually concerned for is Audrey Hepburn. Hepburn’s character was very kind and loving; you wouldn’t even consider thinking bad things about her. The tension in the film was very high and every second that went by, was a second of comprehension for Hepburn regarding the whole charade taking place in her apartment.

The acting in this film was very well. Alan Arkin played the ringleader in the group of thieves. He possessed a very evil, cold personality and in the end, it didn’t matter if he had the doll or not, he still had intentions of harming Hepburn. Hepburn on the other hand, was very spectacular, as mentioned. Her performance even got her nominated for Best Actress in a Leading Role at the 40^th Annual Academy Awards. Whenever she would get scared or startled, the audience would fear for her. A huge contribution to the story is the fact that she was blind.

The film also featured one of the most terrifying climatic moments in film history. This film was actually the second film in which the killer was presumed dead, the first being 1955’s Les Diaboliques. To frighten the audience, the theatres would dim the lights down, until the entire theatre was drowned in complete darkness to match the complete darkness of the film.

Wait Until Dark is a very sharp thriller of a battle of wits. I give it a 5 out of 5 and you can buy it on DVD or watch on Netflix.