#147- October (Ten Days that Shook the World)

Quick recap: October is a silent propaganda film chronicling the Bolshevik revolution and storming of the Winter Palace.

Fun (?) fact: The actual storming of the Winter Palace wasn’t very photogenic on account of the chaos, so scenes from October are now used as historical evidence.

My thoughts: Propaganda films fascinate me for many reasons, but I mostly look forward to watching them because it’s fun to see if I will fall into the agenda the film pushes. Salt of the Earth is a great example of this. I anticipated watching October even more because I have little to no knowledge of Russian history and wanted to see if that would affect my thinking in any way.

A little history before my review: First, the Tsarist government was overthrown and a new government was set up of mostly aristocrats. They were then overthrown by the working class, who formed the Bolshevik party. From there, they elected their own members and the Soviet Union was born. I learned none of this from the movie, by the way. After October finished, I rushed to Wikipedia and read up on what the hell I had just watched.

So, October is not the sort of movie anyone should watch without context, like I chose to do. All I saw was two hours of people running around with guns and it was all very confusing. Add to that, the director put in artsy images to drive home his point, all of which went over my head. For example, in one scene a fat guy with really bad teeth was shown talking and looking important. Spliced in with that guy was an image of a really creepy bird that kept turning its head. Afterwards, I learned that the bird was actually a peacock, the symbolism being that the aristocrat was preening, as a peacock does.

also, this dead horse hanging from a bridge was symbolic of something

October surprisingly works really well as a propaganda film. As a moviegoer in the 20s I would’ve probably been moved by the Bolsheviks’ idea of helping the working class and poor.Director Eisenstein turned everything black and white, trying to show clearly who was working for the good of the people and who wasn’t. It’s easy to get caught up in something like that, especially seeing images of people starving while bureaucrats sit in their fancy houses and dine on fine food and expensive alcohol. Time is on my side though and I know how this story turned out and so in watching this film in 2015, I was mostly unmoved.

Final review: 2/5. It would’ve earned a 1, but watching October has spurred my interest in Russian history so that’s not a bad thing to take from this.

Up next: The Story of a Cheat

#145- Four Weddings and a Funeral

Quick recap: Hugh Grant plays Charles, a man who, during the course of attending several weddings (3 in fact), falls in love. Will the fourth wedding be his own, or will it in fact be his funeral?

BAM. I just made this movie infinitely more interesting than it actually was. EVEN BETTER. The funeral could’ve been his own and then he could’ve had a zombie marriage. Zombie marriages are the best kind of marriages, you know.

Don’t let the quirkiness fool you. This movie is in fact quite boring.

Fun (?) fact: Hugh Grant, the star of the film, hated Four Weddings and a Funeral while filming. Maybe he’s not such a bad guy after all.

That would’ve been nice.

My thoughts: It’s really no surprise that the ‘romantic comedy’ genre is one of my least favorite. Everything is so sappy and there are too many scenes that try too hard to be funny. Still, despite knowing better, I had hope that Four Weddings and a Funeral would somehow, some way, not completely suck.

This movie did not completely suck. Yay! But only because there was so much wrong with this movie that it kept me entertained the entire time. Boo! So here are the things that irked me most about the film:

1) Who the hell are all these people? I spent way more time trying to figure out who was related to whom only to later realize they were all just a big group of friends with that one really old guy in the center of it all. A little bit of a back story would’ve been nice .

2) Everything was entirely too predictable. Granted, the title already gave away that there would in fact be 4 weddings and 1 funeral, but I didn’t realize that that was the entire movie. It at least helped me know that when I got to the 4th wedding, the torture was almost over.

3) Stop doing that, Hugh Grant! All of it- your bumbling, ‘aw,shucks’ attitude, the way you continually put your glasses on, only to take them off OVER AND OVER AGAIN, your over the top ‘poor pitiful me’ puppy dog looks whenever you are sad. Just stop.

4) The jokes. I felt like I was watching a SNL parody of how stupid romantic comedies are and how they put in the most generic not funny gags. For example: the bridesmaid who walks down the aisle with her underwear showing, the priest who officiates his first wedding and mixes up everything ( he says Holy Goat instead of Holy Ghost. Comedy gold!), the main character has to sit with his exes at the reception and it is so awkward. It was like the writers were promised pizza if they completed the script in time, so they just threw in a bunch of generic stuff and called it a day.

