Dr. Gonzo's Grand Celluloid Adventure

Reviews, images, and possibly more from movies I have seen since I started this blog.

Have suggestions, ask and I'll add them.

lizawithazed:

mrxlisam:

thescarletdevil:

adriofthedead:

unreadablemind:

rinnysega:

waitinginthesky7:

nerdfighterninja:

This is about CISPA.  Tl;dr, worse than SOPA. Watch the video. 

I know I’m a fairly ineloquent Tumblr nobody but come on, followers, spread this around, it could pass in THREE DAYS. 

THREE. DAYS.

THREE. DAYS.

WE NEED TO STOP THIS SHIT NOW.

…fuck.

shit

ohmygod

This has been going on for a while and this is the first I’ve seen any sort of TV coverage about it :/

PLEASE EVERYONE! REBLOG THIS THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT :(

fuck. everything.

god fucking DAMMIT.

(via iago-rotten)

Terrence Malick - The Tree of Life (2011) The story centers around a family with three boys in the 1950s. The eldest son witnesses the loss of innocence. If you were to take the stargate sequence from 2001, extend to feature length and replace a majority of the scenes with the life of a family, you’d get The Tree of Life. The film takes more than one viewing to comprehend. On the first viewing, you feel you are watching a string of images, trying to comprehend more than what you feel you are watching. You are trying to figure out the deeper meaning within the film. Eventually, you’ll feel worn out and just waiting for the end. This is not how to view the film, the most proper way is to just relax, enjoy the imagery and witness the story of a  man (possibly) reflecting back on his childhood and remembering when he changed from a naive child, to a curious young man. The cast is strong, the music is strong, the imagery is strong; really, the film is not a let down. The entire thing is a unique experience, and only improves with multiple viewings. 4.5/5

Terrence Malick - The Tree of Life (2011)

The story centers around a family with three boys in the 1950s. The eldest son witnesses the loss of innocence.

If you were to take the stargate sequence from 2001, extend to feature length and replace a majority of the scenes with the life of a family, you’d get The Tree of Life.

The film takes more than one viewing to comprehend. On the first viewing, you feel you are watching a string of images, trying to comprehend more than what you feel you are watching. You are trying to figure out the deeper meaning within the film. Eventually, you’ll feel worn out and just waiting for the end.

This is not how to view the film, the most proper way is to just relax, enjoy the imagery and witness the story of a  man (possibly) reflecting back on his childhood and remembering when he changed from a naive child, to a curious young man.

The cast is strong, the music is strong, the imagery is strong; really, the film is not a let down. The entire thing is a unique experience, and only improves with multiple viewings.

4.5/5

Erich von Stroheim - Greed (1924) The sudden fortune won from a lottery fans such destructive greed that it ruins the lives of the three people involved. I’ve read a few horror stories about how boring this movie was, and how exaggerated the runtime (240 minutes) was. Reading some more, turns out the runtime was for a newer version of the film with added still-shots that were supposed to be “new” scenes. Luckily I found the preferred 130 minute version. This film was quite engaging and was not boring in the least bit. It was a sad portrayal, but obviously slight exaggeration, of what greed does to some people. Characters lose jobs, food and eventually lives. While not up there with most epic silent films, this certainly is just as importantas any film from D.W. Griffith. 4.5/5

Erich von Stroheim - Greed (1924)

The sudden fortune won from a lottery fans such destructive greed that it ruins the lives of the three people involved.

I’ve read a few horror stories about how boring this movie was, and how exaggerated the runtime (240 minutes) was. Reading some more, turns out the runtime was for a newer version of the film with added still-shots that were supposed to be “new” scenes. Luckily I found the preferred 130 minute version.

This film was quite engaging and was not boring in the least bit. It was a sad portrayal, but obviously slight exaggeration, of what greed does to some people. Characters lose jobs, food and eventually lives.

While not up there with most epic silent films, this certainly is just as importantas any film from D.W. Griffith.

