Kiss Me Deadly = Best Film EVER!!

There's something about Kiss Me Deadly (Robert Aldrich 1955) that i really love. Something about it that just really exemplifies film noir (with a tough of science fiction) for me. Before viewing it, and after watching Out of the Past I wasnt too sure about the whole film noir genre. It just didnt seem like enough, I felt like there was something missing from the movie. After watching Kiss Me Deadly I realized that there were three simple things missing: An outrageous and complex plotline, stylistic and unique cinematography, and of course Mike Hammer. All of which were present in Kiss Me Deadly.

Out of the Past had a relatively simple and monotonous plot; guy falls in love with a girl, girl turns out to be affiliated with a bad guy, and after a series of double and triple crossings they both end up dead. Something along the lines of that. It just seems too dull and uninventive to me. Well of course that is in comparison to Kiss Me Deadly. One of the things that i loved about Kiss Me Deadly was the outrageous plot. I mean it's about a detective who finds a girl who escaped from a mental institution who is later tortured to death by pliers and both of them are thrown off a cliff. Thats just the beginning and it already sounds more interesting than the former. So then the detective, Mike Hammer, tries to use his detective skills and the people he cares about to find out what had happened. Through a lot of supernatural and unpredictable events Hammer solves the mystery but by doing so he basically dooms the earth to an untimely destruction. There is just sometihng so much more interesting in the plotline of Kiss Me Deadly that is so unpredictable and unique compared to that of Out of the Past

I found the cinematography of Kiss Me Deadly to be very stylistic and unique and it just screamed film noir for me. The dark scenes with the characters bathed in shadow and the oblique, unique camara angles add to the hopelessness and paranoia that is theoretically present in all film noirs. In contrast to Kiss Me Deadly's dark, nighttime city shots, Out of the Past shows a different kind of style. In Out of the Past there are very few nighttime scenes, most of the shots are taken in midday with beautiful scenery or in a nice little town, babbling brook in the mountains, or a friendly mexican town. Kiss Me Deadly no doubt represents the feeling of film noir much better that Out of the Past does. Also many of the shots are very unique in Kiss Me Deadly, there are strange shots that one would not thing of doing, yet all of them seem to work. For example, there is one shot when Hammer tells Christina Bailey to wait in the building until he honks his horn, and as he runs down the stairs, there is a really cool birds eye view shot of him doing so. It is amung the cooler shots in the film, another one being when Hammer is approaching someones appartment room, and as he walk up to knock on it, the shot changes to a strange shot from upstairs with a clear view of Hammer doing so that really works out well. Overall, i just think that Kiss Me Deadly has much more interesting cinematography and represents film noir very well.

Finally there is the part that i love the most, Mike Hammer. I dont know what it is about the character that i like so much, i mean he is certainly not a good person. Hammer is clearly a self centered person that cares very little about anyone else. this attitute is shown quite early in the film when Hammer says to Christina, "I should have thrown you off the cliff back there. I might still do it. Where are ya headed?" What i like about his character might just be his general douchebag attitude, he doesnt take any crap from anyone, he'll slap you before even asking for answers, and he can kick some serious ass. His character is just so extreme and out there that you should hate his guts but you really dont, your just waiting for him to do his next completely jerky thing, or at least thats how i feel. Mike Hammer just has such a bad attitude and is such an asshole that it is actually funny. Like when he is trying to take the key from the mortitian and he slams his fingers in the drawer, and of course he seems to enjoy it, he has this evil little smirk while the mortitian is screaming in anguish as his fingers are being crushed. Mike Hammer is just a jerk, but he's a jerk that you tend to like cause he is such a bad person that it's entertaining and even funny.

Despite being a part of an overwhelming minority in the classroom, i really enjoyed Kiss Me Deadly. Not just because it is a fun movie to watch, i actually think it is a genuenly good and well done movie. It's unique and sometimes rediculous plot, stylistic cinematography and... well... Mike Hammer all made me enjoy Kiss Me Deadly much more than it's film noir counterpart, Out of the Past