It would be cruel for me to go on, so I’ll stop for now. After all, I was the girl who laughed throughout A Walk to Remember while everyone was sobbing into their popcorn buckets. It’s just not the movie for me.

Final review: 2/5.

Up next: Steamboat Bill, Jr.

1 Comment

#141- Up in Smoke

Quick recap: Two stoners unknowingly drive a van made entirely of marijuana from Mexico to the US and hijinks ensue.

HI-jinks, get it??

I’m sorry. So very sorry for that one, but I can’t guarantee there won’t be more.

Fun (?) fact: The dog that stole the burrito was not actually part of the movie but was instead a stray that had just wandered onto the set.

My thoughts: Much like breaking the first rule of Fight Club (which I suppose I am doing right now by even mentioning Fight Club) I broke cardinal rule while watching Up in Smoke: I was not high. I felt that it would really be lame to watch this movie completely sober so I instead decided to kick back a couple of beers while watching, hoping that I would feel some of the same effects.

The first thing that surprised me about this movie was that there was a plot, but just barely. Good on them for putting something cohesive together, although I think it would’ve been just as funny and probably more existential to have Cheech and Chong just driving around, getting high. It would be sort of like Two-Lane Blacktop but with more shenanigans and less James Taylor.

And as for the shenanigans, there were plenty: from a girl taking a hit (is that what the kids call it?) of the cleaner Ajax to smoking a blunt as big as a burrito. I laughed throughout several of these scenes but I didn’t find it all that creative or revolutionary. Which is not to say that it should’ve been. I think part of the issue is that the ‘stoner comedy’ has been done SO many times since then that watching the original is kind of underwhelming. Also, I wasn’t high while watching this so I felt like I wasn’t the intended demographic.

They call them fingers, but I’ve never seen them fing….

Final review: 2/5. Alcohol does not in fact replace marijuana.

Cheech and Strong Bad sound almost exactly alike. Remember Strong Bad? Good times.

Up next: Close-Up

#137- Manhunter

Quick recap: Will Graham, former FBI profiler, is talked into helping solving a particularly gruesome serial killer case. Watch closely and you may see our good friend Hannibal Lecter pop in to lend a hand!

Lector reminds me more of a grown up Eddie Munster than terrifying serial killer

Fun (?) trivia: The scene where Graham visits Lecter was actually filmed at an art museum in Atlanta. Also noted that ‘Lecter’ is spelled ‘Lecktor’ in the film.

Random vet creepily puts his hand on McClane’s back as she lays on a sedated tiger, while Dollarhyde stands in the corner and watches. Weird.

My thoughts: Oh, boy. I’m going to try my best not to compare this movie to Silence of the Lambs because you just can’t. It’s superior, Anthony Hopkins is superior and so it wouldn’t be fair to this movie. I’m also not going to compare Manhunter to its remake Red Dragon, which was released in 2002. Why? Because this movie is a hot mess all on its own without needing any further comparisons.

If I had to put my finger on Manhunter’s biggest problem, it would be that it is an 80’s movie. How 80’s you ask?

Yeah. Director Michael Mann is also known for a little show called Miami Vice so that explains the color choices. I really can’t fault anyone for that because it was the style at the time. What I can fault the movie for, however, is the music. Oh my god, the music. Someone on that crew figured out what a synthesizer was and just went NUTS on the soundtrack. It’s pretty awful. The worst scene is when Dollarhyde the serial killer, watches the girl he likes get back from a date with another man. As he sits in the car, his heart about to break, the most 80’s sounding song comes on and it completely ruins the moment. Totally inappropriate, just like the decision to use Prince on the Batman soundtrack.

Concerning the plot, I was surprised with how gritty Manhunter was. I remember reading the book a long time ago and really enjoyed it. The scenes where Graham imagines the dead women with mirrors in their eyes was creepy. I wouldn’t go so far to call it horror but it was unsettling, at least. The acting was pretty good, although Graham’s habit of always talking to himself was a little weird. I get the point that he was trying to understand the killer’s point of view but those scenes just seemed silly.

Wheeeeeeee!

Final review: 2/5.

Up Next: Nothing for a month. For some stupid reason, I’ve decided to try NaNoWriMo this year where I will be writing a novel in 30 days. See you guys in December!

1001 Movie Nights

Tag Archives: 2/5

#147- October (Ten Days that Shook the World)

#145- Four Weddings and a Funeral

#141- Up in Smoke

#137- Manhunter

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: