4/4
I'm just so amazed at how much I felt during this movie and how much thematic material it covered.
The film comes in three spiritual parts.
The first is about a man. He's a beautiful man. He's an outlaw who's fallen into a violent and unsettling life. But when his son comes up into his world, we see an unbelievable father. An honest man, from the core to the surface. All the way through. There are few characters, in all of film, that I have more affection or sympathy for. He's stuck in a world that hates him for his position, and can't understand who he is. But he stands strong against all forces denying him of his rights. Events happen that prove how utterly cruel the universe is. One main topic of the film is redemption, or karma. Do things come back around? Can the destruction of a great man be understood and redeemed?
The second part is about a new man. He's entangled in an organization of crookedness and corruption. Yet he is an honest man. He is fighting for justice, climbing his way up the dark crooked ladder so that he can provoke moral resolutions and add his touch of fairness to the world. He has made a mistake. A major one, but an understandable one. And he is fighting to make it right.
The third part is where everything will either come back around or remain in its dark and shadowy spiritual area. This will either be the turning point of the film, or will leave us dangling in moral question. The third part involves two consequences. Both are lost souls, but one is searching for redemption.
One incredible thing that this movie does is make us love the outlaw, then love the man of law that destroys him, then love the new outlaw that destroys the man of law. What an UNBELIEVABLE scheme. The characters here are so rich and thickly layered. They are brutally good and honest men. It is both beautiful to watch them and feel for them, and torturous. I connected with each of the three mains to such a level that I want to watch this movie over and over so that I might begin to live in it. Maybe I can live their stories and experience their love, loss and righteousness. I am encapsulated in a world of mildness, materialism, emptiness of soul. The realness of The Place Beyond the Pines hurts me with longing. I want not the perfection that I have, but rather the destruction and strong, solid, true-to-heart moral actions and consequences of this film. I doubt I have ever felt such things for a film.
Each part has its own mood and meaning. You must be able to look under the surface, beneath the faces of each character. You must be able to sink into the tone of the music, and feel the motivations behind each action. This is what I could not do when I watched it a year or so ago. Immerse yourself in this world and you will have an experience you have rarely had in the movies. Derek Cianfrance's sophomore work needs a deeper look. I did not catch it on the first viewing, not in the slightest. But now I appreciate this film for all that it is. Its trueness overwhelmed me.
Many critics called the road of this film long and winding. I felt that the first time. This time, not only did I not want it to end, I wanted to exist in it forever. This film made me feel what's missing in my life.
This is what I am ultimately taught: be real to yourself. Do what you need to do. Don't pay mind to what others expect from you.
I want to exit my world and enter that one. So badly.
Derek Cianfrance took me away with his first film. He does it again here.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Review: The Godfather: Part II
4/4
It doesn't feel like I just watched a movie. It feels like I just witnessed a story unfold.
There were no signs of the movies here. No obvious dramatic arc, no character cliches... It was pure realism. An interesting story that I got lost in. Once again... I found myself lost in this world.
There is nothing fancy about this filmmaking. Again, it was only Coppola's job to hold together a Puzo story. And the actors had to be perfect. The story is everything though. As long as a story like this is portrayed with realism, it's bound to be one of the greatest movies ever.
I feel less connected to this film than the first. I knew lots about the first before I saw it. I knew nothing about this one. Maybe I need to see it again--get these characters and events engrained in my consciousness as I did the predecessor. Even with a running time of three and a half hours, I would not be opposed.
It's basically just perfect. A flawless film. That's what 4/4 means.... flawless. The first Godfather was better than flawless though. In engaged me that thoroughly. This film is almost on that level. It is not quite as accessible; it is longer, slower, and has fewer Marlon Brandos. It doesn't have the legacy the first one has, so I consider it a bit worse. But still, it had no trouble keeping my interest.
Michael is such a great character to me. I respect him and feel for him. Tom Hagen is another great character. So talented and loyal.
I say this is just extensions on the original Godfather. It is a sequel and a prequel that serves to expand on the world of the first, not stand up to it.
I don't understand those who would call this better than the original. That population exists. I do understand Roger Ebert, though, who would give this a less-than-spectacular rating as a standalone movie, but instead groups it together with Part I. That is my final, lasting belief. The Godfather Parts I & II is one movie, and Part II is a valuable and terrific section of the whole story.