4.5/5

John Ford - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) A senator, who became famous for killing a notorious outlaw, returns for the funeral of an old friend and tells the truth about his deed. This was certainly an odd western. Almost unlike what I figured what a western from John Ford would be like. It was not an anti-western, but certainly was not one I had ever been accustomed to. With The Wild Bunch, I had a full blown blood bath of a western. With Once Upon A Time in the West, it was certainly not a typical western…but still had those elements you would normally find in one. This film really had a depressing tone, and a tone of maturity. It was as if Ford was sweeping out the genre, and showing things are changing now. With Ford making films for a bit more than 30 years, at this point, I’m sure the genre was dying a bit. It was starting to feel old and done with; hence why the town begins to progress from just an open range town. Jimmy Stewart was amazing, as always, in this film, it was just a shock to see him so old. This was my initiation to John Wayne, and I must say I was quite impressed with his performance. Both actors just had the perfect love/hate relationship with each other. The camera work was quite simple to me. It was not ambitious, or anything, it was just there. It kinda bugged me a little, but it’s not what I would consider a major problem. The film was still wonderful and full of great acting. 4.5/5

John Ford - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

A senator, who became famous for killing a notorious outlaw, returns for the funeral of an old friend and tells the truth about his deed.

This was certainly an odd western. Almost unlike what I figured what a western from John Ford would be like. It was not an anti-western, but certainly was not one I had ever been accustomed to. With The Wild Bunch, I had a full blown blood bath of a western. With Once Upon A Time in the West, it was certainly not a typical western…but still had those elements you would normally find in one.

This film really had a depressing tone, and a tone of maturity. It was as if Ford was sweeping out the genre, and showing things are changing now. With Ford making films for a bit more than 30 years, at this point, I’m sure the genre was dying a bit. It was starting to feel old and done with; hence why the town begins to progress from just an open range town.

Jimmy Stewart was amazing, as always, in this film, it was just a shock to see him so old. This was my initiation to John Wayne, and I must say I was quite impressed with his performance. Both actors just had the perfect love/hate relationship with each other.

The camera work was quite simple to me. It was not ambitious, or anything, it was just there. It kinda bugged me a little, but it’s not what I would consider a major problem. The film was still wonderful and full of great acting.

4.5/5

Federico Fellini - 8½ (1963) A harried movie director retreats into his memories and fantasies. Easily one of the most creative films of it’s time, Frederico Fellini’s 8½ is truly a film that could never be replicated. The film’s main character, Guido (who, if I have understood correctly, is also supposed to be a representation of Fellini himself) is director who has signed on to a film he just does not love. We experience his childhood and fantasies in both dramatic and humorous ways. The way the film plays out is absolutely delightful, and is still seen as a breath of fresh air to this day for it’s cinematography, techniques, story, etc. One of the most brilliant scenes is around the beginning, when Guido is having a nightmare. Shown through his point of view, Guido is flying, then looks down and sees a man who is holding a string tied to his leg. Guido tries to grab the string, but it breaks and he falls into the ocean. Even today, this shot is beautiful and full of wonder. Mainly because of how they were able to acquire such a shot. As much as I am praising this film, I may come off as if I am in love with it. Although it was quite good, I’m not fully in love. Some parts dragged a little for me, but not enough to warrant me to dislike the film. The humor, the drama, cinematography, the story, everything was stupendous, Fellini was really a true master of film. I’m still quite partial to Amarcord (and I believe it is his only film that almost anyone could love), but nonetheless, 8½ was truly a landmark for it’s technique use and creativity, as well as portraying the struggles of a director as relatable to anyone who has ever, well, struggled with almost anything in their lives. Is the struggle always worth it in the end? Who knows. This film, and it’s answers, only make sense to one person, and that is Fellini himself. 4.5/5

Federico Fellini - 8½ (1963)

A harried movie director retreats into his memories and fantasies.

Easily one of the most creative films of it’s time, Frederico Fellini’s 8½ is truly a film that could never be replicated. The film’s main character, Guido (who, if I have understood correctly, is also supposed to be a representation of Fellini himself) is director who has signed on to a film he just does not love. We experience his childhood and fantasies in both dramatic and humorous ways.

The way the film plays out is absolutely delightful, and is still seen as a breath of fresh air to this day for it’s cinematography, techniques, story, etc. One of the most brilliant scenes is around the beginning, when Guido is having a nightmare. Shown through his point of view, Guido is flying, then looks down and sees a man who is holding a string tied to his leg. Guido tries to grab the string, but it breaks and he falls into the ocean.

