Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) directed by Matthew Vaughn

Kingsman: The Golden Circle was a long-awaited sequel for me, as the first in the franchise, Kingsman: The Secret Service, is one of my favorite action films of all time. The Secret Service was witty, fast-paced, visually gorgeous, and full of some of the best action sequences of all time. The Golden Circle, even though living up to the hype, did not meet all of my expectations that were set by the first film. This film is not by any means bad, it is a wonderfully well-done sequel, but that is just it: it is a sequel. Even though it did not meet the standards set by its predecessor, it has proven to be a worthy addition to this Matthew Vaughn cinematic universe.

This film had so many wonderful aspects that are trademark of Matthew Vaughn's style of filmmaking. While it still contained the long-shot style of action sequences, it was definitely more focused on character development and world-building than the first in the series. This was very good, though, because while The Secret Service was an amazing film, it did not do much for building character except for the main character Eggsy. The Golden Circle did a lot for not just Eggsy, but a lot of the other supporting characters as well, and I very much appreciated that. While we saw the return of Colin Firth's character Harry, we also got even more of Mark Strong's Merlin, who ended up being one of my favorite parts of this film. Some new additions that were very well done were Julianne Moore's villain character Poppy and Pedro Pascal's secretly-villainous character Whiskey. These were some of the strongest performances throughout, and contributed very well to the tone set by the first of these films. Last but not least, the action sequences. The infamous church scene in the first film has been glorified as one of the most extraordinary displays of action and violence in a film, but the sequel did not exactly meet those standards. That is the first of one of the multiple issues surrounding this film.

This film, like many sequels, has its share of problems. The first would be surrounding the plot of the film. First off, let me just get out of my system how UPSET I am about the death of Roxy and JB in the first act of the film. Not only did they get rid of the most important character in any film, the dog, but they also nonchalantly exterminated the only character who actually passed the Kingsman test. This made me so sad because there was so much potential for Roxy's character and her relationship development with Eggsy and Merlin, but I guess we don't always get what we want. As for other characters that I was disappointed with, I really wish that we could have seen more of Channing Tatum's Tequila. He was so hyped up in the previews and marketing, I thought that he would have a much better role. Instead, they drugged him with the villain's evil serum and he wasn't seen until the end of the film. This was kind of disappointing because I was very excited to see him and his role as a Statesman.

As far as action scenes go, this film did not live up to the first or have as many memorable scenes. The very first scene was very contained and repetitive, and did not have much effect on me since I knew Eggsy would be fine. The only two scenes that really stuck out to me as original were the snow lift and final fight scenes. The winter aspect of the film was what made it so visually interesting this time around, but I felt they could have done more instead of watching Pedro Pascal's Whiskey do all of the dirty work. And speaking of Whiskey, the very final fight against him was done very well and was very catchy to a country version of "Word Up!" by Cameo. These were the only action scenes that were memorable in any sort, but they still desperately tried to live up to the church scene from the first film, to no success. My last main problem with this film was the overall plot. While there were a few strange plot lines that could have been handled better (Harry's return, Eggsy's relationship with the Princess, etc.), the main arc with Julianne Moore's Poppy was not original in the slightest. It was almost a carbon copy of the plot from the first film: a maniac with childlike and playful tendencies convinces world leaders that they have a solution to a bigger problem and uses an everyday tool to put their global plan in motion. This applies to both films very well, and while it worked for the first, it provided nothing new for the second. This disappointed me, because I was expecting a lot more, especially from Matthew Vaughn. The lack of original story was almost made up for, however, by Elton John's performance. I thought he was going to be just a mere cameo, but his actually critical presence in the film was hilarious and fabulous.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a worthy successor to the first film, but nothing more than that. It was not an extraordinary film by any standards, but I would say that it lived up to the hype and advertising from the past few months. If you were a fan of the first film, I would definitely recommend seeing this one as it absolutely adds to the amazing world of the Kingsman.