Listen: as I watched this movie, I didn't see Michael as the great villain he's made out to be by the media. I didn't feel as if the golden age of the Corleones was over. I felt as if Michael was a powerful and talented ruler. I felt that he was intelligent and highly capable of taking over his father's position. I only felt that he forgot a couple values that the Godfather had held tight to. I don't see him as an unforgivable or incomprehensible villain, and I don't see this film as a total devolution of character. He holds the same character we saw at the end of the first film. The devolution happened then, in stages beginning when his father was shot for the first time. He became more and more involved and passionate about the business. About protecting his family. Then there was no jump to the second film, and throughout the second film I don't see much as changing. Killing Fredo... that was in the name of the family. In the name of loyalty. It wasn't about forsaking the family, as you would think. Fredo proved by his actions that he doesn't deserve to be a part of the family, even though he's there by blood. Unless blood trumps actions. It's a tough call, but I don't see Michael as entirely out-of-line and definitely not mercilessly murdering. He has a heart. But he has passion for the strength of his family (the organization, not blood relatives) that overrules it.
I don't understand those who would call this better than the original. That population exists. I do understand Roger Ebert, though, who would give this a less-than-spectacular rating as a standalone movie, but instead groups it together with Part I. That is my final, lasting belief. The Godfather Parts I & II is one movie, and Part II is a valuable and terrific section of the whole story.
Listen: as I watched this movie, I didn't see Michael as the great villain he's made out to be by the media. I didn't feel as if the golden age of the Corleones was over. I felt as if Michael was a powerful and talented ruler. I felt that he was intelligent and highly capable of taking over his father's position. I only felt that he forgot a couple values that the Godfather had held tight to. I don't see him as an unforgivable or incomprehensible villain, and I don't see this film as a total devolution of character. He holds the same character we saw at the end of the first film. The devolution happened then, in stages beginning when his father was shot for the first time. He became more and more involved and passionate about the business. About protecting his family. Then there was no jump to the second film, and throughout the second film I don't see much as changing. Killing Fredo... that was in the name of the family. In the name of loyalty. It wasn't about forsaking the family, as you would think. Fredo proved by his actions that he doesn't deserve to be a part of the family, even though he's there by blood. Unless blood trumps actions. It's a tough call, but I don't see Michael as entirely out-of-line and definitely not mercilessly murdering. He has a heart. But he has passion for the strength of his family (the organization, not blood relatives) that overrules it.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Review: Boogie Nights
3/4
I don't know about this film. Some of it is genius. Some of it is signature Paul Thomas Anderson. Some of it is depressingly misdirected. Some of it is brilliantly energetic. Some of it is shocking. Little of it is predictable.
Boogie Nights came two years before Magnolia. It has many similarities. About ten ensemble actors are shared, and cinematography, tone, and the role of music have a similar style in each. The stylization is probably the best thing about this movie. Paul Thomas Anderson is the best director of the modern era, and possibly the best writer. His movies defy convention in every sort of way. In his sophomore effort, however, that's not entirely a good thing. Though the unconventionality can feel beautiful, like a rush of fresh air, at times it seems lost or confused. The last quarter of the film, save for the final few minutes, is definitely lost. There must always be a pressure on the writer to put the protagonist through loss and grief in the middle section, but here that is too long and confusing. What I say is, Anderson hadn't yet perfected his writing style. There's no depressing middle section in There Will Be Blood, and I don't think there is in Magnolia or Punch-Drunk Love or The Master. What we see here is a brilliantly talented young writer and director getting his footing in the real world, gaining confidence, learning to be himself. Not fully matured.
The first half is amazing. I have to say it--I love Marky Mark. In that first half he is an explosion of talent and energy. And what an AWESOME gimmick, to give him what he has. It's a hilarious idea. The final scene is one of the greatest gimmicks I've seen in the movies. Just the idea that it is revealed to us what we thought would never be revealed.
Another terrific gimmick is the one involving William H. Macy. Superbly original.
It's an idea-based film--the comedy lies in the concepts. If one can come to appreciate--more importantly, enjoy--that, one will love this movie. I think that I would like it more upon a second viewing for that reason.
I am sorry for the lack of a great Philip Seymour Hoffman role. I really thought there would be one... but I hardly noticed he was there. If I watched it again I would make sure to savor his every facial expression, every tonal flair--his very presence. He is a beautiful actor. Here and in Magnolia, as his young self, with Anderson directing him, he is the most beautiful he ever was.
