Movie Review: Knock at the Cabin

 

Michael's Movie Grade: D-

This film fails to live up to its interesting premise and instead comes off as simply bland and surprisingly for a M. Night Shyamlan movie kind of boring. 

The main problem with this movie is apparent from the very beginning. As soon as the film starts, the story is already underway with no real set up. The problem we have had no time to be introduced to or get these characters. Over the course of the film, we learn very little about these characters. All these characters have strictly one-note personalities and because of this they never feel real to us and we have no emotional connection to this story. That is a shame because the premise of this movie is one that should be highly emotional. A family (two dads and their adopted daughter) is told they must choose between sacrifice one of themselves or the whole world will die. This premise has the ability to be something highly emotional, but if the characters never feel real than none of it holds any weight. The result then is surprisingly dull. This is not helped by the fact that this film has little of the twists and turns that are associated with director M. Night Shyamalan's movies. Because of this the story simply becomes repetitive. Though there is a sense of dread and atmosphere in some the early scenes, without the twists and turns, there is little to keep this feeling going through the rest of the film. With this the film really drags for much of its runtime. The movie also tries to delve into deeper themes, but in the end really doesn't say much more than homophobia exists and is a bad thing. Even that is told in a very clumsy way, through obvious and uninteresting dialogue  that often feels forced into the film. 

The only things that really work about this movie are the atmosphere of the early scenes and the good performances for the cast (especially Dave Bautista). Other than that, this movie is just a waste of time. 

Movie Review: Bones and All

 

Michael's Movie Grade: A-

A wonderful film that is equal parts creepy and beautiful. 

Making a love story about two cannibals is something that very few filmmakers would ever try. Luckily Luca Guadagnino is not most filmmakers. What he creates here is a very unique and powerful thing. It is brilliant how this movie turns the characters that in most horror films would be the bad guys into the most sympathetic and relatable people. You truly get to care about our two main characters and see them as human beings rather than monsters. This is done heavily with how the characters don't eat people out of malice but instead because they have an unquenching desire to devour fellow human beings Our heroine desires nothing more than to simply be normal. She constantly feels guilty about this and constantly wonders if she is in fact a good person. Yet in the scenes where we see her feeding are indeed disturbing, making her both frightening and lovable at the same time. To think about whether or not she has a right to be happy and live a normal life is a huge question this movie brings up. As the movie goes on we have many complex emotions about this and the more complex these emotions get the more it leaves us unable to answer this question. Because of this, you leave the movie theater with a lot of food of thought and genuinely both emotionally and intellectually affected by what you just saw. Despite the dark and gruesome nature of such a film, there is a surprisingly sweetness behind the main romance. Taylor Russell and Timothée Chalamet have wonderful chemistry and the romance between them always feels completely real and believable. Yet this is not to say that the movie does not have any real scares. Some of the scenes in this film are truly scary. Some of the scariest scenes have to do with Mark Rylance's character. Every scene with this character pushes this movie completely into the horror realm. Mark Rylance is one of my favorite current working actors, however I have never seen him play a role like this before. He plays it incredibly well and makes each scene with him simply terrifying. Even in the scenes where he is not eating other people, we feel a sense of uneasy that makes us truly shiver. 

What truly makes this film wonderful is how well it can go from genre to genre. It can go from horror to romance to family drama to art film, while feeling completely natural the whole time. 

A truly great, one of a kind movie. 

Movie Review: The Menu

 

Michael's Movie Grade: A-

A delightfully disturbing and entertaining horror comedy. 