My Review: ★★★★

The Searchers (1956) directed by John Ford

AFI Top 100: #12

Alright, I'm going to make this one short and sweet, because I don't want to have to spend any more time writing about a western than I have to. To be quite frank, I really really really do not like westerns. To put this into perspective: my favorite western is a toss-up between Blazing Saddles (making fun of the genre) and Cowboys and Aliens (what's not to love?). I understand that they are as much a critical part of film history as anything else, but I simply do not see the appeal of them at all. So you can assume how well this review of The Searchers is going to go.

For starters, which one is John Wayne? My parents have always been western film and country music fans as I grew up, but I was always the one to go in another room and watch Toy Story 2 or the Spongebob Squarepants Movie for the thousandth time. Even if I did stomach my way through an entire western, I would be falling in and out of sleep constantly. I guess this might not have been the best for preparing me to watch western films, but that did not change my opinion on them. I ask who John Wayne is because as recognizable as a name as it is, all of the characters and set design look the exact same. You could show me a clip from this movie, tell me that it was The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly and hell, I wouldn't know the difference. My main problem with the western genre is that it is all so similar, not just in set design and costuming, but in plot as well. They all wear the same cowboy hats, they all have a farmstead in the middle of absolutely nowhere, and they all are racist towards anyone who isn't a Christ-loving Caucasian. It's all the same, and I feel like it always will be.

One of the most prevalent (and irritating) tropes in the western genre would have to be the rivalries against the Native-Americans. And this film did not want to break that tradition, of course. That would be ridiculous. Why create your own original plot line and have well-developed characters when you could just throw some "Indians" in the mix for the main characters to kill? And the fact that John Wayne's character was a Confederate war veteran returning home did not help. I understand that his two nieces were kidnapped by the tribe that was nearby, but why does it always have to be them? I bet you there were clans of white people who were just as worse, probably even more so. And don't even bring up the horrendous ending line, as John Wayne said "Debbie, let's go home" as they quite literally rode off into the sunset. Overall, these stereotypes should not be the most prominent part of a film, but since it was released in the 1950's, it is understandable as to why this film did so well. Thanks, racist '50's!

The only partially good part about this film would be the editing and shot types in a few different scenes. There was an eye-catching motif from the perspective of looking through caves and around corners which was interesting to see. There was also some very good usage of walls and moving cameras in many scenes of the house, which was good for the world-building of it all. I could go off on not just The Searchers, but all westerns, but I'd rather not waste my time and energy. Unless you are a die-hard fan of John Wayne-era excuses for film, then I would not recommend it.

My Rating: ★

Scarface (1932) directed by Howard Hawks

"Say hello to my little friend." That's the line that the majority of people imagine when they hear of Scarface. However, that line wasn't popularized until the Al Pacino remake of 1983. The original Scarface, released in 1932, is a classic tale of gang violence and criminals pre-Depression era Chicago. While this film has a basic plot and decent acting for its time, there are some strange undertones throughout the film that left me very uncomfortable and confused. This was not the entirety of the film, thank God, but overall was a decent classic.

As for the plot and acting of the film, they were both nothing extraordinary. While Tony, or Scarface, tries to balance his family life with his criminal career, things end up taking wrong turns and flipping his world upside down. Now this may have been innovative for its time, because the first motion picture with audio was released in 1927 (The Jazz Singer). Since sound in film was relatively new, there were a lot more opportunities for plot development  and new ideas for the time. So granted, this story paved the way for a lot of the films that followed, but to the average viewer, it may not seem very interesting. The acting throughout the film was pretty good, as Tony (Paul Muni) and his sister Cesca (Ann Dvorak) led the show. Their relationship was definitely the most prominent character aspect of the film, and was displayed very well. However, I did have some small issues with their relationship. I understand that times were a LOT different back in 1932, but I felt some very strange incestuous undertones in their scenes together. Tony seemed to act very violent against her for going to parties without his permission and wearing clothes that he deemed unacceptable. This, of course, would not bode well if this film was released today. That was not the strangest part, however. I felt very uncomfortable watching Tony kiss the back of his sister's neck and hold her in ways that lovers might do. This suggested Tony was a bit of a creep, and I do not think that even in the 1930's that would be the norm.