Even today, this shot is beautiful and full of wonder. Mainly because of how they were able to acquire such a shot.

As much as I am praising this film, I may come off as if I am in love with it. Although it was quite good, I’m not fully in love. Some parts dragged a little for me, but not enough to warrant me to dislike the film.

The humor, the drama, cinematography, the story, everything was stupendous, Fellini was really a true master of film. I’m still quite partial to Amarcord (and I believe it is his only film that almost anyone could love), but nonetheless, 8½ was truly a landmark for it’s technique use and creativity, as well as portraying the struggles of a director as relatable to anyone who has ever, well, struggled with almost anything in their lives.

Is the struggle always worth it in the end?

Who knows.

This film, and it’s answers, only make sense to one person, and that is Fellini himself.

4.5/5

Jean-Luc Goddard - Le Mépris (a.k.a. Contempt) (1963) Paul Javal is a writer who is hired to make a script for a new movie about Ulysses more commercial, which is to be directed by Fritz Lang and produced by Jeremy Prokosch. But because he let his wife Camille drive with Prokosch and he is late, she believes, he uses her as a sort of present for Prokosch to get get a better payment. So the relationship ends. The first Goddard film I viewed was Pierrot le fou. While that one took sometime to settle in, I still relatively enjoyed the film. It was silly and beautiful to look at. With Contempt, I’m almost in a different realm here. Now, the style is not really all that different, it still has the crazy colors you’d figure from a New Wave film, but the humor was slightly more subtle. In fact, the film almost becomes tedious due to the fact that almost half the film is the couple fighting and repeating themselves over and over again. It was a bit hard to watch because you could just feel the hate generating from one another, not all that fun. The film did have some beautiful cinematography, and I really loved the different camera directions. Overall, though, while it was quite a good film, it really did not elevate itself into a higher realm for myself. 3.5/5

Jean-Luc Goddard - Le Mépris (a.k.a. Contempt) (1963)

Paul Javal is a writer who is hired to make a script for a new movie about Ulysses more commercial, which is to be directed by Fritz Lang and produced by Jeremy Prokosch. But because he let his wife Camille drive with Prokosch and he is late, she believes, he uses her as a sort of present for Prokosch to get get a better payment. So the relationship ends.

The first Goddard film I viewed was Pierrot le fou. While that one took sometime to settle in, I still relatively enjoyed the film. It was silly and beautiful to look at. With Contempt, I’m almost in a different realm here.

Now, the style is not really all that different, it still has the crazy colors you’d figure from a New Wave film, but the humor was slightly more subtle. In fact, the film almost becomes tedious due to the fact that almost half the film is the couple fighting and repeating themselves over and over again. It was a bit hard to watch because you could just feel the hate generating from one another, not all that fun.

The film did have some beautiful cinematography, and I really loved the different camera directions. Overall, though, while it was quite a good film, it really did not elevate itself into a higher realm for myself.

3.5/5

Luchino Visconti - The Leopard (1963) The Prince of Salina, a noble aristocrat of impeccable integrity, tries to preserve his family and class amid the tumultuous social upheavals of 1860’s Sicily. I’m sorry to all you cinephiles, but I found this film pretty boring. I also found myself getting quite lost after so long; I’d just lose complete focus during the film. I’d rewind and start over the part where I left off, and still nothing. I just felt this film was a bit too tedious. Perhaps it’ll grow on me during another viewing, but until then, I have to say I was disappointed and bored. 2/5

Luchino Visconti - The Leopard (1963)

The Prince of Salina, a noble aristocrat of impeccable integrity, tries to preserve his family and class amid the tumultuous social upheavals of 1860’s Sicily.

I’m sorry to all you cinephiles, but I found this film pretty boring. I also found myself getting quite lost after so long; I’d just lose complete focus during the film. I’d rewind and start over the part where I left off, and still nothing. I just felt this film was a bit too tedious. Perhaps it’ll grow on me during another viewing, but until then, I have to say I was disappointed and bored.