I don't know about this film. Some of it is genius. Some of it is signature Paul Thomas Anderson. Some of it is depressingly misdirected. Some of it is brilliantly energetic. Some of it is shocking. Little of it is predictable.
Boogie Nights came two years before Magnolia. It has many similarities. About ten ensemble actors are shared, and cinematography, tone, and the role of music have a similar style in each. The stylization is probably the best thing about this movie. Paul Thomas Anderson is the best director of the modern era, and possibly the best writer. His movies defy convention in every sort of way. In his sophomore effort, however, that's not entirely a good thing. Though the unconventionality can feel beautiful, like a rush of fresh air, at times it seems lost or confused. The last quarter of the film, save for the final few minutes, is definitely lost. There must always be a pressure on the writer to put the protagonist through loss and grief in the middle section, but here that is too long and confusing. What I say is, Anderson hadn't yet perfected his writing style. There's no depressing middle section in There Will Be Blood, and I don't think there is in Magnolia or Punch-Drunk Love or The Master. What we see here is a brilliantly talented young writer and director getting his footing in the real world, gaining confidence, learning to be himself. Not fully matured.
The first half is amazing. I have to say it--I love Marky Mark. In that first half he is an explosion of talent and energy. And what an AWESOME gimmick, to give him what he has. It's a hilarious idea. The final scene is one of the greatest gimmicks I've seen in the movies. Just the idea that it is revealed to us what we thought would never be revealed.
Another terrific gimmick is the one involving William H. Macy. Superbly original.
It's an idea-based film--the comedy lies in the concepts. If one can come to appreciate--more importantly, enjoy--that, one will love this movie. I think that I would like it more upon a second viewing for that reason.
I am sorry for the lack of a great Philip Seymour Hoffman role. I really thought there would be one... but I hardly noticed he was there. If I watched it again I would make sure to savor his every facial expression, every tonal flair--his very presence. He is a beautiful actor. Here and in Magnolia, as his young self, with Anderson directing him, he is the most beautiful he ever was.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Reflections on Orange is the New Black: Season 1
Just finished the first season. I am watching it with someone else, so the social value is what justifies my watching it. However, that is getting less so. As the season moved on, the show became more and more meaningful to me. Of course, this is expected, as I get more invested in the characters, but I think that it's more because of the shift in tone. The light-heartedness is still present, but is contrasted by, and very often heavily juxtaposed with, a creeping darkness, a creeping heartbreak, a creeping loneliness.
The series began with good characters and bad characters. As it progressed through its first season, every character clearly became a good character. Some are better than others, but it is clear to me that all are fundamentally good, and that all will probably be redeemed by the writers in the future. That seems to be the progression... redemption for bad characters.
I am glad about the transformation from good&bad to good because it gives the series depth. When we know that every character is essentially good, we treat them more like real human beings, who are also all essentially good. I am now able to speculate on a character's actions. Knowing they're good provokes me to reason through why they may have done the bad things that they did. This speculation is one of the most enjoyable parts of following this series to me.
I am relieved that the material has gotten much darker. I was certainly ready for real drama.
Now that serious drama has emerged, and characters make unpredictable moral decisions, this series has jumped up in my book. I am starting to feel reflections on humanity, and a major heart in the center.
I respect how the writers are making us almost hate Piper. In all rom-coms, the protagonist makes mistakes and we feel bad. But here, Piper is a ruthless lover. She seriously plays with the emotions of others. She does many things that are morally questionable, and I respect that she doesn't have to be our favorite character. And she's not at this point. It may be Morello, Nicki, Alex, Larry, or whoever. But many have stronger guiding compasses at this time than Piper. Although I am anxious for her to get back to her good self so that I can be on her team again. I want her to cry a lot and feel sorry and sacrifice.
Truly, the show is unpredictable. Sometimes characters make unrealistic actions--untrue to character, I mean--to advance the plot, and this is unfortunate, but it keeps the show unpredictable. And conventional rules are broken often with respect to each character's role in the show, or TV archetype.
I honestly enjoy watching it very much, I am always so excited for the next episode. And I am finally believing in the acclaim that it receives. It's honest and bold, and as more serious drama unravels, it will continue to climb the ranks.