Eternal Sunshine

In my opinion, the greatest movies are the ones that are open ended and open for interperetation. Usually, a romantic comedies are the most repeditive, straight forward, and predictable movies out there. the plot of the usual romantic comedy goes something like this: There's some guy who meets a girl and they fall in love and do all sorts of things together until the guy does something stupid and loses her and realizes what he has done and works to get her back, and of course they usually get back together. Of course there are also a bunch of really dumb, corny jokes thrown in there (the level of "funnyness" of course differs from movie to movie. for example, Knocked Up is a very funny movie while Good Luck Chuck is painfully unfunny, not to mention it stars one of the least funny and most annoying comics in the business, Dane Cook...) Now, the great thing about Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michel Gondry, 2004) is that it really breaks that stereotypical romantic comedy genre. the thing that sets Eternal Sunshine aside from most romantic comedies is the complexity of the plot and the characters. also, the fact that the ending is open ended and very open to interperatations

In the end of Eternal Sunshine Joel and Clementine both realize that they have had eachother erased from their minds due to problems they had with eachother in their previous relationship, but they deside to just go for it, for the sake of rebuilding the good memories. now the part that's very open-ended: How long will their relationship last? Will they go through the same experiences as they did in their previous relationship? Did they end up going through a continuous cycle of memory erasing? There are all sorts of questions left unanswered in the end, and there are many ways of interperating it. Personally, i think, due to the fact that in his memories as they were being erased, he decided to changed what he really did, and stay with clemintine. Now I think that their memories weren't completely erased, i mean where would they go? I think that their memories were just put into an extremely repressed state and Joel and Clementine are led by their subconcious to eachother. I think this because clearly Joel subconciously goes to montogue to meet Clemintine again when in his memories, she tells him to meet him in montogue. So basically i think that they have a good chance of lasting, because they are led by their subconcious to be together, even after being erased from eachothers memories they are clearly ( I dont want to say it in fear of being completely corny and cliche... but ill go ahead), they are clearly... destined to be together...

Unforgiven (1939) vs. Stagecoach (1992)

The films Unforgiven (Clint Eastwood, 1992) and Stagecoach (John Ford, 1939) would theoretically be better suited for American culture and society if for example Unforgiven was written in 1939 and Stagecoach was written in 1992. I suggest this mainly due to the lack of violence and the anti-violence theme of Unforgiven and the pro-violence and sense of adventure in Stagecoach.

If Stagecoach were written in modern times with modern acting, cinematography and a pumped up storyline, it would be a perfect film for today's society. In today's society, people love a movie that's fast paced, violent, and action packed. Of course not all modern movie-goers love movies like this, but it's safe to say that a large majority does. The love for movie's like Die Hard, 300, and James Bond in today's society is very common. People love a movie with a lot of action, violence, and a complete badass hero. Stagecoach shows all of those elements, but of course it is different because of the time in which it was written. Now if it were written in today's society, and basically modernized it would be a hit. If it were written to accomidate modern culture, scenes like the chase scene would be pumped up with a lot more heroism, death , and it most certainly would be more fast paced. Also, the use of modern film equipment and CGI could improve scenes, provide new angles, and just basically make the action look so much cooler. If Stagecoach were written in modern times it would be pumped up with more action, violence and heroism. It would be phenominally popular in todays society

Contrary to Stagecoach, the more modern film, Unforgiven, would be better suited for late 30's culture. In the late 30's world war 2 had just began, and the great depression was still going on strong. People back in those days probably did not enjoy seeing violence a whole lot, especially because a lot of people who survived world war 1 had probably had experienced enough violence in their lifetimes. People seeing films in those days would want a film with an anti-violence message, and Unforgiven would be a perfect film for that. Of course if Unforgiven were to be shown and written back then, it would have to be set to their standards and would most certainly be filmed in a more classic style. Although people back then would want an anti-violence message, they would still want some action and heroism in order to fully enjoy the film and so they can relate. Unforgiven seems to be a perfect movie for Late 30s society, and preaches an anti-violence message that people would want, and the characters are fairly easily relatable.

