Reviews

*** There be spoilers ahead! ***

With the first scene of Luke and Rey - picking up exactly where TFA ended - I KNEW this movie was in trouble and definitely "had a bad feeling about this". So I'm in complete agreement with what Mark Hamill and many of my fellow reviewer have expressed: Rian Johnson got the characterization of Luke and some of the others WRONG.

Did Johnson ever (even care to) watch and study the earlier films, the original trilogy in particular? Or even Rogue One which, immediately after I saw it, I considered it a GENUINE "Star Wars" movie and an excellent prequel to "A New Hope". In fairness to this movie, it WAS good to see Luke, Leia, Chewy, C-3PO, R2-D2 and even BB-8 onscreen again. Heck, I even sorta liked the Porgs!

Here's my overall take-away from this film: What Luke immediately did with his old lightsabre forewarned the ever-downward trajectory of my hopes for TLJ the movie. But in the big picture - i.e., the 40-year history of the Star Wars iconic, canonical lore - it showed me that apparetly the Star Wars franchise baton has been wrongly passed onto incompetent and flippantly disrespectful "leaders" who don't deserve it. George, you shouldn't have sold out. :-(

Not another incredible performance from the incomparable Lon Chaney...

Not that his performance was sans heavy character makeup...

Not even that this was a film of his I'd scarcely heard of before today, but rather...

It was seeing his good guy finally gets the girl for himself instead of sacrificing his own broken heart for her to be with someone else! YAY!! :-)

Lon Chaney, who's earned my utmost admiration and respect, was perhaps the greatest character actor - EVER! No other performer had the effect of keeping me scared out of my wits at even just the THOUGHT of seeing a picture of him (as Erik "The Phantom")!

It took me over 20 years to get over that fear, having come to love the "Phantom" character partially from films & recordings of the great Michael Crawford as the original "musical" Phantom. Silly as that may sound, I think it's quite a tribute to Lon Chaney, who first scared audiences with his "Phantom" nearly EIGHTY-EIGHT years ago!

Of course, it was this very role (and that of the Hunchback of Notre Dame) that has Chaney mis-labeled today as a "horror" actor, but OH, he was so MUCH more, and this movie, "The Shock", is just one fine example of why he was!

Overall, I thought this film was good, and Keaton fans will see several things that hint of bigger things that came in his feature films! I liked the variety of each of his jobs, which included a couple of ribs on Chaplin along the way (with one reminiscent of "City Lights" nine years later). This was one of his later short films, right when he was on the cusp of screen immortality through his full-length features.

Most reviews and comments I've seen so far talk about the famous paddle wheel sequence - but I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned the scene where he runs and catches the back of the moving streetcar!! My jaw drops every time I see it! If it was as real as it looked, then Buster Keaton was one very STRONG man - this showed what we didn't see in a similar escape he makes on a moving car amidst his big chase in "Cops"!

However, as top-notch of a stuntman and athlete that Keaton was, this streetcar-catching bit (and the car-catching bit in "Cops") may have HAD to be "tricked"; that it was beyond even Keaton's great abilities. Thoughts, anyone?

Keaton strove for realism and believability in all things in his feature films, but I'm sure he didn't hold hard and fast to that rule in his short films. No fan should be surprised by absurdities in silent comedy shorts - just about anything could happen as long as it got a laugh.

Anyway - this film still showcases many of his talents and I enjoyed it very much. I think after this, though, Buster finally learned to not let himself be chased by an army of cops - it never ended well for him! ;-) lol

What's worse than being a girl having to fight off 1,000 other possible brides for a chance to marry a millionaire? Hearing the minister later tell all of you ladies to leave the church quietly, that this whole thing must've been a prank! *YIKES!*

One of THE funniest movies I've ever seen, especially the famous climactic chase scene. While I loved how "College" showed off some of Buster's many athletic skills, I think this one actually shows them just as well if not better. Great how all those boulders chased off the rabid pack of brides, too - I'll bet even "Jimmie" the groom had to laugh to himself about that. ;-D

Some reviewers felt it started off rather slow, which it did, but when Buster made a film HIS way, this was usually the case - build, build, and build then push 'em out into the aisles laughing! Oh, and throw in some great sight gags along the way: the scene in the clock shop was priceless!

I was surprised to learn that this was one of Buster's least favorite films, but despite that, being forced on him by Joe Schenck, I think he took a weak pitch and knocked it 'way out of the ballpark!

Keaton + sow's ear = silk purse.

