Yogi's Movie Consumption Blog

I haven't seen many of Villeneuve's movies, but I really like everything so far. When thinking about Prisoners after a few days, there was a particular scene that somehow kept returning to my memory: When Gyllenhal's character is introduced, sitting alone in Chinese restaurant, not-flirting with the waitress. For some reason this scene struck me as "different". That gave me the idea to examine all the first appearances of the characters in the movie. ( SPOILERS )   KELLER DOVER (Hugh Jackman) - we don't actually see him, we start with a very static shot into the forest. The man is looking into the forest, it is his POV (which we find out quickly). But we can hear him praying, while a deer walks into the frame. When the camera pulls back, a rifle points at the animal. And just after "Amen", a shot is fired. Now, here's a little surprise: Keller, who was doing the praying has his son RALPH (Dylan Minette) shooting the rifle. It's a fat...

The mad doctor is in an asylum scribbling down instructions for the perfect crime while somebody seems to make those plans come alive. The film has a certain entertainment value and some funny ideas in it, although it had the feeling of a routine work, although being on a very high standard. It combines the early genre of psychothriller, crime and maybe a bit of the imagery of expressive and noir-ish cinema. The characters are all played way over the top and have stage-like mannerisms in most of the scenes. This took me a while to get used to, but it doesn't keep the film from being highly enjoyable. Also, there is a whodunnit quality to the first half of the film which - for the modern viewer at least - is way too easy to guess around. Although the motivation of the evil doctor becomes only clear at the end: knowing that his life is coming to an end, he decides to transfer his sinister plans to paper and his evil soul onto an innocent (?) bystander. The first sce...

A guest in a country house has an overwhelming sense of deja vu in a circular nightmare with a voice-over psychologization nonstop. The premise of the movie is quite good, unfortunately it descended into on-the-nose analysis by the annoying psychiatrist in the film, they should have gotten rid of him immediately. There seems to be a certain trend in 40s movies to speak out (highly inaccurate) descriptions of "psychological disturbances" and "Freudian analysis". Other examples like the egregious "Snake Pit" come to mind. Maybe in future years people will scratch their head, when they hear the pseudo-scientific nonsense babble in sci-fi/superhero movies of today. And I hope that this day will come soon. I think films were still trying to tiptoe their way in new cinematic narrative forms with a mass appeal and this is the biggest credit I can give to this film: Ealing, not a small studio being sort of experimental.  Times are still/only more than a de...

A nurse arrives on a colony to find her patient in a strange state of waking coma, possibly induced by something more than magic. There are several very memorable moments in this movie - first of all, the scene in the field with the frightening "zombie-like" native leading the main character to the center of voodoo worship. The images are dream-like and extremely haunting. The film really is a great study for subtle horror. All the really frightening stuff is in the various subtexts - this fantastic set-up makes an contention of the two brothers over the dinner table at least as chilling as the more "traditional" tricks of the trade to frighten the audience. Another masterpiece from Tourneur, whom I've obviously neglected to admire so far. His salient ability seems to be to swathe ordinary tension with hidden meaning, as far as I've noticed. Definitely worth seeing more of.

A mute housekeeper is under the threat of a murder in the house where she lives. There are a couple of great moments in this film: First of all, there is the weather. Similar to Key Largo the weather is menacing, shutting off communication though not completely. The telephone is still working, but of what use is that to a mute woman who tries to get help. Although I liked the movie, I had the feeling that the "psychologisation" of the lead character - a trauma resulting in muteness - was too obvious. This also lead to some heavy handed script decisions, e.g. her trying to make a call and then realizing she was mute.  (?) But there are some other great scenes. The showdown on the staircase was quite amazing, and I really loved the the idea of the "threatening eyes" and the strong sense of POV throughout the film. A lot of times the camera watches out from the killer's head.

A private school master is killed by his wife and his maitresse. But things are not as simple as they seem. Knowing the story upfront I wanted to know how the pacing of this film was. I was surprised to find, that there is a lot of setup and getting to know the characters. Most of the time was spent showing how patronizing and abusive the behavior of the school director is towards his wife. There is even a clear hint that he rapes her. The ending is fantastic, but the aftermath seemed a bit tucked on. Maybe they were trying to avoid the censors. The scenes in the dining room were quite good as they immediately explained the hierarchy between everybody involved. When only the three main characters remain in the hall, there is some interesting mise-en-scene as the figures are carefully placed in the available space. The final 15-20 minutes of the film are extremely gripping where this "crime" film suddenly becomes more of a "horror-thriller" crossover genre. ...

A stunt driver tries to protect his love interest, but only gets involved in ugly mob wars. The picture is amazing, I can feel how this really works. It pays its tributes to horror, and the brutality of some of the scenes is frightening. But nevertheless, it works in a fantastic way. The only thing that I didn't like was that there was a bit too much music at times, which confused me and put the whole thing a bit in music video land. It's definitively worth a very intensive study of the underlying structure and the scripts in early drafts. The very little talking makes this very intense and now that I think about it: What the hell was Gosling working on in his appartment? Some engine part? Can't remember if it came back later in the film. The last scene where Gosling wakes up puts the whole film on a totally new level and gives the character an angelic quality. Another tribute to horror? Cinematography is breathtaking and the colors were amazing.

When an ex-lieutenant visits the father of one of his fallen soldiers he finds their home taken hostage by ruthless gangsters. The diversity of the characters in this story is breathtaking. All the actors manage to render their part with amazing depth and conflict. Robinson is a great villain, and the stubborness of the father is quite amazing to watch. The party being locked in the small space of the hotel lets everybody clash with everybody. The ending felt a bit propped on to me and a complete change of tone. When I read that Huston "borrowed" that ending from Hawks "To Have or Have Not" it came as no big surprise. The social commentary with the Indians treated as low lifes was quite amazing and the old Indian woman looked great on screen. Maybe in a more modern version more people would snap in that situation and the ending would have definitively more graphic violence. It would make way more sense to flood the hotel and let the people have it out on the ...