cocomariev's reviews

I found "Gabbeh" boring. It was nearly impossible for me to sit through. There was no excitement. In this film, the director is an artist. Mosen Makhmalbaf does a great job on using colors throughout the movie, but that's the only good thing that I saw. The costumes, the Persian carpet, the sky and landscape vividly show Mosen Makhmalbaf's use of color. I didn't really understand the story at all. Other than the colors, the movie has nothing going for itself. The story wasn't interesting and I didn't feel engaged at all. I will never watch this film again. I get that Mosen Makhmalbaf wanted to display a work of art, but when half of the class is completely clueless there is confusion behind the meaning of the story, don't you think something is wrong?

To be honest, I didn't really like this film at all. Confusing and unexpected ending. I don't particularly like this kind of theme, but had to watch it for my film class. I do think that Luis Bunuel did do a great job at directing this film. The story of "Simón del Desierto" is loosely based on Saint Simeon Stylites' life, a monk who like Simón, decided to spent his days at the top of a pillar. "Simon del Desierto" parallels St. Simeon's story. Luis Bunuel shows us the way in which Saints are seen and venerated by the religious people. Using Simón as an example, Buñuel explores the human side of religion, and exposes his views on it. I thought that was bold and daring move by Bunuel. I like that he was comical throughout the movie which created a less tense atmosphere. One of the scenes that I thought was comical were the ones with the sheep farmer. His jabs at organized religion for example are bound to offend many who are devoted. I don't think that this film is for everyone. I can definitely see how it could offend many people. I wouldn't recommend it if you can't take that sort of humor. I will never see this movie again, but I do think that it is a great film to watch if you are interested in film history. Weird ending and I didn't really understand the meaning behind it.

This was the first movie I've seen by Agnes Varda. She is considered the "mother" of the New Wave, and characteristics of this style are shown throughout the film. I liked that we were brought into Florence's (Cleo) life and mind. I like that we are able to know what she is thinking, we are taken inside her mind. There is particular scene where she is walking down the street and the camera shifts to the street. It's as if we become her eyes and are able to see exactly what she sees. I noticed that some patrons even look at her, and thus the camera, which created a more realistic shot. It was like we were in the present time. The film portrays Cleo and the city around her. It really isn't an easy film to explain, but I do think Agnes did a wonderful job at capturing the audience and making us feel as if we were actually there with Cleo. Agnes left room for us to think about the meaning behind the film and relate it to our own lives. The film has more of a documentary feeling than a fictional narrative. Cleo (Corrine Marchand)does an excellent job in the film. I thought she was beautiful. I really like how she let us into her head, but left room for mystery. I found myself wanting to know more about her. Overall, I think this movie portrays the New Wave style in a positive light. Now I understand why Agnes Varda was appreciated by many and considered the "mother" of NV. I would definitely recommend this film to anyone who wants to see a film of the nouvelle vague.

I was actually pretty excited that we had the opportunity to watch the original Godzilla in my Film class. I found the special effects to be kind of corny and humorous. I can't really talk about the special effects though because I am so used to seeing extreme technological breakthroughs in film that it would be unfair for me to say that the effects looked cheap. Ishiro Honda's film ranges from drama to suspense. He established the long series of science fiction movies that were soon to come. Gojira's dark and tragic tone throughout the film kept me interested. The love triangle adds the perfect touch to this monster film. The characters did a great job at portraying emotional pain. Ishiro Honda does a fantastic job at illustrating the protest against nuclear weapons. Godzilla symbolizes man's ignorance and carelessness very well. Gojira parallels events that occurred during this time. Godzilla himself looked rather ridiculous I must say, but I do think Ishiro Honda did a great job at creating a truly grotesque monster. I think that the modern Godzilla monsters don't look as raw and creepy anymore. I couldn't really take the monster seriously when he was stomping through streets, but then again I can't really say anything. I mean look at Godzilla now, he's come a long way. The original Godzilla is one of the most recognizable symbols of Japanese culture worldwide, and fairly enough deserves to hold this position. Overall, Ishiro Honda did a great job on the film. He did a great job at laying the foundation of the future Godzilla and science fiction movies that would soon follow. I do think this film should be viewed by everyone. Most of us have seen the modern Godzilla so it's only fair to see how far this iconic monster has come.

