Nosferatu, 1922, Murnau
Horror is, in my opinion, the worst movie genre. Not because they're scary, but because they're typically boring or dog shit outside of a few classics (Jacob's Ladder, The Shining, The Thing, Alien, Dawn of the Dead, Night of the Living Dead). Horror is almost never engaging for me unless the story stands on its own and it works as a socio-political work (Jacob's Ladder), psychological horror (also Jacob's Ladder), is riveting (Alien, Psycho), or it's just fun because it's mindless/cheesy filth with cool visuals/effects (Evil Dead 1/2, Nightmare on Elm Street;etc). I would rather play a horror game than watch a horror movie. Low Hanging Fruit: The Genre.
Nosferatu, what some argue is the first horror film (although it actually isn't), is really no different in that I admire the technical achievements obtained but fucking hell is it
boring in a "how much do I have left? Fuck. 30 minutes? Kill me" sort of way. I'm really looking forward to watching more German stuff tomorrow so I can forget about this travesty again.
1 1/2 bored horror snores out of 4
Cops, 1922, Keaton
Hilarious. One built up gag after another and all for a woman's love.
3 seesaw stunts out of 4
City Lights, Chaplin, 1931
An emotional, riveting, hilarious, beautifully written self contained tale. I had never seen it before and it's easily my favorite Chaplin after watching. In this Tramp adventure he runs into a blind girl he falls head over heels for who struggles caring for the needs of her and her grandma. He also encounters a rich man that hilariously loves him while he's drunk but doesn't know who the Tramp is while sober. The result is hilarious and emotional antics that lends to extremely rich storytelling and even more resonant ending. Chaplin shows off perhaps his greatest range of acting here. You end up thinking him a real person. The master of the close up of his era he uses the camera in such a way that truly shows off the emotive story telling of film acting. By this time he has fully mastered his craft. Classic stuff.
4 shocked Tramp faces out of 4.
Modern Times, Chaplin, 1936
THE classic. A culmination of decades of work where multiple sets and storylines from past Chaplin flicks are rearranged and improved upon in all their glory. The cinematography is incredible. The emotive acting without overly relying on title cards for this movie makes it all the stronger. Made nearly ten years since the advent of sound, a film about the great depression
during the great depression, this film has balls. And despite its age remains utterly beautiful.
Years ago this was my first introduction to Chaplin and it still resonates to this day.
It's fucking hilarious.
It is beautifully shot.
It tells a great story and it exudes
timeless classic.
4 non-sensical songs out of 4
The General, Keaton, 1926
Apparently Keaton broke his neck while filming this movie. That's the kind of dedication this film required and he pushes the envelope with this action-heavy civil war romp that is so good it has you rooting for a confederate.
3 "how could I ever root for a confederate other than Buster?"'s out of 4
Chaplin vs KeatonBefore this marathon, I was more familiar with Chaplin than Keaton. Keaton, in present time, doesn't seem to get his due by comparison. Although I prefer Chaplin for his emphasis on character, I still really get a kick out of Buster. In his own way, his philosophy and storytelling are as riveting as Chaplin's but they're presented in much different ways. Keaton loves wide shots to emphasize action and stunts; Chaplin loves close ups to show off character chemistry and characterization. Both make stories about overcoming odds. Buster's almost always finding luck out of a situation through the sheer laws of the universe. Tramp shows his true morale character through good deeds. Both make me feel good but I ultimately love Chaplin for his storytelling. He is more my type of artist but that doesn't change that both are greats of their era that deserved every bit of adulation.
Also, and I just want to add: both were hot short guys.