L' Homme à la tête en caoutchouc (1901)

In less than 5 years, the cinema had made a gigantic jump from the short "documentaries" of the early pioneers (Le Prince, Dickson and the Lumière brothers) to the amazing Cinemagic of french director Georges Méliès, who became one of the first filmmakers to focus entirely in making fiction movies. Ever since he watched a movie for the first time (as a member of the Lumières' first audience), Méliès was convinced of the enormous potential of the new invention as a form of entertainment, as as soon as he could he started to make his own films. By 1901, stage magician Georges Méliès had already 5 years of making films and experimenting with special effects, and his movies were well-known around the world as the finest films of his time. With his many discoveries in the field of special effects, Méliès was able of making films that looked like real magic, and his movies became more complex with time, and even more fascinating.

"L' Homme à la Tête en Caoutchouc" (literally, "The Man with the Rubber Head") is another one of Méliès' many "trick films", which were short movies that showed him making an impossible magical trick. In this movie, an alchemist (as usual, Méliès himself) is preparing a strange experiment in his laboratory. The alchemist puts an odd devise on a table, and connects it to his bizarre creation: a living copy of his own head (Méliès again) that stands over the table without a clue about what will happen to it. Using an air pump he connected to the head, the alchemist begins to blow, and the living head begins to increase its size as if it was a balloon made of rubber. The head reaches a gigantic size, but the alchemist decides to release the air from it as he fears the head may explode. Proud of his invention, the alchemist decides to show it to his assistant (quite probably played by his wife Jeanne d'Alcy, but this is not confirmed), but the assistant may not be as careful as he was.

As in many of his early shorts, this movie is a "gimmick film", in other words, a movie devised around a special effect in order to show it like a magician would make a trick. In this case, the movie combines an excellent use of multiple exposures and editing to create the two heads, and a remarkably creative use of zoom to create the illusion of a head increasing its size. While a quite simple trick to our modern standards, the effect achieved is one of Méliès' most amazing and better done special effects, making "The Man with the Rubber Head" one of the best "gimmick films" in the Cinemagician's career. However, this short is more than an excellent gimmick, as what makes "The Man with the Rubber Head" different from his earlier films (and the similar movies of his competitors) is the care Méliès put to create a "story" to his trick.

While in his first films he simply appeared as a magician doing his show, in this movie there is a set build for the scene (instead of a simple circus stage), and while simple, the movie is clearly set in the middle ages. This gives the movie a distinct atmosphere, and already shows the path that Méliès was taking at that stage in his career, as that very same year he would start making his now famous series of fantasy films, which would be far more complex than his "gimmick films". One can say that it was with in those movies where Méliès tested his craft before making his masterpieces like "Le Voyage Dans la lune" the following years.

8/10

The Evil Dead (1981)

If there really is a decisive factor in the making of a movie, without a doubt that would be creativity, because as in every art, on creativity depend the way the other available elements will be employed. For example, the way budget will be spent will depend on it, and therefore whether a desired effect for a scene will get done with what the budget allows. And while it could be assumed that creativity is an integral part of the film-making process, there are times when it seems as if literally there had not been any drop of creativity in the whole movie; but of course, there are also movies in which it's pretty noticeable that at the time it was done, a marvelous overdose of creativity filled the film's cast and crew. Sam Raimi's feature length debut, "The Evil Dead", is one of those movies. After nearly 4 years of shooting with limited budget, producer Robert Tapert, director Sam Raimi and actor Bruce Campbell created "The Ultimate Experience In Grueling Terror", still one of most influential horror films of all time.

"The Evil Dead" is the story of five friends, students at Michigan State University on a trip to a cabin in the woods for a weekend of nothing but fun. Everything seems to be going nice until they stumble upon a bizarre looking book and a tape recording while searching the basement of the cabin. Out of curiosity, they decide to play the tape, not knowing that this event will unleash powerful demonic horrors from the woods as the book happens to be a legendary black arts grimoire named The Book of the Dead, and the tape contains the incantation to resurrect demons. The forces of evil begin to terrify the youngsters, determined to kill them and possess their bodies. At first everyone is in disbelief, but after one of the girls, Cheryl (Ellen Sandweiss), is brutally attacked by the woods, her brother Ash (Bruce Campbell) and his best friend Scott (Richard DeManincor) begin to take the spirits more seriously. However, the night seems eternal and Cheryl is now possessed by the Evil.

Written by director Sam Raimi, "The Evil Dead" had its origin in "Within the Woods", a previous short film done by Rami (also with Tapert and Campbell) about students fighting demonic possession deep in the woods. In "The Evil Dead", Raimi keeps the same basic premise, but fleshes out the story with the addition of an interesting mythology centered around the quite Lovecraftian concept of the Book of the Dead (the sequels would reinforce this by naming the book as Lovecraft's "Necronomicon"), which opens the door to fantasy elements and allows Raimi to go wild with many imaginative concepts that result in making "The Evil Dead" more than the typical story about demonic possession. And while at its core the plot is truly simple (and the characters are also pretty basic), the movie's mix of horror and black comedy truly works, mainly because it never takes itself too seriously and always keeps a sense of self-awareness without becoming a parody of itself.

Now, while the story may not be the most complex or profound, the directing of the film is truly where the film shines the most, with Sam Raimi's highly inventive camera work using the camera to not only create the proper atmosphere, but as a character itself, making it the point of view of the unseen forces that lurk in the woods. Using this style, Raimi toys with suspense in great fashion, once again proving that sometimes "less is more". Nevertheless, "The Evil Dead" is not exactly a subtle horror film, as while the atmospheric camera work plays a big role in the movie's success, most of the film's charm really comes from its wild scenes of shock and gory horror. Tom Sullivan's impressive makeup is another of the film's highlights, as he made wonders with the shoestring budget the crew had to work with; and finally, the special effects by Bart Pierce (and Sam Raimi himself) are, while dodgy and somewhat poor, very well done for the budget and more important, in harmony with the non-serious tone of the film.

The acting isn't really anything special, and some would even say it's downright poor, but personally, I think it's not exactly bad, just plain average, in the sense that it just what's necessary to get the job done and nothing more. In his first time in role that would give him cult icon status, Bruce Campbell is very effective and gives one of the best performances in the film. Always with the tongue firmly in cheek, Campbell makes a good "hero" and it's no wonder that his cool yet sometimes silly Ash J. Williams would become a legendary character in the sequels. Ellen Sandweiss is also great as Cheryl, a character that has to endure a lot of what Raimi and company prepared for the film. The rest of the cast is probably less lucky, but actually not that bad. As Scott, Richard DeManincor has some good moments and while probably of a less shocking nature than Sandweiss' scenes, Betsy Baker and Theresa Tilly also made a good, albeit somewhat restrained job.

It's fair to point out that given the long production time the film had, many actors weren't available through most of the shooting (only Campbell was consistent), so many times someone else (among them Dorothy Tapert and Ted Raimi) would step into the role. While the acting may feel at times amateurish (it's perhaps the worst thing about the film), the cast always seems to be having fun, which I think it's something that helps the movie to keep that campy tone. Like the acting, the special effects aren't exactly top notch, but again, Raimi uses this to the film's advantage and just keeps everything very surreal, on a fantasy level that allows him to take this liberties. Drawing inspiration from many sources (zombie films, the Three Stooges, Lovecraft's books and Jack Woods' 1970's film "Equinox", among others), Raimi conceived a roller-coaster of horror and gore (and goo) that despite its many shortcomings, it's simply very entertaining, and I guess that in the end it's that what really counts.

I guess "The Evil Dead" is truly one of those cases when one either loves a film or completely hates it, but no matter how one feels about it, I think it's hard to deny that what Raimi, Tapert and Campbell (and their crew) pulled off with their very limited budget is nothing short of amazing, in the sense that with nothing more than their creativity and willpower, the three friends created a film that had more ideas than what's usually seen in independent horror (even today). "The Evil Dead" marked the beginning of Raimi's career, and while he became a major director thanks to the great commercial success of his "Spider-Man" films (20 years after unleashing the Evil in the woods), to many horror fans and aspiring filmmakers, his "Evil Dead" is still the proof that sometimes all a movie need is heart.

9/10

Buy "The Evil Dead" (1981)

Vampiro: Angel, Devil, Hero (2008)

Life in pro wrestling is tough, as even when the show has a heavy dose of melodrama and elements of performing arts, it's still a very demanding sport that can have several damaging (physically, mentally and emotionally) consequences for the wrestler, and not only because of the injuries the body receives during a match, but also because of the pressure of the business. And this is something that Ian Hodgkinson, better known as Vampiro, knows better than anyone. Hodgkinson, a young Canadian man with the dream of becoming a wrestler, decided to travel to Mexico in the late 80s to follow his dream, and suddenly he found himself being one of the country's biggest pro wrestling stars of all time thanks to his unusual style and looks. But after being a popular icon of Mexican wrestling, life would take "El Vampiro Canadiense" ("The Canadian Vampire") to experience more than one real life body-slam. And this is what Lee Demarbre's documentary, "Vampiro: Angel, Devil, Hero", attempts to capture.

In "Vampiro: Angel, Devil, Hero", Demarbre showcases the human being behind the Vampiro persona, following him in the European tour he made in preparation for the opening of his own company, "Revolution X"; and then remains close to him as Vampiro prepares the very first event his company is going to produce: a big match in Guadalajara, Mexico, the city he now calls home. At the same time, "Vampiro: Angel, Devil, Hero" explores Vampiro's past, including interviews with his family, friends and the people who has known him since his humble beginnings in Ontario, Canada. Revolving around this three main "storylines", the film uncovers the wrestler's atypical life, including the story of how a young Canadian man ended up being Mexico's biggest wrestling star in the early 90s. Finally, through the eyes of Ian Hodgkinson, "Vampiro: Angel, Devil, Hero" gives insight about the business and the life of pro wrestlers in general, which isn't always as fun as the show may lead one to believe.

An interesting feature of the film is that, while Demarbre's frequent collaborator Ian Driscoll worked as a writing consultant, there isn't any voice over to narrate what's going on other than Vampiro's musings as he leads the crew across his everyday life. Not even even when dealing with Vampiro's past Demarbre uses this resource, as he just lets Vampiro and his other interviewees narrate the story in their own words. This approach creates a more intimate look to the topic at hand, as through the stories one is able to discover Vampiro's different sides, offering a window to his mind without glamorizing him (although certain sentimentalism crawls into the picture at some points in the film). Demarbre makes a great job in bringing the real Ian Hodgkinson, the real Vampiro, to the screen, as even when he had not been able to avoid acting out a bit (as a natural performer like him would do), a real feeling of truth embodies the film most of the time, specially during the chronicle of "Revolution X"'s first event.

A consummated fan of Mexican wrestling (as one can notice in his wildly funny feature length debut, 2001's "Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter"), director Lee Demarbre manages to give the film that mystique that surrounds Mexican Lucha Libre; and while Vampiro isn't exactly the typical fighter of Mexican pro wrestling (his look and style are definitely different from the one of classic legends such as Santo or Blue Demon), the whole audiovisual style, including Michael Dubue's great score (mix of surf rock and Spaghetti Western music) and Petr Maur's art direction, is quite fitting. The leaps in chronology, while probably a tad confusing at first, are well handled, and serve to add variety and a sense of suspense to Vampiro's odyssey as an independent promoter. Demarbre's film-making has matured and grown a lot since his "Harry Knuckles" days, but this movie proves that he has kept that freshness and good humor that earned him a name in the independent film circuit.

Overall "Vampiro: Angel, Devil, Hero" is a remarkable documentary, but by no means is a perfect movie. Personally, I think that the film's biggest flaw is that despite consciously (and constantly) trying to avoid the romanticization or glamorization of Vampiro's life-story, at times it gets a bit too sentimental for its own sake. It could be that such thing it was unavoidable, given the hard times and difficulties Vampiro really has had (and still has) to overcome in his life, but still at times that bit of melodrama manages to creep into the film. Still, the way Demarbre keeps the most emotional elements for the last act really help to keep the balance of the film. Other than that, the movie is pretty much a very complete documentary about Ian Hodgkinson, "El Vampiro Canadiense", and the very unusual story of his life; as well as about the many difficulties wrestlers in general must face after their time at the top of their popularity has passed.

Gritty, hard, tough, but always with a good sense of humor (like Vampiro himself), Lee Demarbre's "Vampiro: Angel, Devil, Hero" is probably one of the best documentaries about pro wrestling ever done. While it offers a really inside look at the way matches are prepared and choreographed, it never loses the respect for the sport and the athletes that perform in it. Through the film, one ends up with the feeling of having met an old friend in Vampiro, which for a documentary about somebody's life is probably the main goal. So this angel, devil, hero really wins the match. Hopefully, future will be bright, not only for filmmaker Lee Demarbre, but for Vampiro as well.

8/10

Happy Birthday Hitch!

A day like today, 109 years ago, one of the my most favourite filmmakers of all time was born: Alfred Hitchcock, the one and only Master of Suspense. I remember vividly the first Hitchcock film I saw, "Psycho", his most popular movie. I was 14 years old and dissapointed with what cinema offered at the time, decided to give old movies a try and rent a few thatlooked interesting (or that I had previously read about them) for a weekend. My three choices for that weekend were Tod Browning's "Dracula", James Whale's "Frankenstein", and Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho". The Hitchcock film was the one I saw first and I was just hooked by the very beginning. The powerful musical intro by Bernard Herrmann together with Saul Brass' visuals was just unlike anything I had seen before. I had seen my fair share of old classics, but this was different. Maybe I had matured, but that was the first time I saw cinema as an artform, not just enterteinment. And the film was glorious. Still is. It's probably th emovie that I have seen the most times (saw it three times that first weekend. Now I see it religiously at least once every year).

I bought the film as soon as I had the chance. And kept hoping that one day I could see more of the Master's work. After "Psycho" and that powerful Universal Horror combo, I became a cinephile, and began the travel through the past, discovering and rediscovering cinema, as I saw it now under a new light. Movies I liked before now I loved even more, and some I liked were now dissapointing. But the magic could be present everywhere. Later, when DVD became more accesible, I saw the chance of finding more from Hitchcock and yes, with the release of his most famous American films by Universal and Warner Brothers, I finally was able to discover what was so mysterious about uncle Charlie, why was Guy Haines so afraid of Bruno Anthony, what was the meaning of the plane dusting crops, and how beautiful a woman named Grace can be. Despite his disdain for actors, Hitchcock introduced me to some wonderful one, such as the above mentioned Princes of Monaco, Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, Peter Lorre, Teresa Wright, Henry Fonda, and many, many more. I still have more films by him to watch (his early British period, but hopefully I'll watch them soon), and I'm sure the trip will be interesting.

In a way, my whole cinephilia exists thanks to the day I put the "Psycho" tape on my VHS. For that and more, today this humble blog remembers Sir Alfred Hitchcock, the Master of Suspense, who would be 109 years old if he was alive today. So like any respectable cinephile would do, I present now my list (oh, the lists!) of favourite films, by the legendary filmmaker:

5) "Psycho" (1960)

Even when the plot and twist is so deeply ingrained in our collective mind, it STILL is a powerful experience. With self imposed limits of budget and resources, Hitchcock proves that a low budget horror b-movie can be a masterpiece, with the proper directing. A landmark of horror (it played a key role in the developing of the slasher subgenre, as well as inspiring the filmmakers of the 60s and 70s), "Psycho" may not be really perfect (not even on its initial release), but it's so enjoyable that it feels perfect in every way.

4) "Strangers on a Train" (1951)

Two men meet on a trip by train and one comes up with a novel idea: one man will kill the other's "biggest problem", and since they are not related, it'll be a perfect crime. Suspense is the key here, as while one (Guy Haines, played by Farley Granger) of the two refuses the proposal, the other (Bruno Anthony, a marvelous Robert Walker) won't take a no for an answer, and so a battle of wits between the two begins, with Bruno Anthony haunting the Guy's world, and consuming every piece of it. And it all started with the meeting of two strangers on a train.

3) "Rope" (1948)

Hitchcock famous "one take" experiment is often labeled as a merely a gimmick (because of the film's concept of attempting to look as if no editing had been done, with everything in an apparent one long take), however, "Rope" is one marvelous film, gimmick or no gimmick. What I like the most is the dynamics between Dall, Granger and Stewart, and the subtle (ok, not so subtle) hints of homosexuality that Hitchcock managed to put in fron of the censors... and they didn't notice it.

2) "Shadow of a Doubt" (1943)

A dark story about the horrors at home in the story of the visit that the favourite uncle, Charlie, pays to a quite dysfunctional family. Everything looks fun, but as time goes by, the young daughter, also named Charlie (who idolizes her uncle), begins to suspect that her favourite uncle may actually be a serial killer. I love everythign about this, but most of all, it's gorgeaous Noir look, and the whole concept of horror entering a small town in order to corrupt it. And the whole suspicion thing, which just works perfectly. I must admit I fell in love with Teresa Wright in this one.

1) "Rear Window" (1954)

Probably the film that best captures the Hitchcock style of black comedy. Sure, he made "The Trouble with Harry" as a straighforward, in-your-face black comedy, but I feel that it is here where it works the best, as part of a bigger story, the story of a man paralyzed in his apartment, who begins to suspect that his neighborh has killed his wife. The whole thing about vouyerism is just marvelous, and well, what can I say about Jimmy Stewart and the beautiful Grace Kelly. Just perfect.

George Lucas in Love (1999)

Director George Lucas is without a doubt one of the most important filmmakers of the 70s, as while his body of work is often considered of lesser quality then the work of other members of his generation, it is by far the most influential in the field of science fiction thanks to the creation of "Star Wars", the epic saga of fantasy and sci-fi that changed the way people looked at sci-fi movies. With "Star Wars", Lucas created not only one of the most bankable franchises in history, but also a story that has inspired countless sci-fi aficionados across the world. Since "Star Wars" is nowadays a defining element of pop culture, it is not a surprise that it is often referenced in other works, sometimes as a homage, others as a parody, and sometimes as both. Joe Nussbaum's short film "George Lucas in Love", is probably among the best of the homages/parodies "Star Wars" has received across its history.

Set in 1967, "George Lucas in Love" is the fictional story about how Lucas created "Star Wars" during his last year as a student at USC. Lucas (Martin Hynes) is suffering from writer's block as he tries to shape his still unnamed space opera. Lucas has only three days to finish it or he won't graduate, but he is unable to begin writing as he can't make it work. He tries desperately to find inspiration in college, and even asks for advice to his odd professor (Patrick Kerr) but nothing seems to work, until he meets Marion (Lisa Jakub). Marion is a young girl (with a strangely familiar hairdo) who admires Lucas' previous shorts, and thinks that he is talented. Lucas finds his muse in Marion as she encourages him to write about what he feels and just follow his inspiration.

Written by Nussbaum himself along with Daniel Shere and Timothy Dowling, the film is of course a spoof on the premise of 1998 film "Shakespeare in Love", a movie detailing William Shakespeare struggle with writer's block. Filled with countless references to "Star Wars"' first film (as well as other works by Lucas), the screenplay is very well-developed for an 8 minutes short movie. While of course there are a couple of plot holes in the story, they are devised that way to be more funny references to Lucas' legendary space opera. The story unfolds nicely in its short time and always remains focused on its spoofed themes. Unlike most similar parodies, it never relays on cheap attacks and takes its subject with a very fresh intelligence.

It is worth to point out that director Joe Nussbaum shows his love for the "Star Wars" movies without being too respectful and staying true to his comedy roots. Working nicely with both visual gags and jokes referencing Lucas' biography (and future filmography), Nussbaum creates a very creative movie and showcases his very promising talent for comedy. He also knows the limitations of his medium, and exploits the joke to the most without making it boring or tiresome, and always keeping that light hearted approach that gives the movie a really appropriate touch of sweetness. True, the film shows some of the common problems of short films, but the movie shows that Nussbaum truly put a lot of work in this "calling card" that it's not a surprise to discover that he has started a career as director of comedies. To tell the truth, Nussbaum manage to do more in 8 short minutes than many filmmakers do in 90.

The cast if truly effective and one of the reasons the movie works so nicely. Martin Hynes is excellent as George, playing him as an intelligent writer, but lacking a bit in his social skills (without a doubt a play on the stereotype of "Star Wars" fans). Lisa Jakub is not only beautiful as Marion, but also adds a lot as one of the most experienced members among the cast. The rest of the cast appears briefly, but most tend to leave a lasting impression as not only the script allows them to shine, they truly make the most of their small roles. Particularly funny is Patrick Kerr (another of the experienced members of the cast), as Lucas' professor who may be the inspiration for a character famous for its odd way of speak.

"George Lucas in Love" is definitely not the work of a genius, but it's truly amazing when one considers it was conceived as a student film. Nussbaum finally began his professional career as a director in 2004 with the teen comedy "Sleepover". Story says that the success of this modest short film played a major part in he being hired by Dreamworks, and personally, I wouldn't be surprised if that were true, as this movie is definitely something special. Hopefully Nussbaum will deliver another comedy as good as this short, as "George Lucas in Love" seems to be only the beginning of a very promising career.

8/10

Mad Love (1935)

The legendary Karl Freund is definitely better known for his highly innovative work as director of photography, resulting in an extensive career (spanning across 5 decades) of beautiful and pioneering cinematography. With a body of work as impressive as his (ranging from Lang's "Metropolis" to TV's classic "I Love Lucy"), it is understandable that Freund's work as a director gets so easily forgotten. The fact that he only directed 10 films in his career also plays an important factor in this, however, at least 2 of his directorial efforts easily rank among the best horror movies ever made. The first one of the two (incidentally, his first work as a director in America), 1932's "The Mummy" is really the most popular, given that it is also one of the best performances by horror icon Boris Karloff; however, it is in the second one where Freund's talents really shine, making this last movie as a director his final masterpiece.

Loosely based on Maurice Renard's novel, "Les Mains d'Orlac" (literally, "The Hands of Orlac"), "Mad Love" is the story of Dr. Gogol (Peter Lorre), a brilliant surgeon deeply in love with a beautiful theater actress named Yvonne Orlac (Frances Drake). When season ends, Yvonne announces her retirement, and this prompts Gogol to finally meeting her. Unfortunately for Gogol, Yvonne tells him that she is actually married to concert pianist Stephen Orlac (Colin Clive). Saddened, Gogol leaves, but a bizarre turn of events will make him meet Yvonne one more time: Stephen has lost his hands in a terrible train accident and only Gogol's expertise will be able to save him. While he saves Stephen's hands, the operation begins to have serious side-effects, not only in Orlac, but also in Gogol.

While the screenplay was written by P.J. Wolfson, John L. Balderston and the usual assortment of contributing writers, the movie is mostly the work of Guy Endore and Florence Crewe-Jones, who made the adaptation from the French novel. Endore was a regular writer for MGM at the time, and helped to write other MGM's horrors like "Mark of the Vampire", "The Raven" and "The Devil-Doll"; it is his style, mix of Gothic and pulp novel what flows through the movie, although he remains true to the essence of Renard's classic horror novel. Renard is often credited as being the "inventor" of the Mad Scientist archetype, and truly gives a great use to it in his novel; appropriately, "Mad Love" keeps this psychological drama between characters and brings it to life, spending considerable time detailing the characters and their relationships, building up the necessary tension for the grandiose finale.

After directing several melodramas and comedies in a row, "Mad Love" allowed Freund to once again return to his expressionist roots and create a haunting tale of horror and madness in almost the same vein as his earlier classic, "The Mummy". Unlike what would be expected of a cinematographer, Freund dedicates as much attention to the non-visual aspects of the film as he does for the visual imagery, playing with the many different elements that form the bizarre love triangle of the film. The story itself focuses a lot in psychological themes, ranging from neurosis and hysteria, to compulsive obsession and dangerous psychosis; Freund makes great use of this themes across the movie, although it is obvious that he prefers the character of Dr. Gogol to the other protagonists of the film. Like Im-Ho-Tep the mummy, Dr. Gogol is driven by the mad love he feels for a woman, but unlike with the mummy, Freund makes sure to never fully transform Gogol into a monster, making him very human and frighteningly realist.

Peter Lorre's acting is essential for this last element in Gogol's persona, and he delivers one of this most amazing performances in his career. While lesser known than his characters in "M" or in "The Maltese Falcon", Dr. Gogol is certainly an iconic Lorre character that truly showcases Lorre's versatile talent. Frances Drake is surprisingly great, showing great emotion and excellent domain of the scene, giving her best to avoid being overshadowed by Lorre in their scenes together. Colin Clive, who would become famous as Dr. Victor Frankenstein in James Whale's films, delivers a truly effective performance as Orlac, but I found that Freund seems definitely much more interested in Dr. Gogol and his antics than in the pianist's neurosis, leaving few space to Orlac's growing insanity. Still, Clive does a very good performance despite the limited screen time his character receives when compared to Gogol.

It is probably this last point what truly stops this movie from being a classic of horror, as with a runtime of barely 68 minutes, it feels too short and gives the feeling that something was missing (perhaps a few more scenes with Colin Clive) in this psychological thriller. It's not really a big flaw in the end, but I truly was expecting to see the wonderful story being explored a bit more, as personally I felt it somewhat incomplete. On a different business, and as expected in a film by Karl Freund, the cinematography is simply brilliant, Chester A. Lyons and Freund's protegé, Gregg Toland (who would become a legend on his own), are in charge of it and devise one of the most beautifully looking horror of the 30s, easily on par with Freund's job for Universal.

It's a shame that studios were more interested in Freund's work as a cinematographer than as a director, because "Mad Love" proves that there he truly had talent as a consumated filmmaker too. Who knows what would had Freund directed after this movie, specially considering the great improvements in cinematography he went on devising through his long and successful career (his work on the popular TV-series "I Love Lucy", creating the simultaneous three-camera way of shooting, revolutionized Television and still is the de facto standard for sitcoms). As it is, "Mad Love" is the final statement of a master who simply wasn't allowed to make more films (although who knows, probably he wasn't interested in directing), but it is nice to see him retiring with a top notch masterpiece.

9/10
-------------------------------

Dial M for Murder (1954)

After earning an Academy award nomination for her performance in John Ford's 1953 tale of romance and adventure, "Mogambo", the beautiful actress Grace Kelly proved that she was way more than just a pretty face and that there was real talent behind her image. However, what truly took her career to new levels were three now classic films she made directed by the legendary Master of Suspense, Alfred Hitchcock. Under his direction, Kelly made an integral part of the Master's films, becoming the perfect embodiment of Hitchcock's idea of a female protagonist. While Kelly debuted two years earlier in the classic Western "High Noon", one could say that it was Hitchcock who really introduced the beauty and talent of Grace Kelly to the world. "Dial M for Murder" was the first of Hitchcock's films with Kelly, and a movie where once again the Master returns to a familiar theme: the perfect murder.

The movie is the story of Tony Wendice (Ray Milland), a former tennis player married to the beautiful and wealthy Margot (Grace Kelly) and living in an nice apartment in London. Life is good for Tony, until he discovers that his wife is cheating on him with an old flame of her, famous crime novel writer Mark Halliday (Robert Cummings). After that discovery, Tony spends a whole years plotting the perfect way to murder his wife in order to inherit her money, carefully planning every detail of the crime. When Mark visits London again, Tony finds the perfect chance to set his plan in motion, and as planned, he recruits Charles Swann (Anthony Dawson) to kill his wife. However, bad luck and a sudden change of events will test Tony's plan's infallibility as, just as Mark points out, human action can originate flaws even in the most perfectly devised plan.

Like most Hitchcock's films, "Dial M for Murder" was an adaptation of another art-form, this time a popular play by Frederick Knott. As Knott was also the writer of the screenplay, the movie remains extremely faithful to the play, although of course, not without its differences. Knott's script is wonderfully constructed, as like in the play, the dialog is witty and simply captivating, with many twists and turns that spiced up the complex plot and keep it from being boring or tiresome. An interesting feature of the movie is that oddly, there are no black and white morality in the characters, and it's easy not only to sympathize with Margot (despite she being cheating on her husband) but also to sympathize with Tony (despite he wanting to kill his wife), as the characters are wonderfully developed with very detailed personalities.

It seems that Hitchcock's knows that the dialog is the highlight of the play, as he deliberately focuses on his actors and uses an elegant camera-work to frame the whole movie inside the apartment. The movie literally is shot entirely in one single room (only two other sets are used, and only briefly), but Hitchcock's classy way of using the camera allow a highly dynamic flow that never lets the movie be tiresome. This is also very helpful as Hitchcock just lets his characters keep speaking, carefully describing actions and events (when other directors would use flashbacks) in a similar way to a what the real play would be. While this approach could easily get boring, Hitchcock's use of colors and overall visual imagery simply creates the perfect medium to allow Knott's dialog to shine.

Without disrespecting John Ford or Fred Zinnemann, I think that it was Hitchcock who finally could allow Kelly's talent to shine beyond her physical beauty. Grace Kelly makes her character shine with her subtle and restrained performance, specially showing her skill in the second half of the film. While often Kelly receives top honors in this movie, it is actually Ray Milland who makes the whole movie work with his suave and charming "villian". Milland's performance is simply terrific, making his character nice enough to win the sympathies of the audience, yet still frighteningly intelligent as the mastermind of the plot. John Williams appears as the Inspector in charge to solve the complex puzzle, and delivers a classic performance as the Enlgish gentleman decided to find the final answer. Only Robert Cummings seems miscast as Mark Halliday, although a lot of his weak performance could be blamed to Milland, Kelly and Williams overshadowing him with their excellent work.

In many ways, "Dial M for Murder" shares many things with "Rope", as not only the two films are based on successful plays, they are also about committing the perfect murder and oddly, they are both "experiments": while "Rope" was conceived as a "movie in one take", "Dial M for Murder" was done as 3-D movie. Sadly, the interest in 3-D was dying when the film was released, so few theaters carried the movie complete with the gimmick; a real shame, as Hitchcock's use of the technology, unlike most 3-D films of its time, was conceived as a way to enhance the claustrophobia of the Wendices' apartment instead of using it to merely shock the audience with "stuff coming out of the screen" (as seen in for example, "House of Wax"). While not too fond of the gimmick, Hitchcock truly gave it a good and intelligent (albeit subtle) use to it.

"Dial M for Murder" is probably less celebrated than the Master's most famous movies, the fact that it came out the same years as "Rear Window" (again with Grace Kelly) may have had something to do with it too. While a subtler and more restrained tale of suspense, this is still the Master at his best, as the movie proves that when he was at the top of his game, no other director was comparable to him.

9/10

Buy "Dial M for Murder" (1954)

Kumonosu jô (1957)

Director Akira Kurosawa, without a doubt Japan's most famous director in the Western world, had an enormous influence from English language's best playwright, William Shakespeare, to the extent of making adaptations of Shakespeare's plays. However, unlike most adaptations of the Bard's works, Kurosawa's versions blended the plots with his many other influences resulting in very original stories that while Shakespearean at heart, were also very Japanese. Movies like "Ran" and "Warui Yatsu Hodo Yoku Nemuru" ("The Bad sleep Well") are examples of the results of this mixtures of influences, where the plot is deeply rooted the play, but with the rich Japanese culture filling the screen. Like those two, "Kumonosu Jô" (known in English as "Throne of Blood"), is technically Kurosawa's very own interpretation of "Macbeth", but like the other examples, it is more than a mere adaptation of Shakespeare's play and actually takes the story to a new level by adding elements of Japanese Noh theater.

"Kumonosu Jô" means literally "Cobweb Castle", and that is the place where two brave generals, Taketori Washizu (Toshirô Mifune) and Yoshiteru Miki (Akira Kubo) are heading to after defeating the enemies of their Lord. In their way to the castle, during a dark foggy night, they meet a mysterious old woman (Chieko Naniwa) who presents herself as a powerful spirit. The spirit foresees their future, revealing them that Washizu will be Lord of "Cobweb castle", and that Miki's son will be his successor, but before that, they'll receive great honors from the Castle's current Lord. After they arrive to Cobweb Castle, the first part of the prophecy fulfills as both are highly honored, and this triggers the ambition of Washizu's wife, Lady Asaji (Isuzu Yamada), who in turn convinces Washizu to betray his Lord in order to fulfill the second part of the prophecy. The ambitious Washizu obeys and soon finds himself Lord of Cobweb castle, but fearful of the unfulfilled final part of the prophecy.

While certainly there is more than a little resemblance to "Macbeth" in the plot, the similarities remain only in the basic plot structure, as the story of "Kumonosu Jô" (Written by Kurosawa and his regular collaborators Shinobu Hashimoto, Ryuzo Kikushima and Hideo Oguni) has more changes than the simply translation from Medieval setting to Feudal Japan; in fact, "Kumonosu Jô" works more like a Noh drama put on screen than as a straight forward Shakespeare adaptation. This is not to say that the immortal theme of uncontrolled ambition is lost in the script, but here it takes a very different approach (with Lady Asaji being far more intelligent and cold blooded than Lady Macbeth), and with the element of fate being of bigger importance due to the setting of the story and the cultural differences.

The elements of Noh theater are more prominent in the visual conception of the movie, as director Akira Kurosawa takes the highly stylized atmosphere of Noh drama and translate it to film. This atmosphere includes not only the slow graceful moves of the characters and the equally slow pace of the movie, but also in the gestures, the music and the overall atmosphere of the film. As always, regular collaborator Asakazu Nakai is in charge of the cinematography of the film, creating this atmosphere of desolation and impeding doom with an excellent use of the forest, the birds and the fog. Using Nakai's beautiful work Kurosawa literally creates poetry with his images, and while far from faithful to Shakespeare, he creates one of the most powerful versions of "Macbeth" ever done. The finale, while appropriately different from the play's ending, is simply a glorious example of both Kurosawa, Nakai and Mifune's work.

No review of "Kumonosu Jô" would be complete without talking about the superb acting by Toshirô Mifune and Isuzu Yamada. As Washizu, Mifune shows his vast range as an actor by playing a considerably different character than his previous samurai warriors. Washizu is a man whose ambition is only equaled by his loyalty to his Lord, so the inner conflict in this character after he is finally convinced to fulfill his destiny is what drives the movie. Mifune is simply excellent in his portrayal of a man whose ambition is driven by fate, and consumed by guilt. However, while Mifune definitely gives one of his best performances in his career, Isuzu Yamada is the one who completely steals the movie as Lady Asaji. Her performance is simply breathtaking and of an almost supernatural quality. She is definitely the highlight of the film and it is not a surprise that this is her most celebrated performance on film.

"Kumonosu Jô", or "Throne of Blood", is a remarkable achievement by Kurosawa, and one of the best Japanese dramas of the 50s. However, its fame as a "Macbeth" adaptation may give the false impression that it's a faithful translation. People expecting an exact Japanese "Macbeth" will be sorely disappointed, as while the stories are similar, the explored themes are a bit too different for purists. In the same vein, fans expecting another samurai epic like "Shichinin no samurai" (done 3 years earlier) will definitely be disappointed as the movie is more drama than samurai action. The Noh drama style of the film may be probably hard to get at first, as its stylish method of storytelling may look a bit too slow to modern audiences. However, once the movie starts it's easy to get used to it and personally, I don't see a better way to tell Washizu's story than this.

In his country, Kurosawa was often criticized for being "too Western" for Japanese audiences after the worldwide success of "Rashômon" and "Shichinin no samurai"; however, "Kumonosu Jô" is an example of Kurosawa making a very Japanese film that despite having its roots in an English play, it's very accurate in its portrait of the Japanese Feudal culture. "Throne of Blood" is definitely a must-see and a remarkable classic.

9/10

Buy "Kumonosu jô" (1957)

The Dark Knight (2008)

Ever since its creation in 1939 by Bob Kane and Bill Finger, the character of Batman became one of the most popular comic book superheroes ever created and, along Superman, the medium' biggest icon (to the point that he can be recognized merely by his silhouette). Naturally, Batman transcended the comic books and is now a major figure of modern pop culture, with multiple adaptations of his adventures to radio, TV and of course film. 45 years after Batman's debut on film (in a serial by Columbia Pictures), Batman returned to the silver screen in Tim Burton's "Batman". The film spawned three sequels, in which the tone set by Burton changed as the director's seat went to Joel Schumacher. Since the series seemed to go nowhere, a reboot of the franchise took place in 2005 with "Batman Begins", starring Christian Bale as Batman and Christopher Nolan directing the film. 3 years later, Nolan and his Batman are back, this time to introduce Batman's eternal enemy to the franchise: the Joker.

In this sequel, millionaire Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) continues his crusade against Gotham city's crime lords under the identity of the masked vigilante Batman. Now, a mysterious man who wears clown makeup and calls himself The Joker (Heath Ledger) begins a series of crimes through the city, but while at first Batman dismisses the newly arrived criminal, he soon changes his mind when the Joker wins the trust of the local mobsters and begins to terrorize Gotham. The psychotic clown soon proves to be more than a normal bank robber, taking everyone by surprise, including the city's new District Attorney, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), who sees in the Joker a threat to his attempt of stopping the mobster's activity. With this common goal, Dent and Batman begin an uneasy alliance, which gets far more complicated as Dent has been dating Wayne's old flame, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal). The conflict between Dent, Batman and The Joker will have serious consequences in the Dark Knight's life.

Based on a story by David S. Goyer and director Christopher Nolan, the screenplay (by Nolan himself and his brother Jonathan) is definitely one of the strongest elements of the movie, as "The Dark Knight" takes Batman back to its crime fiction roots in a carefully constructed story that showcases not only the epic physical and psychological showdown between Batman and the Joker, but also the tortuous and destructive state of unrest that the murderous clown brings to those decided to capture him, specially its crucial effects in Harvey Dent's life. While still a comic book film filled with explosive action scenes, "The Dark Knight" is more a character study than a tale of adventures, as it explores the psychology of its characters like few films of its kind have done in the past. Filled with constant twists and turns as Batman tries to figure out the Joker's next move, "The Dark Knight" is a story truly captures the essence of Batman by being a police procedural movie taken to the extreme.

And as a director, Christopher Nolan also follows that crime thriller route as well and so, instead of delivering a typical action film he keeps things subtle and lets the screenplay flow as its complex characters take over the scene. This is not to say that there isn't action scenes in the film, there are a couple that really show Nolan has finally learned how to craft visually engaging action scenes (something "Batman Begins" lacked, in my opinion), but while there are several amazing scenes, he never lets action to overrule the characters and the focus is always on the psychological side of the things. With cinematographer Wally Pfister and composers James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer by his side, Nolan creates a gritty portrait of Gotham city that while probably lacking the visual majesty of previous incarnations, the city feels like another character that perfectly reflects the psychology of its inhabitants and the anarchic state of terror that the Joker's actions and crime as a whole have created.

The Nolans' screenplay is truly a gem filled with great and complex characters, and fortunately the cast took great advantage of this in their performances, as most are of excellent quality. Heath Ledger's much touted performance as the Joker is certainly wonderful and truly lives up to its hype, mixing all the previous incarnations of the psychotic character (from comics, film and TV) into one and becoming what's probably the ultimate portrait of the Joker in any medium. However, I feel the true star of the show is Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent, whose character faces the most development in the film and Eckhart shines as Dent at both his best times and his harsh times, and I must say it's awesome what he does considering his character lacks the visual flair that both Batman and the Joker have. Speaking of Batman, Christian Bale offers a more mature dark knight this time, although now he faces the same problem that Michael Keaton had: his hero is easily overshadowed by the villains.

This last thing is something that was heavily criticized in the Burton films, the fact that Batman wasn't as interesting as his villains, but I guess it's something difficult to avoid with characters like the Joker. The rest of the cast is also remarkable, with Michael Caine stealing every scene he is in, Morgan Freeman being quite effective as Lucius Fox, and Gary Oldman delivering a subtle, yet quite moving performance as Lt. Gordon. Maggie Gyllenhaal takes the role Katie Holmes played in "Batman Begins" and gives it a presence that Holmes lacked in the first movie. Overall the cast is remarkable, and is the icing of the cake in a movie that literally has everything to become a classic of its genre in the future, because while "The Dark Knight" may lack that visual grandiosity of other superhero films, it has an engaging story that's clever, intriguing and showcases its characters in a way that only comics had been done in the past, and to better yet, it's a movie that everyone (not only comic book fans) can enjoy.

Among the many superheroes of comic book history, Batman has been one who has suffered the most diverse interpretations through the years (from Noir fiction to camp classic to Gothic nightmare and back), and that's because the characters persona and myths really work well for writers wanting to pose exciting and interesting ideas through him. Christopher Nolan's vision is no exception, as there are quite a lot of good themes explored in it. Powerful, brutal, and insanely clever, "The Dark Knight" is a wonderful experience that's easily one of the best crime thrillers done in the decade. It truly is what Batman was supposed to be.

9/10

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)

"Notre-Dame De Paris", known in English as "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", is definitely one of the most popular French novels of all time. Written by Victor Hugo, this Gothic tragedy explores many of his favorite themes, including social injustices and romantic idealism. However, the element that is nowadays the most famous trait of the novel, is without a doubt the character of Quasimodo, and the mistreatment he suffers due to his horrible deformities. While Hugo didn't intend this to be the main theme of the novel, the enormous appealing of Quasimodo quickly turned him into the iconic representation of good nature under a monstrous face, and so it is not a surprise that this is also the angle taken by the film adaptations of the novel. In this the first movie version of the immortal novel, the classic role of Quasimodo is performed in film for the first time by another legend, "The Man of a Thousand Faces", Lon Chaney Sr.

Set in the 15th Century, the movie starts as just another day in the simple life of Quasimodo (Lon Chaney), the bell-ringer of the famous Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris who has spend most of his life inside the Cathedral because most people fear his gruesome deformity. Under the care of archdeacon Claude Frollo (Nigel De Brulier), Quasimodo has lived a good, albeit lonely life; however, this is about to change when the archdeacon's brother Jehad (Brandon Hurst), orders Quasimodo to help him to kidnap a young gypsy girl named Esmeralda (Patsy Ruth Miller) that he wants for himself. Jehad's plan fails as Phoebus (Norman Kerry), Captain of the Guards, rescues Esmeralda and takes Quasimodo to prison, however, this will be only the beginning of the tragedy that will unfold under the shadow of the Cathedral of Notre Dame.

Adapted by Edward T. Lowe Jr. and Perley Poore Sheehan, the story is really a good adaptation that remains true to the novel's themes of human tragedy despite the fact that the story was significantly simplified. While the focus is certainly on Quasimodo (and he is indeed made a more prominent and sympathetic figure), the screenplay remains an epic tragedy about life and death in Paris, and takes its time to introduce and develop every character, surprisingly including many of the novel's subplots that became forgotten in subsequent versions of the story. The story unfolds nicely and with a good pace, slowly introducing us to the universe of this characters and carefully setting the basis for the climatic finale of the tragedy. Interestingly, despite the changes done to the story, the movie keeps the dark depressing tone of Hugo's Gothic classic.

Wallace Worsley may not be a director known for his personal style (the fact that most of his work is lost doesn't help), but he takes on this monumental project with courage and makes this epic tale work nicely. While Worsley was not the first choice to direct the movie, he already had directed Chaney in four movies before this one (including the classic "The Penalty"), so being already familiar with Chaney's method of work, Worsley could let him do his thing while he focused on the difficult organization of the complex project. With a cast of thousands and enormous sets, Worsley makes 15th Century Paris to come alive once again and, just like Victor Hugo would wanted, the Cathedral of Notre Dame is made another character of the story thanks to the beautiful cinematography that gives an ominous atmosphere to the building.

Lon Chaney is without a doubt the star and highlight of the movie, delivering one of the best performances as Quasimodo (second only to Charles Laughton), and creating one of his most amazing works of make-up. Proving why he is called "The Man of a Thousand Faces", Chaney makes a gruesome, yet very expressive "monster" that truly conveys the nature of the almost silent character. Patsy Ruth Miller is very effective as Esmeralda, and nicely avoids exaggerated gestures in her dramatic scenes; something that sadly can't be said about Norman Kerry as Phoebus, although being fair, his character is not as developed as the rest. Brandon Hurst is simply amazing, and sometimes even manages to overshadow the enormous Chaney, with a remarkably wicked portrayal of evil in his performance as Jehad. Truly another of the film's highlights.

"The Hunchback of Notre Dame" was Universal's most successful film of 1923, and honestly, it's not hard to tell why. Not only Lon Chaney's magnificent performance as Chaney (as well as his outstanding work of make-up) is a true highlight of the film, the lavish sets built for the movie are definitely one of the most amazing works done in silent films, with the reconstruction of Notre Dame's Western facade being extremely detailed and actually very accurate. One would think that given the attention payed to the technical aspects of the film, the performances of the actors were unimportant, but thankfully this is not the case, as Chaney and company proved to be up to the challenge in this movie. As a side note, among the many assistant directors who helped Worsley in this project, there was a young man named William Wyler receiving his first work in the movie industry.

Depsite its flaws, this first version of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" remains as one of the best movies of the silent era, and one of the best versions of Victor Hugo's classic. It's probably a bit dated by now, but it still retains the beauty and monumental power of its initial release. Inaugurating the horror genre for Universal Films, this epic tragedy proudly ranks as a classic of the genre and of cinema in general.

8/10

Buy "The Hunchback Of Notre Dame" (1923) - Remastered Edition

Watch "The Hunchback Of Notre Dame" (1923) - Public domain edition