Even though the film had some strange out-of-character traits and suggestive themes, it was very innovative in its use of motifs and shooting. For example, the very first shot of the film was a continuous long shot, one that is used for emphasis in film. This showed how impressive the film's set was and how the actors could pull off such a shot. This was very impressive, and is a milestone in shooting that has been used in other classic films like Citizen Kane (ugghhh). Another part of Scarface that I did not notice until reading about it in an article was the "X" motif. If you watch closely, there is always an X nearby or in the shot when someone in the film is killed or about to be killed. This was impressive, especially incorporating the X's into the different shots. My personal favorites included the bowling alley scene, where a gangster makes a strike and has an X marked on his scorecard, and when Cesca is walking out of the party wearing her dress that forms an X with the straps on the back. Re-watching some of these scenes was very helpful, and really boosted my appreciation for Hawks' film.

Even though there was some questionable material throughout the film, Scarface has proven to hold up against other worse black-and-white films of its time. Its generic plot and good acting paved the way for even better projects to appear. This film used multiple terrific techniques that were revolutionary for its time, and is necessary for anyone studying film history to see.

My Rating: ★★★½

It (2017) directed by Andy Muschietti

Not very many Stephen King adaptations end up being very good, to be quite frank. There's the classic The Shining, The Green Mile, and Cujo, but there are also many that are mediocre and easily forgettable: The Dark Tower, Mr. Mercedes and Pet Sematary. While It was made into a mini-series back in 1990, it still does not compare to this film. 2017's It is an absolute masterpiece of a horror film, and provides everything a King fan may ever want or need.

The plot of this film was perfect, especially for today's climate of Hollywood movies, because it reintroduced an aspect of horror that has always been put aside for other scarier things, such as demons or zombies. Clowns! Clowns have almost been forgotten in film as being terrifying, but I think that this film definitely brought that fear back to the forefront of terror. Especially having casted such a devious face for Pennywise the Clown (Bill Skarsgård). This film followed the novel so well, even better than the original 90's series, and truly brought fear into my heart. I do not get scared by movies very easily, as I tend to find all of the flaws in them and end up predicting the ending very quickly into the film. This movie did the opposite, however, and I was quite literally sitting on the edge of my seat the entire time. There have only been a few films that have had this same effect on me, including Get Out and The Cabin in the Woods. It, however, joins these ranks among these films and really terrified me. With multiple jump scares and general anxiety-inducing scenes, the movie keeps you on edge all the way throughout.

The performances and tone of the film was done very well. All of the child actors were brilliant in their roles and I can absolutely see big futures for them to come. Since the film was done with child actors, I feel like there can not be too much suspense and terror, but also has to have a sense of childishness and loss of innocence. This film handled that so well, as it had its nostalgic childhood feels as well as the horror that each child carried with them. In my opinion, this was handled the best in the character of Richie Tozier, played by Finn Wolfhard (formerly of Stranger Things). He provided the main humor and adult comedy throughout the film, and brought light to even the darkest scenes of the movie. His reputation as the wise-cracking smart-ass of the group fit him very well, and it made some of the other children's dark performances bearable. This film's sequel already has a green light, as the last title screen said "Part 1." This was not expected, but I feel that the story is not completely over yet. Obviously, if you had read the novel, you know that the children are all grown up and facing Pennywise once more. Since there is a confirmed sequel, it begs the question on who will be cast as the grownup versions of these children, and that will be very interesting to see.