Robert Rossellini series of short stories will have you at the edge of your seat. From romance to action, each story vividly portrays the Italian Neo-realist style. Paisan touches base on documentary, society and politics. I think that Rossellini did great job at hiring non- professional actors in order to incorporate them within the backdrop of the scenes. The storyline was also very detailed and made it seem like it was more of a documentary than an actual fictional film. The movie had me guessing at some points which kept me interested throughout the film. I noticed that Rossellini left room for us to fill in the story, letting us take on our own interpretation on things. For example, in each of the stories we don't really know much about the protagonist and I found myself creating their backgrounds in my mind. He did a wonderful job at inspiring emotion whether it be positive or negative. I have to admit that before I watched this film in class I was a bit skeptical. I definitely think that it portrays great characteristics of of neo- realism. One of the scenes that I thought was really interesting was when the baby is alone with no one to comfort or take care of him/her. It made me extremely sad but did a great job at illustrating the nature of war. He did a great job at illustrating Italy during World War II. I thought he provided several elements for us to choose from, giving us something to relate to and become emotionally attached to. Rossellini did a fantastic job at creating and directing a film that seemed extremely real. He blurred the lines between documentary and fiction beautifully. Now I see why he was very respected for his films.

Boris Ingster's film "Stranger on the Third Floor" contains many characteristics of a noir; heavy shadows, low camera angles, and diagonal lines. Although "Stranger on the Third Floor" is seen as historical due to the fact that it was one of first film noirs, I didn't like it at all. I am not a fan of scary movies, but I do understand why we watched it for class. The movie is dark and forbidding. Boris Ingster did a great job at using shadows to dramatize the scenes. His shots of the staircase made them seem endless which also created haunting effects as Peter Lorre runs down to escape John McGuire for example. Although Peter Lorre creep-ed me out throughout the whole movie, I do think he did a good job at using his eyes to look scary. One thing that I noticed was that the actors weren't well recognized besides Peter Lorre. I think Ingster did a great job at casting the actors this way because it made the film more believable and realistic.The dream scene is a perfect example of German expressionism. This movie was one of my least favorite films and I didn't see anything particularly special about it, but I do understand why this film is historically popular. Along with Peter Lorre, I did think that Jane (Margaret Tallichet) did a great job at playing a innocent, feminine lady. She kind of reminded me of Lillian Gish in "True Heart Susie." Boris Ingster did do a great job at using shadows and angles to his advantage, but other than that I don't see any real significance to the film. Peter Lorre does deserve some credit for making the film more interesting. I think his use facial expression and body movements did make him seem more haunting.

Fritz Lang's science fiction film, Metropolis vividly portrays a negative view of future society. First off, I am not really a fan of science fiction films, but I must say that this movie a must see. Lang did a fabulous job at filming this movie and really had me thinking about the negative views of technology that we fail to see. It is scary how this movie was shot in 1927 because it really captures the haunting effects that technology has over society that we failed to see. Although Fritz Lang is a bit over dramatic on his view of technology doesn't mean he wasn't right about his predictions. The workers through out the film are portrayed as lifeless machines that are forced to work countless hours without breaks. I thought this was interesting because it portrays our society today. With the number of innovations that exist today, we are forced to become available at all times, no matter where we are. The shots and angles that Lang uses are stunning. The machines and special effects are also very effective at portraying technology as a monster. Brigitte Helm did a fantastic job at playing Maria and the robot. The use of light and shadows are also perfectly placed throughout a number of scenes. A perfect example of this use was when Rotwang follows behind Maria. Lang did a fantastic job with this scene. It has me sitting at the edge of my seat. Again, this was one of my favorite science fiction movies by far. I am generally not too fond of silent films either, but Lang did a great job at capturing my attention. I definitely think that Metropolis is a film that everyone must see. I still can't believe it was shot during the 1920's. It is haunting and makes us think twice about technology and its effect on society.