The series began with good characters and bad characters. As it progressed through its first season, every character clearly became a good character. Some are better than others, but it is clear to me that all are fundamentally good, and that all will probably be redeemed by the writers in the future. That seems to be the progression... redemption for bad characters.
I am glad about the transformation from good&bad to good because it gives the series depth. When we know that every character is essentially good, we treat them more like real human beings, who are also all essentially good. I am now able to speculate on a character's actions. Knowing they're good provokes me to reason through why they may have done the bad things that they did. This speculation is one of the most enjoyable parts of following this series to me.
I am relieved that the material has gotten much darker. I was certainly ready for real drama.
Now that serious drama has emerged, and characters make unpredictable moral decisions, this series has jumped up in my book. I am starting to feel reflections on humanity, and a major heart in the center.
I respect how the writers are making us almost hate Piper. In all rom-coms, the protagonist makes mistakes and we feel bad. But here, Piper is a ruthless lover. She seriously plays with the emotions of others. She does many things that are morally questionable, and I respect that she doesn't have to be our favorite character. And she's not at this point. It may be Morello, Nicki, Alex, Larry, or whoever. But many have stronger guiding compasses at this time than Piper. Although I am anxious for her to get back to her good self so that I can be on her team again. I want her to cry a lot and feel sorry and sacrifice.
Truly, the show is unpredictable. Sometimes characters make unrealistic actions--untrue to character, I mean--to advance the plot, and this is unfortunate, but it keeps the show unpredictable. And conventional rules are broken often with respect to each character's role in the show, or TV archetype.
I honestly enjoy watching it very much, I am always so excited for the next episode. And I am finally believing in the acclaim that it receives. It's honest and bold, and as more serious drama unravels, it will continue to climb the ranks.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Review: Fantastic Mr. Fox
3/4
This is a highly original and funny film. I like it a lot. It feels so odd giving it the same rating I gave Full Metal Jacket... I suppose you cannot compare movies from different eras well, or rather movies with different purposes. For its purposes, FMF (not FMJ) would earn from me a 4 out of 4. It knows what it's doing, and it does it with precision and passion and joy. That's Wes Anderson I'm talking about. This is his only film I have seen, until the hopefully-near future, but I know who he is and that this film is an expression of the wonder that goes on in his mind and heart.
There is no movie like this, and it deserves an artistic A+. All that holds me back at the 3 benchmark is that it has no lasting impact. It's great for its design, but it's not a great film. It's not a top dog. It's just a wonderful little piece of art.
This is a highly original and funny film. I like it a lot. It feels so odd giving it the same rating I gave Full Metal Jacket... I suppose you cannot compare movies from different eras well, or rather movies with different purposes. For its purposes, FMF (not FMJ) would earn from me a 4 out of 4. It knows what it's doing, and it does it with precision and passion and joy. That's Wes Anderson I'm talking about. This is his only film I have seen, until the hopefully-near future, but I know who he is and that this film is an expression of the wonder that goes on in his mind and heart.
There is no movie like this, and it deserves an artistic A+. All that holds me back at the 3 benchmark is that it has no lasting impact. It's great for its design, but it's not a great film. It's not a top dog. It's just a wonderful little piece of art.
Monday, July 7, 2014
Review: Goodfellas
3/4
What a colossal disappointment. If I had to rate this movie based on its value in the modern day, I would give it a 2. It's not funny, not dramatic, not a good plot... It has nothing The Departed has. It's just Memoirs of a Gangster--an average, everyday gangster. After The Godfather I thought I was interested in the mob. This was so uninteresting. I was so bored. It's light-hearted, shallow, speaks nothing about anything, and is boring.
However, if I had to rate it based on its influence upon release, it would be a 3.5. It has incredible realism, and Martin Scorsese captured the life of a wiseguy so well. It was probably one of the first realistic exposures the public had to modern-day gangsterism, so I can see why it's influential. But Roger Ebert said "best mob movie ever". No way.
My advice: watch The Departed. Be entertained.
This is unbelievable. The acclaim this film got. Ebert actually explicitly claimed it to be better than Godfather. A list called it the greatest movie ever. Am I missing something, or is it just the worst-aging movie of all time?? I'm not predisposed to boredom--I watched three-and-a-half hours of Godfather and could have kept going. I was done with Goodfellas after an hour. I'm never bored in movies. So I conclude that I am less sensitive to gangster films than people were in 1990. It is dated. And critics haven't woken up from their high. If they were to watch it for the first time today, as I did, they would realize.
What a colossal disappointment. If I had to rate this movie based on its value in the modern day, I would give it a 2. It's not funny, not dramatic, not a good plot... It has nothing The Departed has. It's just Memoirs of a Gangster--an average, everyday gangster. After The Godfather I thought I was interested in the mob. This was so uninteresting. I was so bored. It's light-hearted, shallow, speaks nothing about anything, and is boring.
However, if I had to rate it based on its influence upon release, it would be a 3.5. It has incredible realism, and Martin Scorsese captured the life of a wiseguy so well. It was probably one of the first realistic exposures the public had to modern-day gangsterism, so I can see why it's influential. But Roger Ebert said "best mob movie ever". No way.
My advice: watch The Departed. Be entertained.
This is unbelievable. The acclaim this film got. Ebert actually explicitly claimed it to be better than Godfather. A list called it the greatest movie ever. Am I missing something, or is it just the worst-aging movie of all time?? I'm not predisposed to boredom--I watched three-and-a-half hours of Godfather and could have kept going. I was done with Goodfellas after an hour. I'm never bored in movies. So I conclude that I am less sensitive to gangster films than people were in 1990. It is dated. And critics haven't woken up from their high. If they were to watch it for the first time today, as I did, they would realize.
Friday, July 4, 2014
Review: The Godfather
5/4
Two weeks ago I watched Apocalypse Now. Last night I watched The Conversation. And today, I viewed perhaps the greatest masterpiece of cinema I have ever seen. The Godfather is the best of the Coppola Big Three, if only for its story.
The film tells the tales of the Corleone family, one of five mob families of New York City. Don Corleone, the boss, is a man of untouchable power, presence and reputation. The same can be said of the actor who played him.
As The Don grows old amidst an inner-city war where business always gets personal, we see one of his sons rise up. It is the only Corleone who has sworn himself against the mafia life. Michael is young and doe-eyed, but he is morally tough as nails.
It seems to be after his father gets shot for the first time that Michael succumbs to the pull of vengeance associated with the world of the family. As more actions from the families attack him personally, he gets hopelessly entangled.
This film is less artistically expressive than Coppola's other two--both of which came after. Perhaps he found his footing after the wild success of The Godfather and either freed himself or advanced his vision. In any case, I must say that I feel that Coppola's job in this film was merely to hold together Mario Puzo's story. Nino Rota's score was necessary, the actors couldn't have had any flaws, and Coppola needed to understand the inner workings of the world of the novel in order to pull it off, but it was Puzo that did all the work, before Coppola even came into the picture. My, what a rewarding experience it would be to read this novel of his.....
I truly think that my newfound love for this movie lies in its world. The business is endlessly interesting to me--almost as if I would give anything to go back in time and be a part of it. It is a complex system of trust. It also has a questionable meaning; after Don gets out of the hospital and asks for peace amongst the families, I believe that he has seen the fleeting quality of life and for a moment disbelieved in the importance of his business.
I suppose that this is one of the ultimate character transformations. I would hate myself if I wrote that this was 1972's Breaking Bad, so I won't. I wish that Sonny wouldn't have died, I wish that Tom would have kept his high position, and I'm glad that Michael took over, assuming Vito had to die, but I wish that he would have kept strong, stuck to the loyalty and reason of his father, and perhaps ended the mafia war, maybe even the mafia, once and for all. I did not want Michael to go bad. I had such a great love and respect for this character. Wow... how I don't want him to stay like this. What a change.
But with this movie, not it successors, I do not want to focus on the transformation of Michael. That is where a moral disrespect starts to boil within me and bias me. The rest of the film is so great to me. I wish I had a whole film of the simple goings-on of Vito Corleone as Don, Tom Hagen as consigliere, Michael in war and at home, and Sonny as the hot-headed but loyal son. I just want this family, a hundred times over. Their world is so fascinating to me, I love to know their positions, see them address conflicts, handle business, etc. Unfortunately, a film and a novel need narrative. I just want to see the inner workings of an interesting, hierarchical, dangerous business. Maybe I really do need to watch The Wire.
A few days later, I decided that The Godfather is the greatest movie I have ever seen, and in my top few favorites.