It was very tense and horrifying all the way through, but I only have one problem with it. I felt that they showed a bit too much of Pennywise the Clown in all of the horror scenes. One trope of horror films that seems to always be present is the absence of the monster. This, however, makes the final reveal that much more terrifying. Pennywise was present from the very first scene of the film, but I felt that if he would have been shown a bit less, then it could have made it that much more suspenseful. It is understandable for him to terrify each kid in their own individual way and for there to be a final fight scene, but sometimes the lack of the villain makes the appearance even better.

This film, even though it is a reboot, has proven to be pretty damn close to one of King's best adaptations. While it relies very heavily on source material, it handles it all very well and presents it in very frightening ways. It has proven itself as one of the best horror films in the past few years, and will live on in Stephen King's legacy of terrifying media.

My Rating: ★★★★½

Kick-Ass (2010) directed by Matthew Vaughn

I remember back in the sixth grade when this film was released, it seemed like such a big deal to go and see an R-rated film. This was not the case for many films, where its R-rated content was using the word "fuck" twice, or maybe they displayed a penis in a provocative way. There are many filmmakers who have been fighting this rating system for years because of its sexist double standards and unfair practices. Kick-Ass does not adhere to any of these standards or practices, but instead embraces every aspect that a film can get away with to still receive an R-rating. This may make the movie seem like an off-the-chains mess of adult material, and while that is true in some respect, Kick-Ass delivers a fantastic story and lovable characters throughout the film.

There is a bit to discuss surrounding Kick-Ass, but let's start with the plot. The plot, even though it draws a lot from other inspirations, is very original in its own way. While a typical nerd-type teenager wonders why nobody has ever tried to be a superhero before, he ends up getting way in over his head. He does manage to get a sort of superpower himself, which definitely helped in his initially one-man crusade. After being stabbed and hit by a car, Dave (played by Aaron-Taylor Johnson) gets a certain kind of metal installed in his bones and throughout his body that dramatically improves his tolerance for pain. This proves to be very useful for him throughout the movie, and the writers handled his new superpower very well. Instead of instantly jumping out into action and thinking he's indestructible, he took his time to get readjusted into this new lifestyle. I appreciated this very much because if the average person were to go through a similar accident like that, they would not be jumping out of bed to go kick some more ass (pun intended). Other aspects of the plot that I enjoyed were the handling of Dave's romantic relationship. He did not focus so much on her as to lose sight of the main plot of the film, which was good. Other parts that I enjoyed were the costumes throughout the film and the ever-present references and Easter eggs to other comic book goodness. While there was a plethora of "Batman doesn't have any powers" jokes, it just added to the amount of humor throughout the film. As for the costumes, while they were very bright and flashy for as dark as this film is, it really brought out the contrast for how in-over-their heads the main characters were.

The acting in this film is very sub-par, as there is nothing special to it. There were no incredible performances by any of the lead actors and actresses, except for Hit-Girl, played by Chloe Grace Moretz. She was very young at the time she was filming this movie, and for her to play such a violent and foul little girl shocked audiences everywhere. Even though it was a stunt double, seeing Hit-Girl call people "cunts" and then proceed to slit their throats and slice their limbs off, was very unnerving. It truly showed how ruthless she had been taught to be by her father, played by Nicolas Cage. This was one of the main reasons why this film received such criticism and disgust when it was released, because it seemed like a superhero film starring kids and teenagers would be fit to watch by kids and teenagers. This was not the case, obviously. Matthew Vaughn, the director of this film, also has a large part to play in the way this film was portrayed. Vaughn is known for his outlandish and uber-creative visual mind, especially seen in his other films, X-Men: First Class and Kingsman: The Secret Service. Especially in the latter, it is obvious to see that his style lays in the crazy world of insane stunts and eye candy cinematography. This style works very well for this film, because of the crazy setting that it takes place in. The action, chase, and torture scenes were all very reflective of this style and kept continuous, which I very much respect. As boundary-pushing as this film is, I believe that it is a worthy addition to the modern superhero genre, and it deserves every bit of praise (and condemnation) that it received.