As this film starts off, it feels like a typical horror or suspense movie. A group of people are travel to an island for a few days of cooking from a brilliant but eccentric chef, but once they get to the island, the audience can immediately feel that something is off and sinister about this place. This is a wonderful setup that perfectly prepares us to feel uneasy. However, it doesn't fully prepare us for what follows. What follows is a wonderful mixture of dark comedy, suspense and horror. We never know at any second what is going to happen next. It could be something funny, disturbing or both. This honestly creates a greater sense of unease than a regular suspense film would have. Along with the scenes that make us laugh and the scenes that give us the creeps, there are also scenes that leave us unable to know whether to laugh or be repelled by what we are seeing. These scenes are often set up like a joke, but the punch line is very disturbing. It is these scenes that are frankly the most effective because they catch us completely off guard and leave us grappling with our own emotions and our understanding of what type of film this is. Because of this they were firmly stay in our minds long after the end credits roll. The humor in this movie is often very dark and over the top. Because of this, the humor is not for everybody, but for me I found myself laughing out loud quite a bit, while feeling uneasy about having laughed at such a dark moment right after I finished. Yet despite all the comedy in this film, the creepy parts are still legitimately creepy, and this could have been made as a normal horror movie, if the filmmakers so desired. Many of the characters here may be stereotypes but they actually perfectly for what type of movie this is. Even the most stereotyped characters have a reason to be that way, as that helps set much of the plot in motion. If these characters were more fleshed out and less stereotypical, many of the story points would not work as well. The exceptions to these one-dimensional characters are our heroine and our villain. However, both of them have a reason to be that way as well. The heroine offers us someone to root for and relate to. Because of her presence we can place ourselves in the story. The villain being a more complex character gives us an understanding of what would drive him this far and why he would go to such great length. Sure it is still a very over the top plan, but that is simply part of the charm of this film. Everything leads up to a simply brilliant ending that made me laugh out loud while simultaneously have shivers sent down my spine. 

If I had one complait about this movie, it is that the message can often be very unsubtle and in your face. However this is a small price to pay for how great the rest of this film is. 

This may not be a movie for everyone, but I simply loved it. 

Halloween Spooks and Movie Theatre Owners

 I have stated before that one of my favorite things about old movie magazines is these articles where the magazine writers will give advice to movie theatre owners about how to promote various films and put on special shows that will attract crowds. The following is a wonderful article from Boxoffice Magazine giving advice on how to put on a Halloween show. For any trouble reading click on the following pages and use your touch screen to zoom in. 

Video Link: The Birds (1963) KILL COUNT - Dead Meat

How to Sell a Horror Film

 One of my favorite parts of looking through old movie magazines is finding the articles recommending how a movie theatre owner can advertise certain films when they are shown there, A great example is the following article from a 1943 issue of Showman's Trade Review, talking about how to advertise Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943). If you have any trouble reading the following page, click on it and use your touch screen to zoom in. 

Video Link: The Invisible Man (1933) KILL COUNT - Dead Meat

Video Link: Frankenstein (1931) KILL COUNT

Silent Film of the Month: Frankenstein (1910)

 

Studio: Edison. Runtime: 12 mins Director: J. Searle Dawley. Main Cast: Charles Stanton Ogle, Augustus Phillips, Mary Fuller. 

Despite Frankenstein being an 1818 book, so much of what we think about Frankenstein or his monster today comes from the 1931 movie version. That film is a major influence on how we visually picture anything from the classic horror tale, even for those who have never seen it. Because of this it may come as a shock to a modern audience to watch the 1910 film version of the classic tale. Despite this jarring-ness though there is a lot to like about this movie. 

Though the opening title of those movie advertises it as "a liberal adaption from Mrs. Shelley's famous story for Edson production," the story is still very recognizable. A scientist named Frankenstein sets out to create life. Once he creates a living creature he is horrified by its ghastly appearance and flees in terror. After this the creature sets out to get revenge on his creator. 

While this film may seem mild for modern horror movie fans, it still has an eerie feel to it that is very effective. There is even one brief scene that is still quite creepy today. This is the scene of the creature forming, starting with a really creepy looking skeleton emerging and dissolving into the design the creature will have for the rest of the film. This scene while brief is fine example of horror filmmaking. The design of the creature is wonderful. Though he does not look like how we picture the character today (thanks again to the 1931 movie version), he is effectively creepy and other worldly. The sets in this film are also wonderful giving the movie a delightfully atmospheric feel. 

While telling the story of Frankenstein in this short of a runtime may keep it from having the depth or complexities that later feature film versions may have, this film does a surprisingly good job considering. Condensing a novel or a stage play to a short runtime was quite frequent at this time, before feature length films became the main part of a movie program. So at the time of this film's release audiences would have accepted this as a normal practice. To a modern audience this film holds up better than many of its similar contemporaries. Many of these films required a previous knowledge of the source material (it was a time when, let us be honest, many people were better read) and simply showed popular scenes from the story. This movie competently tells a story itself and if someone has never read the book, they will still be able to understand the story easily. Today when film adaptions are excepted to tell a cohesive story from start to finish (whether it is faithful or not), this movie feels more accessible to modern audiences. 