North By Northwest

North By Northwest (Alfred Hitchcock 1959) Is a great example of good set making. From the elegant and modern house of the villain, to the brutal fight scene on the authentically built faces on Mount Rushmore, the authentic and elaborate sets make this movie believable.
The "Vandamm house" is an example of professional set designers building sets that not only fit with the plotline, but also fit with the times. at the time, Frank Loydd Wright was a very popular architect, and Hitchcock wanted the Vandamm house to reflect that sort of style, Vandamm being a rich "art" collecter, it seems that his character would have a house just like this. North By Northwest is a film in which almost all of the characters live very wealthy and luxurious lives, so the Vandamm house fits right in with the elegant lifestyle that he, and almost all the other characters live. In order to capture this luxurious mood, Hitchcock really wanted to have a Frank Loydd Wright house as his set, although a huge challenge was presented with this goal, the emmense cost of such a house. So Hitchcock got his set designers (Robert Boyle, William A. Horning, Merril Pye, and Frank McKelvey) to create a Frank-Loydd-Wright-ish style house. This took a long time and they faced many challenges presented by this modern, even abstract architecture. Although only a select few parts of the house were actually built, mainly consisting of indoor rooms like the living room and the bedroom and a few upclose outdoors shots like the garage and the porch. The house you see from the distance was entirely face, no, they didnt actually build a huge house just for the movie. The architectual problems that they faced were mainly in the outdoor shots. The big problem that they had to deal with was the support, if the steel beams were strong enough to carry its load and if the angle they are at is undesireable. The crew even took a few shortcuts to lessen the expense; most of the supposed limestone was actually made out of plaster, and a lot of the windows were actually bare, there was no glass involved. Most of the far away shots you see are mostly just paintings, like the shot when Thornhill first approaches the elaborate house, there is just a painting digitally added to the scene of the house.
another very elaborate setting is on Mount Ruchmore. You can tell that the set designers had trouble with this one. They had to make an exact, upclose replica of certain parts of faces on Mount Rushmore, but they did a brillient job, they even put indents into the plaster to make it look like the places where the dinomite was actually placed in order to make the real thing, and the details on the faces are phenominal and very authentic looking. It actually is very interessting to see what Mount Rushmore looks like up close like that, and you can assume that what you see in the movie is as close as you are going to get to seeing the real thing.
The set designers in North By Northwest had some troublesome tasks in creating certain scenes. Not only did they have to paint and design the Vandamm house, they also had to make certain parts of the house themselves and incorperate rooms that fit to the design. They also had to create a lifesize, authentic replica of certain portions of the Mount Rushmore faces. They did a fantastic job though, after viewing this film, you could sware that there was a huge modern house on top of Mount Rushmore, and that people actually climbed on the faces and fought to the death on Washington's face.

An American Werewolf In London

The typical werewolf movie mainly consists of some guy that gets bitten by a werewolf, and has to remain in solitude every full moon in order to keep his loved ones safe. Until of course one day he finally tracks down the original werewolf, kills it and lives happily ever after. there isn't any real way to connect with the characters, except for the sympathy that you feel for the man who is infected. A pretty simple, straight forward plot with a predictable ending. An American Werewolf in London (John Landis 1981) really goes beyond the typical werewolf movie and has a much more complex, original plot line than it's other dull werewolf counterparts. Landis allows the viewer to really connect with the complexity of the inner conflict involved and also throws in a lot of dark, subtle humor and irony that really works for the film

The film starts off with two American students, David Kessler (David Naughton) and Jack Goodman (Griffin Dunne) backpacking through the moores of Yorkshire, England when they come across a strange pub called the "Slaughtered Lamb." The inhabitants of the pub send them out with one warning, "Keep off the moores and beware the moon." Of course David and Jack neglect to follow that advice and end up being attacked by a huge wolf. Jack is killed, but David survives when the pub patrons come to the rescue and kill the beast. David wakes up in a London hospital where not only falls in love with the nurse, Alex Price (Jenny Agutter), but he is also visited by Jack as a rotting, zombie-like ghost. Jack explains to him that he is now a werewolf, and that David has to kill himself before the next full moon. If he doesn't kill himself he is putting everyone in London in danger and jack has to wonder the earth as a rotting, but living corpse in limbo until he does. David of course does not believe him, and moves in with Alex when he is released from the hospital. Jack continues to try to convince him but David doesn't even consider it until one night on the next full moon David is presented with some pretty conclusive evidence that he is indeed a werewolf and he has to decide what to do.

In An American Werewolf in London, Landis takes the traditional werewolf story and picks and chooses aspects that he likes, adds completely new ideas, and even makes fun of the more silly aspects. For example, when Jack as a ghost is explaining to David that he needs to kill himself, "David: Don't i need to use a silver bullet or something? Jack (laughing): Don't be silly David!" Landis also uses some of his experience in writing comedies, such as Animal House and The Blues Brothers, and throws in very subtle and very dark jokes, along with dark irony. The reason the comedy works in this film is primarily because of the subtlety, if it were stupid straight forward comedy there's no way this film could have been as good as it was. Landis basically invents a brand new genre for the time, "Dark-Comedy/Horror" and believe me the comedy is very dark.

