80s Movie Review - The Elephant Man

Director: David Lynch
Genre: Drama
Runtime: 124 minutes
Year: 1980
Starring: Anthony Hopkins, John Hurt, Anne Bancroft, John Gielgud, Wendy Hiller, Freddie Jones, Hannah Gordon

Description: A Victortian surgeon (Anthony Hopkins) rescues a heavily disfigured man (John Hurt) who is mistreated while scraping a living as a side-show freak. Behind his monstrous façade, there is revealed a person of kindness, intelligence and sophistication.  

I WATCHED THIS MOVIE FOR MY 2024 MOVIE CHALLENGE.
WEEK 29: A FILM THAT’S A CULT CLASSIC
 
Review: While visiting a so-called freak show, surgeon Frederick Treves comes upon the trail of the severely deformed John Merrick. As he gets to know Merrick better, his scientific interest gives way to sympathy.

“The Elephant Man” was produced by none other than comedy icon Mel Brooks. Yet there is little to laugh in this biographical film about the hapless John Merrick. In his own way,  director David Lynch turns Victorian London into a nightmare; a tangle of dark alleys populated by figures all preying on the vulnerable Merrick.

The oppressive atmosphere is enhanced by repeating shots of the old-fashioned machines that launched the industrial revolution. In doing so, Lynch evokes the ideao that there is no room in an industrial process for deviant parts: a sentiment that resonates with the Victorian community. Due to his hideous appearance, Merrick is seen by most as a blemish on society; a defect that does not contribute to the progress of society.

It is understandable that an eccentric filmmaker like Lynch would be drawn to “The Elephant Man”. John Hurt plays Johnn Merrick and this role was a huge ordeal, even for such an experiences actors as Hurt. It took seven hours to apply the make-up and prostetics and another two to remove it. And it looks so realistic. Hurt is unrecognizable and he is excellent. And very well assisted by Anthony Hopkins. In his role as the empathic Frederic Treves he serves as the viewer surrogate. Through Treves, we begin to see John Merrick as a human being rather than a curiosity. When Merrick eventually garners a place in British high society, we share Treves’ sadness at the realization that Merrick will always be defined by his appearance, despite his sophisticated personality.

Filmed in black and white, “The Elephant Man” is an engaging tragedy. With the acting of John Hurt and Anthony Hopkins as highlights and the great direction of Dacid Lynch.

Rating: 4,5/ 5

00s Movie Review - Shooting Dogs

Director: Michael Caton-Jones
Genre: Drama
Runtime: 115 minutes
Year: 2005
Starring: John Hurt, Hugh Dancy, Dominique Horwitz, Claire-Hope Ashitey, David Gyasi, Susan Nalwoga, Steve Toussaint, Nicola Walker

Description: In April 1994, after the airplane of the Hutu President of Rwanda is shot down, the Hutu militias slaughter the Tutsi population. In the Ecole Technique Officielle, the Catholic priest Christopher (John Hurt) and the idealistic English teacher Joe Connor (Hugh Dancy) lodge two thousand and five hundred Rwandans refugees, under the protection of the Belgian UN force and under siege by Hutu militia. When the Tutsi refugees are abandoned by the UN, they are murdered by the extremist militia.

Review: “Shooting Dogs”. You wouldn’t say, but this is one of the most politically charged movie titles of the past years. Because shooting dogs was the only thing the soldiers were allowed to do in Rwanda, where the war between the Hutu’s and Tutsi’s is getting out of hand. One thing is sure: director Michael Caton-Jones has balls. He filmed on location and had some local people on his crew. His movie is extremely touching, gripping and confronting. No nuances, just as it is.
The movie is set at the ‘Ecole Technique’, a school where local kids are thought by Joe Connor and is led by priest Christopher. Both roles are very well cast. Hugh Dancy shows that he is worth more than the little roles he usually gets. The beauty of his role is that he shows us the dilemma’s he has as an European in Africa and the naivety he has as a young, unexperienced teacher. John Hurt doesn’t have to proof himself anymore, but his fatherly qualities grab you.
When desperation hits and thousands of Tutsi’s hide at the school, where Belgian UN soldiers keep peace, “Shooting Dogs” gets more tempo and adds tension. Bloody confrontations are shown and director Caton-Jones has great eye for detail. Besides the country in war, he also shows the personal struggles. Like Joe who can’t look away from a brutal murder and later he is confronted with a good friend who joined the gangs.
More and more Hutu’s gather and are armed with machetes, surrounding the school knowing there are Tutsi’s hiding there. The little room where Christopher holds mass, is the only place of peace and serenity. The camera shoots this wonderfully.
Joe ends up with a dilemma: run to safe his own life or stay and show solidarity and wait for his death on the campus. Christopher doesn’t have to make a choice, his heart lies with the school.
This movie is an eye opener. The movie is overlooked, I don’t think many people know this film. Most people would prefer “Hotel Rwanda”, with a similar theme, but I think this is the movie to watch. “Shooting Dogs” is confronting and it hits every nerve in your body.

Rating: 5/ 5

00s Movie Review - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

Director: Chris Columbus
Genre: Adventure/ Fantasy/ Family
Runtime: 152 minutes
Year: 2001
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman, Tom Felton, Saunders Triplet, Fiona Shaw, Harry Melling, Richard Griffiths, Derek Deadman, John Cleese, Sean Biggerstaff, Warwick Davis, Zoë Wanamaker, John Hurt, James Phelps, Oliver Phelps, Bonnie Wright, Chris Rankin, Matthew Lewis, Mark Williams, Julie Walter

Description: Rescued from the outrageous neglect of his aunt and uncle, young Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) with a great destiny proves his worth while attending Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

Review: “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” is the first movie in the Harry Potter series. Based on the books by J.K. Rowling. She wanted to be involved with the making of the movies, so that they stayed true to the source material.
Harry is introduced to us, we learn about his past. Director Chris Columbus takes his time for that, because people who haven’t read the books should understand.
The actual magic starts when Harry visits Diagon Alley and platform 9 ¾. Daniel Radcliffe is a good Harry Potter. Off course he doesn’t have a lot of acting experience, but that doesn’t matter. His friend Ron Weasley, played by Rupert Grint, is a pleasant surprise, but Emma Watson as Hermione Granger is probably the biggest discovery. Tom Felton, who plays Draco Malfoy, probably has the most experience. He is perfect for the mean role of Draco.
Then the adults. Robbie Coltrane is exactly the Rubeus Hagrid J.K. Rowling described. His raw appearance and voice fit the character perfectly. Richard Harris has the friendly, warm and sophisticated charm for Dumbledore. Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall and Alan Rickman as Professor Snape, both also excellent cast. Especially Rickman is very convincing.
It’s obviously a well-cast film and Rowling can be proud of the first film. I really love this first Harry Potter adventure.

Rating: 4,5/ 5

100 Movie Challenge 2014 - # 142: Snowpiercer

Director: Joon-ho Bong

Genre: Action/ Drama/ Science Fiction

Runtime: 126 minutes

Year: 2013

Starring: Chris Evans, Jamie Bell, Octavia Spencer, Tilda Swinton, John Hurt, Ed Harris, Alison Pill, Luke Pasqualino, Ewen Bremner, Kang-ho Song, Ah-sung Ko, Tómas Lemarquis, Steve Park, Kenny Doughtry, Emma Levie

Description: Set in a future where a failed climate-change experiment kills all life on the planet except for a lucky few who boarded the Snowpiercer, a train that travels around the globe, where a class system emerges.

Review: We are dealing with a change of climate and this problem is what sets of “Snowpiercer”. In an alternative 2014 the climate has changed drastically. The whole world has turned into an ice planet and the only survivors live in train, the Snowpiercer, that goes around the world endlessly.

There is a separation, where the rich people live in the front part of the train with of all the left over luxury. And the rest live a terrible life in the back of the train. History has thought us one thing: living in a society like this, never stays for all eternity. A lot of big-budget science fiction films have disappointed us

, but “Snowpiercer” proofs that the genre is still going strong. The director and his cast work very well together. Not all the characters have the right depth, but serve their roles well. Chris Evans does an amazing job and shows us the many varieties he has as an actor. And Octavia Spencer does a solid job too. Tilda Swinton, who is known for her weird characters, disappoints a bit. I found her character a bit too quirky for this movie.

The set design is excellent. The surrealistic atmosphere is beautifully made. And the storyline also does its job. It’s especially the decisions that were made for this story that are great. There is no romantic storyline and there is a strange intermission in a very brutal action scene. This is where “Snowpiercer” is different and original.

“Snowpiercer” is a great movie, and might become a classic in the sci-fi genre eventually.

Rating: 4/ 5

Movie Battle: V for Vendetta Vs. Children of Men

The Movies I choose this time are both sci-fi films set in the future, where most countries in the world are near destroyed by natural disasters, riots and war. England has established a totalitarian regime that shields the country from outsiders. In both movies the society is portrayed as extremely racist and xenophobic and the main characters are part of an underground movement. To battle it out, here is “V for Vendetta” Vs. “Children of Men”.

 

CAST

V for Vendetta: Hugo Weaving plays lead character V, a freedom fighter wearing a Guy Fawkes mask. His performance, even without ever seeing his real face, is breath-taking and phenomenal. Natalie Portman also does a great job, especially the rooftop scene.

Children of Men: Clive Owen, who a lot of people say can’t act, does a fantastic job. He plays main character Theo Faron. Julianne Moore and Michael Caine also have solid roles, but they don’t have very big roles.

STORY

V for Vendetta: Great Britain is now a fascist state. A man named V uses terrorist tactics to oppress society. He rescues the young Eve from the secret police, and she becomes his ally. It’s based on a graphic novel, that I have read. It’s very close to its source. The story is great, the character of V even more.

Children of Men: Dystopian London, surrounded by violence and warring nationalistic sects. People are no longer aloud to have children. The youngest citizen, just 18 years of age, has just died. Then a young pregnant woman is discovered and the desperate journey to deliver her to safety starts. Great idea for a story.

EFFECTS

V for Vendetta: There are some amazing fight scenes in it. Especially the one in the dark tunnel (I believe it’s a tunnel). The while movie has a dark, greyish tone.

Children of Men: This also has a certain tone, more the grey, bluish tones. They makers made London look like a worn down plays, filled with violence and war.

WINNER

Although both movies are amazing, with great acting and fantastic stories, I will have to go with “V for Vendetta”. That’s a movie I’m more willingly to re-watch.

100 Movie Challenge 2014 - # 7: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Director: Tomas Alfredson
Genre: Drama/ Thriller/ Mystery
Runtime: 127 minutes
Year: 2011
Starring: Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, John Hurt, Mark Strong, Tom Hardy, Toby Jones, Stephen Graham, Ciarán Hinds

Description: In the early 1970s during the Cold War, the head of British Intelligence, Control (John Hurt), resigns after an operation in Budapest, Hungary goes badly wrong. It transpires that Control believed one of four senior figures in the service was in fact a Russian agent - a mole - and the Hungary operation was an attempt to identify which of them it was. Smiley (Gary Oldman) had been forced into retirement by the departure of Control, but is asked by a senior government figure to investigate a story told to him by a rogue agent, Ricky Tarr (Tom Hardy), that there was a mole. Smiley considers that the failure of the Hungary operation and the continuing success of Operation Witchcraft (an apparent source of significant Soviet intelligence) confirms this, and takes up the task of finding him.

Review: John le Carré is without a doubt one of the masters of spy thrillers. The author of this story once worked for the MI6, so he knows how things work around there. His writing style criticizes the successful stories of James Bond. His characters are a bit less heroic, but because of their weaknesses they are more human. Take for instance George Smiley, the main character of “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”. Smiley is a modest, middle-aged man, who wouldn’t reach for a gun but purely trusts on intelligence. He sounds dull when you compare him to James Bond, but George Smiley is a very intriguing figure. Especially when you let Gary Oldman portray him.
The writers stayed very true to the novel. John Hurt plays Control, the boss of MI6, who sends agent Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) on a secret mission to Budapest. He has to persuade a Hungarian general. It appears there is a spy in MI6, who hands out crucial information to Karla, the biggest spy in Russia. The general knows who it is, but Prideaux never lives to tell the tale. George Smiley, who’s just retired, has to find the mole.
It sounds like an average whodunit scenario, but there is more to it than meets the eye. The atmosphere and the characters are so interesting. The way director Alfredson filmed it, with the raw glow and different shades of brown, makes you feel like you are in the seventies. And there is a tension throughout the entire runtime of the film.
“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” proves that you don’t need an actionhero to make a good spy thriller. This is a breathtaking movie.

Rating: 4,5/ 5

Movie Battle: Hotel Rwanda Vs. Shooting Dogs

The movies who will go head to head are both set in Rwanda and deal with the genocide. They’re both favorites of mine, but who will I choose as the winner.

CAST

Hotel Rwanda: Don Cheadle plays the leading character and he is the only memorable actor in this movie. His performance is so realistic and heartbreaking. Nick Nolte and Joaquin Phoenix are also part of the cast, they’re just solid.

Shooting Dogs: John Hurt plays the role of Christopher, a man of faith who’s life is dedicated to the school and church he has set up in Rwanda. Hugh Dancy is the likeable Joe, a teacher who tries to make a difference. Both actor are very realistic and strong.

STORY

Hotel Rwanda: Paul Rusesabagina is a hotel manager who housed a thousand tutsi refugees and it’s an amazing true story. It got a lot of attention at the Academy Awards.

Shooting Dogs: This movie has been based on actual events, the characters are fictional, but it's a bit more confronting then “Hotel Rwanda”. It’s really heart wrenching to see that the United Nations left all those people there and only the ‘white people’ could be evacuated. I think this movie was a bit overlooked.

EFFECTS

Hotel Rwanda: Nicely filmed, don’t really have any negative points here.

Shooting Dogs: It all looks very realistic. I’ve been to Uganda, the neighbour country and parts of it look similar to Rwanda. The color scheme that was used to film “Shooting Dogs” is perfect.

WINNER

A close call, but I will go with “Shooting Dogs”. Most people would choose the other one, but I think “Shooting Dogs” is just a little bit more confronting and touched me slightly more then “Hotel Rwanda”.