This film was directed by J. Searle Dawley, who was one of the finest directors at the Edison Studio at this time. Here he would work on some truly wonderful films including a similarly well done short film version of A Christmas Carol (1910). His work after leaving Edison is also fantastic. Of special note is his movies with actress Marguerite Clarke, which would include Snow White (1916) and Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1918). He also directed The Old Monk’s Tale (1913), which has the first known appearance of silent movie legend, Harold Lloyd. Charles Ogle, who played the creature, had a pretty good film career himself. He would appear in Dawley’s A Christmas Carol (1910), with Mary Pickford in Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm (1917), in James Cruze’s landmark western The Covered Wagon (1923), in a popular adaptation of Treasure Island (1920) and in Cecil B DeMille’s The Ten Commandments (1923). Though Mary Fuller is not as well remembered today as she should be by 1914, she was rivaling Mary Pickford in popularity. Strangely though by 1917 she could not get a job either in the movies or on stage.  

This film can be found on YouTube.

Happy Mother's Day

Movie Review: Last Night in SoHo

 

Michael's Movie Grade: A-

One of Edgar Wright's most ambitious films and one of his best. 

This movie is top notch horror filmmaking. The scary scenes are legitimately creepy and scary and will stay in your mind long after the movie is finished. Yet this movie has much more than scares in store for its audience. The scares actually come relatively late in this film and that works heavily to its advantage. We begin with the story of a small town girl, who has always felt like she belonged in 1960's London. When she finds herself going to school in modern day London, she finds herself incredibly out of place and the isolation proves tough on her mentality. This is what draws her to the vivid dreams about 1960's London that will lead to the horror in the story. This in itself is a completely compelling story that will draw viewers in long before anything creepy starts to happen. It is not hard to become emotional invested in this character and her emotional journey is what makes this much more than your average horror film. The performances of Thomasin McKenzie and  Anya Taylor-Joy, add a lot to the emotion connection to this film as well. In fact I think many will be disappointed by the later scenes because these early scenes are so great. The last act in particular will divide many movie fans because of how far it stretches suspension of disbelief and that it goes in such an unexcepted direction. I can only applaud Edgar Wright and his co-writer  Krysty Wilson-Cairns on the sheer bravery of this last act and say that it worked for me. This movie also pulls you in by being incredibly visually stylish and wonderful to look at. There are many incredible shots and sequences in this movie that will long live in film fans' minds. Being an Edgar Wright film naturally music plays a large part. This works perfectly as the use of 1960's pop songs not only fit the 60's inspired dreams, but they also add so much to every scene they appear in. No one can ever argue that Edgar Wright doesn't use music perfectly in his movies and this film is more proof than ever. 

Vintage Horror Film Advertisements and Movie Trailers

 Hello my friends. It is October and as all of us film fans know, this is a month that exists simply to watch old monster movies, especially those from Universal Studios. To celebrate the month here are some advertisements for classic horror films. 

Variety, 1935

The Exhibitor, 1938

Universal Weekly, 1933

Showman's Trade Review, 1943

Universal Weekly, 1933

Exhibitor's Trade Review, 1924

Variety, 1931

Now for some movie trailers for classic horror films. 

Movie Review: Titane

 

Michael's Movie Grade: A-

A terrifying, suspenseful and oddly touching French film.

This movie has clear elements of suspense, horror, comedy and family drama but does not fit neatly into any of those boxes. I have never seen another film quite like Titane and I doubt you have either.  This movie has so many twist and turns that I could never once see where it was going. This kept me on the edge of my seat and unable to look away from the screen no matter how grotesque any scene got. Through much of the first part of the film, one feels they have a pretty good idea what type of movie they are about to watch. We see a young woman (Agathe Rousselle) use her sexuality to violent murder multiple people (in a series of really violent set pieces). Yet this movie then takes what has happened and takes us in a direction, no would have seen coming. All along the way this movie takes you for a wild ride. While I am always hesitant to care or emotionally connect with fictional characters that perform horrible violent acts, this film was so well done it is a major exception. There is something surprisingly sweet and touching about the latter part of this movie and that works heavily to the film's advantage. This film can be watched on two levels. On one hand you can watch it trying to understand all the symbolism and follow the stranger and more mysterious  parts of the story or you can take it on face value and just enjoy the ride. Either way this is like nothing you have seen before and it is a movie that will stay with you and haunt you long after the credits are finished. 

This may not be for everyone, but for those who don't mind something far off the beaten path, this is a must see.      

Movie Review: Lamb

 

Michael's Movie Grade: B+

A bizarre, odd, slow paced and completely engrossing film. 