2/5

Stanley Kubrick - Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) An insane general starts a process to nuclear holocaust that a war room of politicians and generals frantically try to stop. A satirical comedy about the end of the world, how could that not be a perfect movie? The timing of the actors is beautiful and reminds me almost of something out of Monty Python. One thing that I particularly loved was the different filming styles used in all three different main stories going on. One looks like a war documentary, another is a series of close-ups, and another just fills you full of dread and doom. The ending, on top of how perfect everything else is, has to be the cherry on top. A satirical comedy that makes you question why you’re laughing up till the shocking finale. I really cannot write down my love for this movie, but this really is one of the movies I absolutely love and can just watch over and over and over again; it never feels old, dated, or dragging, it always has a little something to reveal with each new viewing. And even if it doesn’t, it’s always just a very enjoyable and intelligent comedy that never feels old. 5/5

Stanley Kubrick - Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

An insane general starts a process to nuclear holocaust that a war room of politicians and generals frantically try to stop.

A satirical comedy about the end of the world, how could that not be a perfect movie? The timing of the actors is beautiful and reminds me almost of something out of Monty Python.

One thing that I particularly loved was the different filming styles used in all three different main stories going on. One looks like a war documentary, another is a series of close-ups, and another just fills you full of dread and doom.

The ending, on top of how perfect everything else is, has to be the cherry on top. A satirical comedy that makes you question why you’re laughing up till the shocking finale.

I really cannot write down my love for this movie, but this really is one of the movies I absolutely love and can just watch over and over and over again; it never feels old, dated, or dragging, it always has a little something to reveal with each new viewing. And even if it doesn’t, it’s always just a very enjoyable and intelligent comedy that never feels old.

5/5

Gillo Pontecorvo - The Battle of Algiers (1966) An account of the bloodiest revolution in modern history. Whenever people mention “epic” films, Algiers should always find it’s way into the conversation. One of it’s most important components is that it contains no documentary or news footage, everything was staged and created. Why should that seem like a big deal? Well, this film contains buildings being blown up, an entire city rioting, car crashes, amongst a few of it’s elaborate sequences. How they did these scenes and made them look entirely real is beyond me. How no one was killed is beyond me even more. This film reminded me a lot of Battleship Potemkin, the big action sequences, rebellion, revolution, just a lot of similarities between both films. Let me set it straight though, there was nothing ripped off, it just had a similar tone. A very strong and powerful film, and definitely could entice a riot. 5/5

Gillo Pontecorvo - The Battle of Algiers (1966)

An account of the bloodiest revolution in modern history.

Whenever people mention “epic” films, Algiers should always find it’s way into the conversation. One of it’s most important components is that it contains no documentary or news footage, everything was staged and created. Why should that seem like a big deal?

Well, this film contains buildings being blown up, an entire city rioting, car crashes, amongst a few of it’s elaborate sequences. How they did these scenes and made them look entirely real is beyond me. How no one was killed is beyond me even more.

This film reminded me a lot of Battleship Potemkin, the big action sequences, rebellion, revolution, just a lot of similarities between both films. Let me set it straight though, there was nothing ripped off, it just had a similar tone.

A very strong and powerful film, and definitely could entice a riot.

5/5

Billy Wilder - Sunset Blvd. (1950) A hack screenwriter writes a screenplay for a former silent-film star who has faded into Hollywood obscurity. Huge fans of Mulholland Drive always mention how well both MD and Sunset Blvd always compliment each other. While there were similarities, I wasn’t really blown away. Likewise with the film. The film was not bad, but I was probably expecting something a bit more complex after Mulholland Drive. Nonetheless, this film was good. It did drag a little, but still good. Probably with multiple viewings it will grow on me, maybe it won’t, either way I can’t say anything totally negative, but at the same time, I cannot say anything totally positive. 4/5

Billy Wilder - Sunset Blvd. (1950)

A hack screenwriter writes a screenplay for a former silent-film star who has faded into Hollywood obscurity.

Huge fans of Mulholland Drive always mention how well both MD and Sunset Blvd always compliment each other. While there were similarities, I wasn’t really blown away. Likewise with the film. The film was not bad, but I was probably expecting something a bit more complex after Mulholland Drive.

Nonetheless, this film was good. It did drag a little, but still good. Probably with multiple viewings it will grow on me, maybe it won’t, either way I can’t say anything totally negative, but at the same time, I cannot say anything totally positive.

4/5