In conclusion, Kick-Ass is a very fun and exciting film with a great plot and lovable characters that all earned their dues throughout its entirety. While it may not be for the faint-of-heart, it is absolutely a worthy watch. Just make sure that your kids aren't expecting a wholesome ending of skipping off into the distance while holding hands. For that matter, maybe don't let your kids watch it at all.

My Rating: ★★★½

Citizen Kane (1941) directed by Orson Welles

AFI Top 100: #1

Warning: The "greatest American motion picture in history" is definitely not what you think it will shape up to be. In my opinion, Citizen Kane should be renamed "2 Hours of an Entitled, Rich, White Asshole." This may seem harsh to critique this classic this way, but I really did not enjoy this film. I can understand why it may seem to be the greatest film ever made in its time period, but there are many reasons why it is not good, especially nowadays. Citizen Kane is really just a good time to take a power-nap on the couch.

I am going to begin with talking about the few things that I did enjoy about this film. The set design and acting were wildly mediocre, which was understandable given that the director also plays the main character. This has always been a pet peeve of mine when stars decide to direct and star in their own feature film. While there are some notable exceptions, such as Ben Affleck's Argo and Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby, I have always been annoyed by artists who do both. Do not ask me why, but while some people can pull it off, most can not. This film is an example of can not. Anyways, back to the topic at hand: the good aspects of this film. Citizen Kane did do a very good job with their set designs, especially given the conditions back in the day that they had to work under. The sets looked very appealing and caught my attention while providing a good sense of where Charles Kane lived and worked. Another good part of this film was the shooting and editing. The cinematographer did a phenomenal job on their work, as the shots throughout the film definitely helped to emphasize different aspects. Certain shots, including the one where Charles and his second wife Susan were preparing for the "picnic" in his mansion, were so important. They displayed how much extravagant wealth that Kane had, but also showed how lonely he was on the inside, even having gone through two different wives. While the cinematography and editing was quite excellent, there were many aspects that I definitely did not enjoy.

Many parts of Citizen Kane were very questionable. I understand that times were quite different back in 1940, but that does not make the actions of Charles Kane inexcusable. If this truly is the greatest American film of all time, then why does the main character emotionally abuse his two different wives? Why does he waste all of his wealth on statues and art rather than donating and helping his starving community? Why does he have luxury parties and invite crooked politicians and businessmen? These are many questions that I had during this film; not because they were character traits of his, but because the film did nothing to explain why he was the way he was. He was a privileged man who took everything for granted and did not care about the opinions of others, even if they did happen to show any concern for him. Charles's actions and behaviors were terrible, even for the 1940's, and the writers could have shown the repercussions of his actions instead of excusing him with some quirky prep-boy lifestyle. The final element that bothered me the most about this film was the main storyline that had been followed since the initial shot: what is Rosebud? In the very last scene, when the movers are throwing Kane's belongings in the fire, it is revealed that Rosebud is the wooden sled that he had played with in his childhood. This was one of the most underwhelming endings that I have ever seen, and I was expecting Rosebud to be so much more. While it represents the lost naivety of his childhood that he never experienced, that could have been explored much better throughout the film instead of saving this infamous term for an unsatisfactory conclusion. After all of the positivity and hype surrounding this film, I was expecting to appreciate it a lot more, but that is not the case.

As grating as my opinions may be, I firmly stand by them and hope that others may see the same as I do, instead of putting this film on its ridiculous pedestal. Citizen Kane is an outdated waste of two hours and definitely not the greatest American film of all time. It is more fit, however, to be renamed "The Pathetic Story of a Spoiled, Misogynistic Prick."

My Rating: ½

Baywatch (2017) directed by Seth Gordon

I was very cautious while renting this film on Redbox, because I had not heard very many reviews or opinions about it. Obviously it is a remake of a beloved American TV show, and I am sure that many people did not take lightly to that. Especially because it started A-list actors such as Dwayne Johnson and Zac Efron. However, once getting past my initial objections, I found that Baywatch was actually a fairly decent comedy with an original take on the classic story of the LA lifeguard squad.

In my personal opinion, I believe that the plot was the best part of this film. It had an hilarious take on the original series, throwing in some new characters and good cameos for effect. While Dwayne Johnson's character Mitch Buchannon struggled to keep his lifeguard program afloat, he was met with even more trouble as they were hiring new recruits. One of these just so happened to be Matt Brody, played by Zac Efron. The Rock and Efron, despite coming from very different fields of acting, had amazing on-screen presence and stole the scene whenever they were on together. Buchannon's constant teasing of Brody was one of the funniest aspects of the film, especially when he called him "High School Musical." There were many comedic moments spread throughout, and it was balanced quite well with the amount of action, plot, and character development. I was honestly expecting it to be a horrible retelling of an episode of the campy TV show, but the writers actually did a good job of making this fresh for the new generation who may not know the likenesses of David Hasselhoff or Pamela Anderson. Speaking of those two, their cameos in the film were placed very well and I am glad that the story did not have to rely on them running down the beach in slow motion to keep up the nostalgia factor.

I do not have many complaints about this film, given that it was neither terrific nor terrible. There was a modest amount of decent acting, but nothing too spectacular. The one thing that I did have a problem with was some parts of the action sequences. While they seemed very Michael Bay-esque, the action scenes were very gratuitous and it did not seem like certain aspects of them served any purpose. For example: when the lifeguard crew was rescuing the government representative and two women from the burning boat. The scene where Johnson was swimming underneath the fire in order to reach the boat was purposely done in slow-motion, maybe to remind you that you are watching Baywatch in case you forgot. However, it was overdone to the point where it seemed to last forever. While a bass-heavy and meaningful-lyric-deprived song bumped in the background, it started to annoy me that they let these transitions and scenes run so long. Whether or not it was to keep the nostalgia factor or not, it became irritating rather quickly.

I do not have very many comments about this film because it didn't ignite anything in me like many films have before, in both positive and negative lights. If you want to see a generic summer blockbuster with generic actors and a generic plot, then Baywatch is the film for you. It is very evident that this film was made to make money, and while that is not a bad thing, I felt that certain parts were not always necessary. However, I do recommend Baywatch to anyone who is looking for a fun date night movie or something to pass the time with many good laughs.

My Rating: ★★★

Psycho (1960) directed by Alfred Hitchcock

AFI Top 100: #14

Psycho! The great American murder movie. I recently watched this film for the first time for my Creative Process class and I must admit that it was a mistake never taking the time to see it before. This is quite possibly the greatest murder thriller to have ever been released, and nothing I have ever seen possibly lives up to it. I watched Peeping Tom, Psycho's British counterpart, a week or so back, and that does not even live up to this Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece. Beautifully shot and timed, amazing performances, and a legacy for decades to come, Psycho absolutely lives up to its unbeatable reputation.

The performances in this film are indisputably magnificent, from the quiet but deadly Norman Bates, played by Anthony Perkins, to the blonde bombshell Marion Crane, played by Janet Leigh. They truly lived up to everything I was expecting from this film, and more. As I had never seen it before, I was expecting a decent horror flick that may have been considered a classic just because of its infamous shower scene. It was so much more than that, however. Watching this film and thinking about the impact it must have had on American culture, especially in the 1960's, is astounding. It pushed the boundaries of filmmaking for that time with its use of implied sexual actions without making it an X-rating. Along with the always talked-about shower scene, there were many points throughout the film where it was very risky to show certain material in that time period. In the very first scene, for example, it shows nearly naked Marion in bed after spending a night with her boyfriend Sam, portrayed by John Gavin. Showing her topless and in her lingerie must have been shocking in the 1960's, and it really made me appreciate the film even more, for its bold confidence. Another aspect that I loved was the performance of Norman Bates. Not having seen the film before, I was not sure which character was him, and after learning that the attractive, young, and innocent-faced man was him, I was very confused. I had always pictured Norman Bates as a very creepy man with bad intentions, but this wasn't the case at all. The character development shown in Norman was amazing, as he went from shy and introverted to an outward psychopath, all the while led by his sick and deranged mother. This was one film where I actually started to root for the antagonist. Norman had such a great presence on screen, even after killing the main protagonist barely halfway through the film. After learning about the background with his mother, it made Norman's character that much more round, and I was all for that.

Something new and refreshing about this film was the plot. I shouldn't say refreshing, however, because this film has been the inspiration for horror writers and directors for decades. It was refreshing for me, because I truly saw where so many ideas and horror tropes originated from. This film has made such an impact on me, as I'm sure it did on so many people when it was originally in theaters. One element about the plot that stuck out to me as innovative was the plot twist towards the end. I began to have my doubts that Norman's mother was alive and well after never seeing her, but as he carried her down the stairs to the fruit cellar, my doubts were lifted. This might have been one of the original greatest plot twists in film history, because when I found out that it was Norman pretending to be his mother the entire time, my mind was blown. I was right the entire time, but Hitchcock and the writers of Psycho did such a fantastic job of leading my mind elsewhere. That is the mark of a great thriller film, in my opinion, is one that surprises you with a number of twists and turns. Psycho definitely did not disappoint.

The innovation in this film is stupendous, and after hearing it from multiple people throughout my life, was great to see for myself for the first time. If you are a horror movie fan or just a fan of thrilling dramas in general, Psycho is and should have been your introduction to the genre. I am upset that I missed out on such an amazing film for a long time in my life, but now that I have filled that void with this great movie, I can guarantee that this film will stand the test of time as one, if not THE, greatest horror film of all time.

My Rating: ★★★★★

Peeping Tom (1960) directed by Michael Powell

Peeping Tom, while not known to many (especially American moviegoers), is often hailed as the British version of Alfred Hitchcock's classic Psycho. While it has not received the same amount of cinematic attention as the latter, I believe that it deserves just as much praise. While certain plot points and elements from the two films can be obviously compared, this film stands on its own as an amazing drama/thriller for its time.

The plot of this film, while at times very cheesy, was easily the reason why a lot of people thought it was a cheap Psycho ripoff. Comparable elements include a handsome, solitary, young man who ran a family business (apartment building in this case), a complicated relationship with one of their parents, and a history of not treating women too kindly. While Hitchcock's film was about a recluse living with his mother and killing the woman that he had rented a room to, the titular character in Peeping Tom was a lot more social and outgoing. Mark Lewis, played by Karlheinz Böhm, had a side job of taking nude pictures of women for magazines and other publications. This gave him most of his exposure to women and also his devious desires. He had a lot of experience with working with women in his day job at the film studio, and so it was easy for him to pick out his next target. I feel like this evil urge might have also came from the lack of care from his father. His father was a scientist who did awful experiments and torturous things to Mark as a child, and his young mind was scarred forever. The lack of his mother also affected him as a child, because it made him feel like he needed to be in charge, especially when it came to working with the nude women. The writers of this film did a fantastic job of making us feel for Mark, however. Once he was in the relationship with Helen, played by Anna Massey, he vowed he would never hurt her or "put her on camera," which was his expression for murder. Even though we had spent the majority of the movie watching Mark film women just to kill them for his own pleasure, those scenes made me feel bad for Mark because he had finally found someone that understood him (kinda). This was the biggest emotional draw-in for me, which I very much appreciated.