To say this movie is not for everybody is an understatement. Despite being advertised as a horror film, there is very little horror here and anyone who wants a traditional horror movie will be disappointed. This movie's very premise requires a lot of suspension of disbelief that some will have and some won't and the story will move too slow for most of those used to mainstream movies. Still if you are the right audience (which I am), you will find a lot to like here. Though the movie initially  came off as too slow, as the film went along I became completely engrossed. This is not because the pace of the movie sped up but because I become caught up in what I was seeing. I was engrossed in this strange and surreal world, and connected with the main characters' strive for happiness, even if it was in anything but a traditional way. This film is also held together by very solid and tight direction by Valdimar Jóhannsson (in what is amazingly his first feature film). I was also in awe of Eli Arenson's incredible cinematography. It is not only beautiful to look at but helps create a world that is similar to our own, but one that also has a dreamlike feel that makes the supernatural and strange elements completely believable. This movie also has a great sense of deadpan humor that was really funny, and kept the film from feeling too pretentious or self-serious. 

Unfortantly as much as I really like this movie, the ending feel completely flat for me. It feels forced, rushed and even too silly for this weird film. However this can hardly take away from how engrossed I was in the rest of this excellent movie.  

Silent Film of the Month: Student of Prague (1913)

 

Run Time: 85 minutes. Studio: Deutsche Bioscop GmbH. Director: Stellan Rye. Writer: Hanns Heinz Ewers. Producer: Paul Wegener.  Main Cast: Paul Wegener, Grete Berger, Lyda Salmonova, Johthen Gottowt. Cinematographer: Guido Seeber.

Previously on this blog, I have written about the 1926 film version of Student of Prague. However that film was not the first time this story has been made into a movie. Case in point is this month's silent film of the month, a 1913 version of this story. This film has sometimes been called the first feature length horror movie, but as is always the case with any firsts in film history, one shouldn't jump to conclusions because there is often something that came before. 

Though this movie is not an adaption of any one story it does combine elements of famous stories. These include Edgar Allan Poe's William Wilson, the legend of Faust and  Alfred de Musset's La Nuit de Décembre. Our main character is a young student named Balduin (Paul Wegener). Despite his incredible fencing skills, the character feels out of place due to the fact that he is not rich like so many others around him. However when a mysterious stranger (John Gottowt) appears he offers Balduin, great riches. There is of course one catch, the stranger may take anything he likes out of Balduin's room. This may sound too good to be true and it is. The possession the stranger takes is Balduin's reflection out of the mirror. Naturally things go downhill from here.  

Comparing this movie to the 1926 remake, it is easy to see the changes in filmmaking over only 13 years. This movie requires more attention on the part of the viewer and therefore will not be as easily accessible to those who are new to silent film (who may have trouble following the story). That is not to say this movie is in any ways primitive, because it is far from it and if you give this film the attention it needs you will find it holds up very well. One thing that will immediately strike you as you watch this film is how visually rich it is. Guido Seeber's cinematography is fantastic and makes this movie hard to look away from. Though silent movies are often thought of as black and white, many used color tinting, where a whole scene would be tinted a certain color. This is used to its full effect here and it not only looks beautiful but it enhances the story as well. The use of color tinting brings us further into the emotion and atmosphere of the film and therefore enhances one's emotional connection to the story. Though this movie is probably not going to keep any fans of modern horror films up at night, it is very effective. The whole movie gives off a creepy and unsettling vibe that will make even modern horror fans a little uneasy. The climax is especially creepy (even if the remake did this scene even better) and will stay in one's mind well after the movie is finished.

When a film buff thinks of any horror movies made in Germany during the silent era, their mind quickly goes to a movement that is known as German Expressionism. (This is mainly due to two very famous films, Noseratu (1922) and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920). German Expressionism was a movement not only in film but in other art forms such as painting. It is defined by moving away from realism and towards something that visually represents the inner emotions of the characters and the story.  While it would be incorrect to call this German horror movie an example of German Expressionism, there is little doubt that it shares some distinct similarities with the later movement. This has lead this movie to often be labeled as a forerunner to German Expressionism. There are also some key differences. One of these is that the setting for the film is presented in a decidedly more realistic manner. We are supposed to easy accept this as a real place that could have easily existed and one which the supernatural and expressionistic elements are supposed to feel out of place in order to create a more uneasy feeling.     

This film's star and producer Paul Wegener would make a large impact on the world of horror movies. He would direct three monster movies known today as the Golem Trilogy (1915, 1917,1920), all of which would have a major impact on James Whale's Frankenstein (1930). He would also star in Rex Ingram's silent horror film, The Magician (1926). Later in his career he would appear in Nazi propaganda films while he secretly gave money to resistance movements and would harbor fugitives from the Nazis. His costar, John Gottowt was Jewish and when the Nazis got in power would be banned from the German entertainment industry and would be murdered by the party in 1942. The movie's director, Stellan Rye was just beginning his movie career at this time. Unfortunately it proved to be a very short career as he would die a year later. As war broke out, he would join and die in 1914 as a POW. The movie's screenwriter Hanns Heinz Ewers was a popular horror author at this time. He would later be initially attracted by the Nazi party's sense of nationalism and would join in 1931. However he became critical of the party's anti-Semitism and this and him having homosexual tendencies landed him on the wrong side of the party and his books were banned in Germany by 1934.  

This movie can be found on YouTube for anyone interested. 

Resources Used

https://therevenantreview.com/2015/10/01/movie-review-the-student-of-prague-1913/

Strange History of Boris Karloff

 The following is an article from a 1933 issue of Modern Screen Magazine. If you have any trouble reading click on the pages and use your touch screen to zoom in. If that still doesn't work for you click here.

King Kong (1933)

Though this movie has been remade and imitated, nothing has ever and nothing will ever stand up to this masterpiece. Few films define the term movie magic like King Kong.

The story is the stuff of legends. A filmmaker (Robert Armstrong) is famous for making jungle pictures that are high on action but low on romance. Still noting that the public seems to want romance, he decides for the first time, he will make a movie with a woman in it. When he meets the beautiful Ann (Fay Wray), he knows that this woman should be the star of his next picture. So she joins the cast and crew on a perilous trip. No one but the director seems to know where they are heading, but knowing his reputation all of them except it to be dangerous. The place turns out to be more dangerous than any of them could have ever excepted. It is an island that was only believed to be a myth called Skull Island, which is ruled by a monstrous ape named Kong. The natives are holding a ceremony where they sacrifice a woman to the massive creature, and when they see Ann, they want her to be that sacrifice, so they kidnap her and chain her up for Kong. When Kong lays eyes upon Ann, he has a bit of a crush on her. Though Ann manages to barely escape with her life, the director decides that he wants to capture Kong for himself, so he can make a fortune. This proves not to be a good idea.

One thing that makes this movie stand apart from many similar films (especially Peter Jackson's remake) is the perfect use of pacing. This movie does not start off at a fast pace, but rather takes its time to introduce us to the characters and world. We get to know and care about each person making this journey and what brought them to this place. Yet this beginning never feels slow or uninteresting. Much of this is due to how cleverly written and involving the dialogue is. This is the kind of smart fast paced dialogue that simply does not exist in many movies today and is a huge part of why these old films still have major fan bases. When we get to Skull Island, the pace does not pick up immediately, but the atmosphere and the story telling completely change. There is a mystery and suspense to this island that completely captivates us. This is pure edge of your seat entertainment. Though we don't yet see Kong every moment is leading up to his reveal (another great thing about this movie is that there is never a wasted moment), and with each moment the suspense grows until he appears. Once we see Kong the pace picks up immediately. The movie then moves at a breakneck speed never letting up on the action and excitement audiences want when they watch a monster movie. Everything is perfectly set up and the film has you right where it wants to when the big reveal happens, with such there is nothing left for the movie to do but lead you on the thrill ride of your life and it does. This is simply filmmaking at its finest.

What makes the character of Kong stick in our minds is that he is not merely a prop or something to be afraid of. He is instead a living and breathing creature and it is hard to buy for even a second that this character is not real. He is to us. Much this comes from the masterful stop motion animation done by Willis O'Brien (who had previously created the incredible special effects for The Lost World (1925)) and his crew. This is character animation at its best. The character emotes perfectly with no need for the dialogue that his human costars are given. The emotions are all not only on his face but in the way he moves. Just like any living creature this is shown in both broad and subtle ways. While the Peter Jackson remake would have Kong looking more realistic due to more technically advanced special effects, Kong feels more real in this movie, because the visual acting here is left unmatched. It is interesting to note that this film's director originally thought the movie could be done using real apes and trick photography to make them look giant. However when he saw O'Brien's test footage and models for an abandoned film called Creation, he decided that this stop motion animation would be the perfect way to make the movie work. We can all be thankful it happened this way.

A visually stunning movie like this needs a very impressive musical score. Luckily providing the score here was the one and only Max Steiner, who provides some of his finest work here. If you want to see how important this score is try watching some of the action scenes without sound and you will be surprised by how much is lost.

Watching this movie again I was amazed at just how much of a pre-code film this is. The violence of Kong killing many natives is startling and disturbing to this day. Even more shocking is a scene where Kong actually breaks a dinosaur's jaw and blood comes out. Though gore-wise these scenes are very tame compared to what comes out today, they have lost little of their unsettling effect. These scenes were cut for later showings, but luckily today we can watch them as intended.

This film was a project of passion for director, producer and writer Merian C. Cooper. When making the movie, The Four Feathers (1929), Cooper had done some shooting in Africa. This trip left him fascinated with gorillas and he soon wanted to make a movie about one. Cooper and his codirector Ernest B. Schoedsack can see in the plane (spoilers) that shoots Kong off the Empire State Building at the end.

Due to this film Fay Wray has become known as the "scream queen of the movies." This title is apt as she has perhaps the finest scream in movie history. However what is often overlooked is that there was more to her than a scream and a beautiful body. She was a talented actress and no one else could have played the role of Ann better. When Cooper offered the part to Fay, he told her "You'll have the tallest, darkest leading man in Hollywood." This lead Fay to automatically think of Cary Grant. At the time this movie began production she was already working with Cooper and co-stars Robert Armstrong and Noble Johnson on a great and often overlooked movie called The Most Dangerous Game (1932). It was also planned for Fay's costar in The Most Dangerous Game Joel McCrea to play the love interest in King Kong, but his agent asked for too much money and the role instead went to Bruce Cabot, who had mostly been playing bit parts up to that time.

The film was a sensation when released. The following advertisement from Variety puts this movie's success into historical context.




A 1933 issue of Movie Classic magazine gave an article describing how this film was made. If you have any trouble reading click on one of the pages and use your touch screen to zoom in. (Note: This seems to be working for all the pages except for the first one. Until I figure out a solution feel free to read the other pages, they are very fascinating on their own.)

Also I love the below advertisement from Photoplay magazine.



In 1945 King Kong was rereleased on a double bill with its sequel Son of Kong (1933). The below page of The Motion Picture Herald showed how one theatre advertised this.


  

When King Kong returned to theatres in 1938, one theatre had a particularly great way of advertising this event. Again if you can't read the writing, click on the page and use your touch screen to zoom in.



-Michael J. Ruhland

Resources Used

http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/2690/King-Kong/articles.htmlThe Essentials: 52 Must See Movies and Why They Matter by Jeremy Arnold

Movie Review: The Lighthouse

Michael's Movie Grade: A+

A brilliant work of cinematic art.

This film is not your average horror film abandoning cohesive story telling for the logic of a nightmare. Like a nightmare not everything may make logical sense but emotionally and atmospherically everything ties together perfectly. This is a movie that asks you to surrender yourself completely to its odd nonsensical world or else its power will be lost on you. If you surrender yourself though you'll find yourself in for a cinematic treat of the highest order. Much of this is due to Robert Egger's incredible direction and Jarin Blaschke's masterful use of black and white cinematography. The use of black and white in this movie never comes off as a gimmick. Instead being in black and white is a necessity for this movie to work as well as it does. This device gives it a more unreal and more dreamlike quality, that perfectly fits into the movie's illogic. Nothing in this movie is quite real, so the film looking real could hurt the illusion. This is also the fact that many of the film's shots are gorgeous and simply wouldn't be as visually memorable in color.

This film revolves around two men alone on an island. Because of this the film has to be held by two actors. In fact instead of an actress (Valeriia Karaman (this appears to be her only screen credit)) who receives very little screen time and no lines, these two actors are the only ones on screen for the whole movie. With this in mind, these actors need to turn in fantastic performances or the whole film would suffer greatly. Luckily William Defoe and Robert Pattison turn in incredible performances that bring out the deep humanity in these abstract characters. They pull us ever further into the incredible madness that is this film.

I don't want to give much more away as this is a film you have to experience for yourself and what happens in the movie cannot be effective in writing. Just know that this is a fantastic experience that is unlike any other film out there and is one of the best movies of this year.