Landis's sporadic comedic moments are so subtle that sometimes it's very hard to pick up on. One of the techniques he uses is musical irony. moments before David turns into the Werewolf for the first time, Blue moon by Elvis Presley is playing in the background, which also builds the suspense due the subjective point of view that we have, we know he is going to turn into a werewolf, and he is not entirely sure, the moon themed song only reminds us of that fact that at any moment he will be a wolf. Moon themed songs are also thrown in during the opening scene and in the ending credits, along with Werewolves of London by Warren Zevon. Landis also uses visual comedy to add to the movie. The main example of visual comedy is that whenever Jack appears to David he is more and more rotten and grotesque, also the casualness of Jack when he is talking to David about killing himself plays into it as well. Although Landis does include some pretty simple and obvious jokes in this film such as David getting locked out of the house accidentally and having to sneak through the window, the montage of Davids activities at the house when he is bored out of his mind, the zombie-like ghosts of his previous hunts enthusiastically suggesting ways David should kill himself, and of course the scene when David wakes up the morning after his first hunt naked in the zoo miles away from the house.

Yet another aspect Landis puts into An American Werewolf in London that is absent in most other werewolf movies is the ability to connect with the main character, David, and feel his pain and understand his internal conflict. In one scene as a montage of addressing how painfully bored David is alone in the house one night, he's so incredibly bored that it seems as though he wants to believe that he is a werewolf just to cure him of his boredom. Anyway as he is trying to read to cure his boredom he suddenly starts screaming and sweating like crazy and rips off his clothes, and finally the viewer gets to see David become a werewolf. Although it's not quite as quick and painless as you would think. As he slowly transforms and he is screaming in agony as first his hands start to elongate with a gross crunching sound. As the painful transformation continues the camera shows close-ups of the various parts of the body that are changing, and with the added effect of the disgusting crunching sound and Davids constant screams of pain, you just feel bad for the guy and and the excruciating pain he is in, but all you can do is tense up and bare through it. Finally the last and most painful part begins, a close up on David's face screaming when slowly but surely his scull shifts and a wolf-like snout gradually makes its way out of David's face. And with one last scream of agony, he is finally a werewolf, and you can stop tensing up and sit back and enjoy his murderous rampage. By the end of all that you really sympathize for the guy, that he has to go through that every full moon along with having to decide if he should kill himself. Landis really accomplishes making the viewers connect with David and really sympathize for him, also he really puts the whole situation into perspective.

As a visual aid i put a series of pictures from this brilliant scene below












An American Werewolf in London really breaks the standards of the typical werewolf movie. this task is accomplished due to Landis's brilliant application of dark, subtle, smart comedy and irony into a serious subject. He not only adds comedy into it, he does it well, and he balances that with the very serious morbid aspect of the film, you know, the fact that David basically gets a disease that makes him kill every full moon, and that his friend wont be happy and people will continue dying unless he kills himself. Landis really separates those moments where your supposed to be laughing with those where your supposed to feel tense and sympathetic... and those where it's so dark your not even sure what your supposed to do. Anyway, Landis does a brilliant job separating these, and still incorporating them perfectly. An American Werewolf in London really is a completely different take on the whole werewolf movie genre.

The Last of the Mohicans Apparently the greatest film ever made

To me, The Last of the Mohicans is probably the most overrated movie i have ever seen. I honestly just don't get it, i dont get why people think this is such a fantastic movie. This may be a bit harsh, but if i were to have a list of all the movies I've seen in order from worst to best, The Last of the Mohicans is right down there with the Impossible Kid. In order to comprehend the magnitude of that statement I put a short clip of The Impossible Kid below.



... and at least this movie is entertaining

anyway, back to my point. I believe that the Last of the Mohicans is very overrated. After seeing it I just assumed that most movie critics would at least somewhat share my opinions on this movie. I believed this until recently i went on Rotten Tomatoes and looked at its rating... It got a 97%! That's a better score than almost every movie i've seen or liked. So after recovering from the shock of seeing that i decided to check the top critics part in hopes of the critics being much more... critical. Of course when i looked at it, the top critics collectively gave the movie a 100%! Which I found completely ridiculous, and all the critics had nothing but great things to say about it. Except one critic, Christopher Null, and all he had to say was, "Still to bland for my tastes." Like i was saying, seven out of the eight critics had nothing but good things to say about The Last of the Mohicans, including Rita Kempley of the Washington Post.
According to her review, Kempley is clearly overjoyed with the display of blatant over-acting that Daniel Day-Lewis exudes throughout this movie. Apparently she enjoyed the acting that i found to be so over the top that it actually made me laugh out loud. Scenes like when Day-Lewis's character, Hawkeye, and the rest of his posse are hiding behind a waterfall and Day-Lewis found it necessary to exclaim with an intense amount of emotion, "I'M SO WET!!!" Thinking about scenes like that make me wonder if critics like Kempley actually find this to be good acting. Although Kempley does redeme herself a little bit in my mind when she comments on the ridiculously character of Hawkeye:

That's not to say that Day-Lewis's portrait of Hawkeye isn't just a little bit Hollywood. A cross between Iron John and romance-novel cover boy Favio, the cerebral Brit promises to do for big hair what Don Johnson did for beard stubble in Mann's designer cop drama, TV's "Miami Vice."

Kempley's review of the movie focuses a lot on the historical accuracy and depiction of what was happening at the time. I do agree with her on that though, i mean as far as i know, the costume and makeup accurately resembles both the modern fashions at the time and the tribal apparel of
the mohicans. Kempley also comments on the gruesomeness of the battle scenes, which i think are fairly realistic... except for one scene in which Hawkeye picks a rifle up off of someone he killed and basically "dual-wields" it with his own rifle to kill his enemies, which i think is completely ridiculous and even humorous. Anyway, as i was saying, Kempley comments on the accurately gruesome battle scenes that take place in The Last of the Mohicans:

Many of the scenes, the massacre among them, are not for the squeamish; tomahawks and hunting knives leave especially gruesome wounds. Scalping is also graphically depicted, as is a particularly nasty form of heart surgery reminiscent of "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom." But this is after all a war movie

Now for what i consider one of the worst aspects of this movie, the romance. First let me make it clear that there is a relationship between the characters Hawkeye and Cora, along with Hawkeye's brother/step-brother Unca and Cora's sister Alice. The apparent romance between Unca and Alice is so vague and left unexplained that you really have no idea that they have a thing for eachother until Unca dies and Alice jumps of a cliff... which happens at the very end of the movie, you'd think they would want to make that clear before they kill off both characters... oh well. Anyway, on to the sex scene, or at least what i assume is a sex scene. Dispite the unclarity of the romance between Unca and Alice, it is pretty clear that there is some sexual tension between Hawkeye and Cora which is ultimately broken by the most awkward sex scene i've ever seen. And its not like realistic awkward, its more like, "I don't know what the hell is going on, are they having sex or are what?" awkward. Although i have some bad things to say about the depiction of romance in The Last of the Mohicans, Kempley seems to have a different, more favorable opinion of it:

Indeed the movie sets new standards when it comes to pent-up passion between not only Cora and Hawkeye, but also between Alice and Uncas, who have their own bodices to burst. The four of them look into the camera with such a burning yearning, it's amazing the lens didn't melt all over the sets

...Either i missed something, or Kempley must have a very acute sense of picking up on romance. (Although i did watch this movie in my American Lit class, it is very possible i missed something)

To me, The Last of the Mohicans, is possible the most overrated film I have ever seen. I honestly think it is terrible, from the blatant over-acting, to the rediculous unrealism of a few scenes, to the vague and awkward dipiction of romance. All of which most of the critics i have come across, including Rita Kempley, thought were some of the best aspects of the movie. I dont know if it's because i watched it in a classroom, or if my immediate reaction to the corniness and bad acting of this film caused a bias, but i clearly don't share my opinions of the movie with any of the movie critics i have come across.

Introduction!!

I'm kyle, i like to watch movies sometimes, although i rarely go out to the movie theater to see movies because it's so expensive. I usually just see movies at my friends house on his DVR thing. The last movie I actually saw in theaters was Cloverfield, which ended up being a great movie to me, it was definitely cool if anything. When i watch movies at my friends house they usually aren't that recent, because it takes a while for it to get out to DVR. Anyway the last movie i saw at his house was Shoot 'em up, that one Clive Owen movie in which he kills a lot of people and really likes eating carrots. despite what most of those movies end up being like, i actually enjoyed it, and it was pretty entertaining. So in conclusion; I'm Kyle; I enjoy movies; i dont get out to theaters much but i watch them at my friend's house; and the last movies i saw were Cloverfield and Shoot 'em Up, of which Cloverfield was much better but Shoot 'em Up had it's moments, but both were entertaining.