Two weeks ago I watched Apocalypse Now. Last night I watched The Conversation. And today, I viewed perhaps the greatest masterpiece of cinema I have ever seen. The Godfather is the best of the Coppola Big Three, if only for its story.
The film tells the tales of the Corleone family, one of five mob families of New York City. Don Corleone, the boss, is a man of untouchable power, presence and reputation. The same can be said of the actor who played him.
As The Don grows old amidst an inner-city war where business always gets personal, we see one of his sons rise up. It is the only Corleone who has sworn himself against the mafia life. Michael is young and doe-eyed, but he is morally tough as nails.
It seems to be after his father gets shot for the first time that Michael succumbs to the pull of vengeance associated with the world of the family. As more actions from the families attack him personally, he gets hopelessly entangled.
This film is less artistically expressive than Coppola's other two--both of which came after. Perhaps he found his footing after the wild success of The Godfather and either freed himself or advanced his vision. In any case, I must say that I feel that Coppola's job in this film was merely to hold together Mario Puzo's story. Nino Rota's score was necessary, the actors couldn't have had any flaws, and Coppola needed to understand the inner workings of the world of the novel in order to pull it off, but it was Puzo that did all the work, before Coppola even came into the picture. My, what a rewarding experience it would be to read this novel of his.....
I truly think that my newfound love for this movie lies in its world. The business is endlessly interesting to me--almost as if I would give anything to go back in time and be a part of it. It is a complex system of trust. It also has a questionable meaning; after Don gets out of the hospital and asks for peace amongst the families, I believe that he has seen the fleeting quality of life and for a moment disbelieved in the importance of his business.
I suppose that this is one of the ultimate character transformations. I would hate myself if I wrote that this was 1972's Breaking Bad, so I won't. I wish that Sonny wouldn't have died, I wish that Tom would have kept his high position, and I'm glad that Michael took over, assuming Vito had to die, but I wish that he would have kept strong, stuck to the loyalty and reason of his father, and perhaps ended the mafia war, maybe even the mafia, once and for all. I did not want Michael to go bad. I had such a great love and respect for this character. Wow... how I don't want him to stay like this. What a change.
But with this movie, not it successors, I do not want to focus on the transformation of Michael. That is where a moral disrespect starts to boil within me and bias me. The rest of the film is so great to me. I wish I had a whole film of the simple goings-on of Vito Corleone as Don, Tom Hagen as consigliere, Michael in war and at home, and Sonny as the hot-headed but loyal son. I just want this family, a hundred times over. Their world is so fascinating to me, I love to know their positions, see them address conflicts, handle business, etc. Unfortunately, a film and a novel need narrative. I just want to see the inner workings of an interesting, hierarchical, dangerous business. Maybe I really do need to watch The Wire.
A few days later, I decided that The Godfather is the greatest movie I have ever seen, and in my top few favorites.
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Review: The Conversation
3.5/4
Paranoia.
This is a strange movie in mood and method. Francis Coppola went for the auteur role with this one, writing, producing and directing it, and thus The Conversation is a view into a brilliant, tortured mind. His story is great, thrilling and intriguing, but the artistic touches are what make this movie special to me, including the music and cinematography. The feeling here is just... different.
Some of what held my attention is a simple look into the world of surveillance. It is a fascinating field, and one I had never considered existed.
The score is perfect; the music is done entirely on piano, with the augmented fourth to make the sophisticated classicalism very eerie. It works wonders. The audio effects are great too; they mount the creeping feeling that something is wrong.
This movie is classic--created and ruled by an absolute master of the medium, it is an engaging story told and an artistic statement.
Paranoia.
This is a strange movie in mood and method. Francis Coppola went for the auteur role with this one, writing, producing and directing it, and thus The Conversation is a view into a brilliant, tortured mind. His story is great, thrilling and intriguing, but the artistic touches are what make this movie special to me, including the music and cinematography. The feeling here is just... different.
Some of what held my attention is a simple look into the world of surveillance. It is a fascinating field, and one I had never considered existed.
The score is perfect; the music is done entirely on piano, with the augmented fourth to make the sophisticated classicalism very eerie. It works wonders. The audio effects are great too; they mount the creeping feeling that something is wrong.
This movie is classic--created and ruled by an absolute master of the medium, it is an engaging story told and an artistic statement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)