-Michael J. Ruhland      

Movie Review: Zombieland: Double Tap

Michael's Movie Grade: B+

Hilarious sequel that had me laughing throughout the majority of the film.

Despite being a horror-comedy that has a lot of gory zombie killing, the majority of humor in this film is character based. This works especially well with all the interplay between Columbus and Tallahassee. These are characters that you wouldn't except to work together but they do perfectly. The chemistry between Woody Harrelson and Jesse Eisenberg is perfect and it appears that the two are simply having a blast working together. Every time these two shared the screen the movie shined comedically. There was also a great amount of heart in the two's scenes together, that brought a surprisingly warm sweetness to this zombie comedy (don't worry there is still plenty of crude jokes and gore). Who was also surprisingly hilarious in this movie is the stereotypically dumb blonde Madison. It would be easy to think that with how often this type of character has been used, there would nothing funny left to do with one. This movie proves that wrong as somehow she completely steals every scene she is in, causing some of the movie's biggest laughs. As a huge Elvis fan, all the scenes referencing the king especially stood out to me as very funny as well. As much as this is a comedy, it is also a zombie movie, and it works very well as this too. I story is quite good, and there is plenty of very fun action scenes here as well. As well as the characters being funny, I really cared about them as people. This helped tie the comedy, the horror and the drama together perfectly.

The only thing that really fell flat for me in this movie was what they did with Columbus and Wichita's relationship. This not only felt cliché but very forced and rather uninteresting. It did lead to the new character, Madison, so I guess we can still thank this misused plot device for that. That still doesn't make it work at all though.

This is excellent horror comedy and just a delight to watch.

-Michael J. Ruhland

Silent Film of the Month: Student of Prague (1926)

Run Time: 91 minutes. Studio:  Sokal-Film GmbH. Director: Henrik Galeen. Writer: Henrik Galeen. Producer: H.R. Sokal.  Main Cast: Conrad Veidt, Elizza La Porta, Fritz Alberti, Ágnes Eszterházy. Cinematographer: Gunther Krampf.

Happy October everybody. Of course with October comes Halloween and with Halloween comes spooky movies. Like I am sure many of my old movie fans would agree, some of my favorite horror movies are those made in Germany during the silent era. We all love and cherish Nosfertau and The Cabinet of Dr. Calligari however I also have a strong fondness for a lesser appericated movie, The Student of Prague.
Henrik Galeen, the director and writer of this film was no stranger to silent German horror. Before this he had directed the 1915 version of The Golem and served as a writer for the 1920 version of The Golem,  as well as the infamous Nosferatu. There is no doubt he had a special talent for this type of film and that is completely on display in this movie.

In this film Bauldin (Conrad Veidt) is the greatest fencer in Prague. This gives him a certain notoriety. Despite this he is unhappy. He is very poor, which makes him think much less of himself. Despite his attraction to the beautiful Liduschka (Elizza La Porta), he feels being penniless, he is unworthy of her love. One day Bauldin meets a strange man named Scapinelli (Werner Krauss) who offers Bauldin riches in exchange for his choice of any of the poor student's possessions. Bauldin falls for this and agrees. However Scapinelli surprises Bauldin by taking the student's reflection in the mirror. At first Bauldin enjoys his wealth, until he learns the full horrors of the exchange.

This is a masterfully made movie. Of course being part of the German expressionist movement this is a stunning film. Though this movie mostly exists in cheap public domain prints, even this can't hide how great this film looks. Some moments are completely jaw dropping. The scene with Scapinelli on top of the mountain is breathtaking and an image that will stick in your mind long after the movie is done. If there are any complaints to make about this film they are that it can be slow paced and can focus too much on the romance instead of the horror. Neither of these are in any way true about the climax of this film. This is one of the most exciting climaxes in the whole German expressionist movement. While many old horror films are simply not scary to modern audiences, this sequence is still extremely creepy and tense. I would dare to call this the scariest moment in silent cinema. The last image of this scene is incredible and will stay in your mind long after the film is finished. Though parts of this movie can be slow, even these scenes work extremely well due to great cinematography and lighting as well as an incredible performance from Conard Veidt. He gives this film such a sense of human frailty that the film achieves a sense of uneasiness even when not much is happening.

I don't know why this film never gets the recognition from silent film fans that it so rightful deserves. It is a fantastic film.

This film can be found on YouTube.

It is a remake of a 1913 film with the same title that is also quite good. You can watch that movie below.

-Michael J. Ruhland