No.331158[Reply][Last 50 Posts]
Just saw Scaramouche (1952). An 18th century revenge tale about a man who plays a clown in a theater troupe by day as he plots to kill a heartless aristocrat by night to avenge the death of his best friend and foster brother.
The film feels very ahead of its time both visually and in terms of writing. This is probably because it blends elements of several different genres, which seems to have confused the critics of its day. It's essentially a swashbuckler but with a lot of time dedicated to political drama and comedy. It's also very risque for its time. As incongruent as this sounds, it actually balances these aspects rather well. The biggest weakness in the story is the ending, which feels somewhat underwhelming after everything building up to it and the final plot twist is more than a little hard to swallow. That being said, I don't think it detracts from the film too much.
The characters, even the side ones, are fairly strong and memorable and the acting is quite good as well. A few of the actors even act more like French actors than American ones. The villain is especially great. The only one of the main cast who feels like a typical Hollywood actor from the 50's is Janet Leigh but she's still adequate in her role.
The visuals, like I said, are ahead of their time. Only by a about a decade or so though; it certainly doesn't look modern. The most famous thing about this movie is the 5-minute long swordfight at the end. Despite its length, that fight scene is able to maintain a high level of excitement and tension throughout which is quite a feat since you know the hero is going to win in the end. There are many other swordfights in the movie too and they're all used pretty intelligently to serve the plot. What's nice about the fight scenes is that there's very little music in them and the silence helps tremendously.
Overall, I give Scaramouche an 8/10.
357 posts and 209 image replies omitted. Click reply to view. No.366765
>posts nigger porn again
now THAT'S seething
No.366945
Fire Over England is a great companion to piece to The Sea Hawk. It was made around the same time, it has the same setting, and it even has the same actress, Flora Robson playing Queen Elizabeth. The plot is kind of similar too; Elizabeth sends a dashing young swordsman on a secret mission to save England from Spain.
The writing and the acting are better than The Sea Hawk. Flora Robson's performance is incredible. Her take on Elizabeth I is the best queen character in any movie I've ever seen, and I will be nominating her for next year's queen awards if there even is one. Laurence Oliveir is very good too. The guy they got to play the King of Spain isn't as good Basil Rathbone's take on him in The Sea Hawk, but he isn't bad. Vivian Leigh gives the worst performance in my opinion. It's not that she's bad, it's just that everyone else is so much better that it makes her (relatively) mediocre acting stand out.
The cinematography is above average for its era, but nowhere near as good as The Sea Hawk. The final defeat of the Spanish Armada at the end feels like a bit of a let down, which is a shame because that should be the climax of the film. I guess it was the best a British film studio could do in the 30s.
Overall, I'd recommend the movie if you like old costume dramas.
No.366999
The other day I watched "Master and Commander". After letting it percolate in my mind, I'm bumping it up to 10/10. And now for something completely different. Today I watched "Requiem for a Dream". This is a 1/10. I threw this movie in the trash after finishing it. I'm amazed I even finished it. Its just overwhelmingly brutally depressing. I'm sure I've seen something more depressing and more fucked up than this, but am struggling to find contenders. What a meaningless pile of nihilistic shit. I normally have an iron stomach, but this movie just made me nauseous and disoriented and again, brutally, BRUTALLY, depressed.
No.367003
>>366999I knew it had a bad reputation so I didn't watch, just skimmed through it and trashed it.