Sergei Einstein's silent film, Bronenosets Potyomkin, captures real life events from 1905. It's been named as one of the most influential propaganda films of all time. I don't exactly agree with this, but I do think that Einstein did a wonderful job at showing us the injustice and brutality of actual events. One of the scenes that stood out to me was when the crew was fed rotten, maggot infested meat. I was extremely disgusted by this scene, but thought Einstein did an excellent job at showing us what their life was like aboard the ship, even though it might have been dramatized. There were a number of vivid and grotesque images that stayed in my mind even after I watched it. The Odessa Steps was one of the most violent scenes that I have seen. Einstein did a fabulous job at creating shots that were rapid and sharp. It enhanced the feeling of panic as the civilians run down the stairs. The close-ups used by Einstein of the panicked civilians really captured our class' attention as we gasped and cringed. I believe that the use of these zoom shots added to the drama and emotion of the audiences. In the beginning of this scene he zooms out and captures the full flight of stairs and the mass amounts of helpless civilians. This caused me to feel a sense of panic as I watched this scene due to his shot of the larger picture. As a propaganda film, Einstein did a wonderful job at making us feel sorry for these sailors. Although, this movie wasn't my favorite, I do think that Einstein created a action-packed silent film that had us at the edge of our seats. He did a wonderful job at grabbing our attention even though there was no sound.

"True Heart Susie" was one of my favorite silent films that I watched during my class. This cute love story follows the lives of William and Susie. By the end of the film I found myself loving Lillian Gish's character (Susie). She sacrifices a lot in order to win William's heart over. I thought that Lillian Gish did a fabulous job throughout the entire movie. In the beginning of the film, Susie (Lillian Gish) tried to kiss William (Robert Harron) in a number of scenes and both characters did a wonderful job at creating awkward moments. I thought they did a fabulous job at making the audience feel uncomfortable as we watched Susie repeatedly getting denied by William. Griffith did a wonderful job at capturing Susie's emotion throughout the movie. The close up shots that were taken really enhanced emotion throughout the film and I found myself feeling genuinely sorry for her. During the movie, we hope and expect that Susie and William end up together, but when William meets Betty our prediction of the movie changes. The movie ends rather dramatically and unexpectedly which I favored because we always assume that endings are happy. This was the only silent film that I have watched where I felt connected to one of the characters. Lillian Gish did such a good job at grabbing the audiences attention through her facial expressions that I found myself hating Betty and feeling extremely sad when her and William got married. I don't think Griffith could have chosen a better actress to play Susie. I would definitely recommend watching this movie just to see Gish's performance. Griffith did a fabulous job at making this a sweet yet unexpected love story that captured my attention fabulously. If you're going to watch a silent film, I would definitely say that this is the one to watch!

I did not particularly like this film at all. I thought it was a film that was hard to follow because there was no sound. The tempo seemed too slow which prohibited me to focus on the storyline. Although I did not enjoy it, I do think the history that was displayed throughout the film was very important. Lois Weber did a fantastic job at addressing issues of religion during that time. Also, I found the use of symbolism through out the movie to be rather intriguing. For example, the naked woman which was supposed to symbolize the naked truth and the preacher that symbolized Christianity. The film is moralistic and Weber tends to be rather preachy which isn't common during her time, especially being female. I find her very brave and daring due to the fact that she addresses taboo topics such as politics and religion, but I do think she goes a bit too far. She also did a fantastic job at capturing new techniques and uses of film. Overall I can see why Lois Weber is such an icon. She definitely wasn't afraid of what critics thought and dared to take risks with the films she created. Her moral concerns vividly displayed throughout the film. I definitely praise her for that.I can see why there was a lot of controversy on the naked woman, especially during the time period that the film was shot. It was a good film to study, but I wouldn't see it again. Considering how fast cinema has advanced, the movie now seems way too old-fashioned. The film seemed to drag out and I found myself wanting it to end.