The acting in this film was definitely not notable, to say the most. There were not very strong performances by any of the lead cast members, unlike this film's American counterpart. In summary, this film had mediocre performances at best and contained very little to no character development. The only development that I saw was in Mark after he had gone on his first date with Helen. He had started to feel true love, and while that didn't last very long, neither did Helen. Mark went right back to his killer ways before deciding to end his own life by puncturing himself with the knife end of his tripod. Besides the very little emotional growth that Mark experienced, none of the other characters experienced anything at all, not even a decent performance by the actors and actresses. There were so many parts that were very cheesy to watch and was easy to tell that the scene may have been rushed to film. Other than that, the portrayals of the people in the film were very dry, and all of the characters (who stayed alive anyways) did not change a bit, no matter their situation or circumstances.

Overall, Peeping Tom is a good film to watch for its historical significance and (almost) original storyline. While it pushed the boundaries of filmmaking around the same time as Psycho did, it just did not reach the same audience and reactions as Hitchcock did. This film has its moments, with some decent emotional building and great set design, but overall does not live up to its American counterpart.

My Rating: ★★★½

Jurassic Park (1993) directed by Steven Spielberg

Jurassic Park, as famous and important as it is, has definitely lived up to its classic praise. I, in all honesty, had not seen it until my sophomore year of high school, and I can confirm that it is as good as most make it out to be. I recently watched this film again as a homework assignment in my Introduction to Film course, and it only further refreshed my appreciation for it. With its original plot and futuristic use of CGI (for its time), Jurassic Park and director Steven Spielberg deserves every ounce of positivity that it received.

This is such a critical and important film for its time period, I honestly do not have much to say about it other than its necessity as a moviegoer to see. The plot of the film is something that has never been seen before, especially back in 1993. While there are a few sequels and a semi-remake (Jurassic World starring Chris Pratt), this film has stood its test of time. There had not been rarely any original science-fiction films for decades before its release, and the introduction of dinosaurs into our everyday life scared and excited many people. This film did such a great job of bringing this idea to life. Even though the general public was never an element of the film, the scientists and park "testers" were subjected to the use of dinosaurs and (obviously) there was not a positive reaction. The aspect of plot that I enjoyed the most was Dr. Grant's (Sam Neill) reluctance to want to have children since the beginning of the film. The subplot of the film pitted him with Hammond's (played by Richard Attenborough) grandchildren trying to survive among the dinosaurs, and he learned that children were not as awful as he had previously thought. The only minor issue I had with plot details regards Hammond's hiring of Nedry, played by Wayne Knight. Nedry was responsible for the selling of the dinosaur embryos to a third-party who were going to use them against Hammond's team. Nedry, while working for Hammond, was very rude and obviously suspicious in the way he spoke to his boss. From a business management stance, it does not seem like Hammond would have wanted Nedry to be working for him with that kind of attitude. But that's just my opinion.

Looking back at the acting and performances by all of the cast, everyone did a fantastic job. Sam Neill, along with Laura Dern, were great as their roles of work partners turned potential lovers. Their chemistry with the rest of the cast worked very well, even with the schmoozy but intelligent Malcolm, played by everyone's favorite Jeff Goldblum. His performance was personally my favorite among the rest, as he embodied his snarky character so well. Topped off with a cameo by Samuel L. Jackson, the cast of Jurassic Park really brought this film to life.

The most talked-about and innovative part of the film, however, is its use of CGI. This was one of the first films to use CGI that actually looked great. Done before in films like Westworld and Tron, CGI was a relatively new concept in films because it did not look exactly like reality. It was not believable in films really until the release of Jurassic Park, which has proven itself to be a milestone in this technology. The dinosaurs and accompanying special effects were beautiful, and when they needed to be, terrifying. This truly brought the film to life because without the existence of realistic-looking dinosaurs, it would have been a very cheesy movie. And it might not have done as well as it did.

In conclusion, this film is a must-see for anyone who is a fan of film, whether you are studying it or not. You can not fully appreciate the existence of today's CGI and Jeff Goldblum memes until you have seen Jurassic Park.

My Rating: ★★★★½