MY, what a rare mix of talent Buster had! He was a prize stallion that should've ran free forever, and never should have been fenced in at the Malicious Greedy Morons studio. I'm so glad in his later years, he was vindicated as a wonderful comedic genius, loved and revered by millions everywhere for all time. :-)

I LOVE this movie; it's one of my favorite Buster Keaton films of all time! :-) Here, the focus was on the story, so don't expect any jaw-dropping sequences like in "Sherlock Jr." or "Seven Chances", for instance. It's a sweet old-fashioned love story, where one "girl" helps Buster win the girl of his dreams. And unlike some of Buster's love interests, Sally is genuinely a kind, understanding sweetheart who truly cares about him and allows him to care about her without guilt and reproach.

Anyone too, who thinks Keaton was any less of an actor or less capable of pathos than Chaplin may well think twice after seeing this film. If you've seen it, you can probably guess when and how Chaplin would've ended this it had it been his. But this was Keaton, and of course he had different ideas of mixing pathos with comedy. Compare "The Circus" ending to "The Cameraman" ending for a good example.

Oh, but if only this hadn't been the last of its kind...

As a Christian, I know I shouldn't harbor any deep-seated hatred and un-forgiveness towards anyone. But as an imperfect human being, to me it was inexcusable and incomprehensible how HORRIBLY stupid and disrespectfully MGM treated the great Buster Keaton. Even just thinking about it makes me sick at heart. It's not like he was some unknown, unproven talent. And aside from the the then-disappointing box office and critical response (and profit loss) on "The General", he had long proved himself to be one of the best (and profitable) comedians of the day.

The Talmadges and Joe Schenck weren't totally blameless, either. They certainly used Buster up: they took away nearly all he had and, along the way, helped grease the skids on his tragic, descending ride on the oppressive MGM studio system train.

Of course, Buster himself bears some of the blame, and I'm not talking about his drinking problems. Right from the start, unlike Chaplin, I doubt he was as demanding and insistent when it came to standing up for himself and his art. (I'll bet Charlie would just as soon have given an arm and a leg before giving up his film-making independence!).

Buster may not have been as good a businessman as he was a comedian, and his wanting some degree of financial security is understandable. But surely, wouldn't he have known of the growing control grab of performers' independence by the big studio systems - why United Artists was formed to start with (in 1919)?

Certainly the Malicious Greedy Morons had lots of money, but unlike a VERY select few, they had NOTHING on knowing even a fraction about comedy as Buster did. One of the worst cases of blind, cruel arrogance I've ever heard of.

For instance, one point in the trivia section mentions how "The Cameraman" was used for years by MGM as an example of a perfect comedy. The studio would make all its directors and producers watch it and learn. But from my understanding, that's only part of the story. Reportedly, MGM presented this comedy masterpiece as a sample of THEIR superiority in making comedies, especially over the likes of Buster Keaton. In their minds, they had already "won" the battle for total creative control in all present and future MGM Keaton films.

But I believe the justice of it all is that even today, almost 85 years after the last scene was shot - and over 45 years since his passing - it's Buster Keaton who's still universally known, respected, and loved, not "them". He got the last laugh, after all!

At the film's conclusion, I see that ticker-tape parade as a very fitting salute to Buster's incomparable and timeless legacy in the annals of silent film, of comedy, and all of movie history. Thank you, Buster. :-) R.I.P.

******************

(9 out of 10 stars only because I was hoping to see Buster and Sally in a least ONE tight squeeze that was inescapable: one with locked lips! *sigh*)

Ah, the never-ending debate of academics vs. athletics. Well in this case, Buster proves he's a rare winner at both!

While I very much enjoyed the film overall, I kept thinking back to a YouTube clip I saw of Lillian Gish introducing this movie (sorta like they do on TCM). Her commentary alone is what made me decide that this would be the then-next BK film I'd watch! She made the introduction in her usual gentle, elegant way, especially in giving some first-hand perspective to what nowadays would be a very "politically incorrect" scene.

But when she made a comment to the effect of, "Poor Buster! Imagine how difficult it probably was for a great athlete like him to do so many athletic feats 'wrong'!", that was all *I* needed to hear!

So does "poor Buster", the top academic student, win over the girl he loves with all his clumsy (and sometimes painful!) attempts at athletics? You wouldn't think so, but then again, efforts and results don't necessarily always follow a clear path. Remember "wax on, wax off"? ;-D

First time I saw the whole movie and it was beautiful, funny, but heartbreaking. Chaplin knew how to tug at the heart strings as well as hit the funny bone. Some people think The Tramp was more "unlikeable" in his earlier days because he was more aggressive and wouldn't hesitate to fight back any opponent, but there were several moments throughout here that I'd wished for "that" Tramp to come back and kick more butt! In any case, another masterpiece by Chaplin the master. :-)

BTW - I'm pleasantly surprised to read how many reviewers finally saw the light and were "converted" to the opinion that silent films could be and were great! (No) thanks to poor quality copies and improper running speeds, the silents developed a bad reputation among the later generations. However, thanks to modern restoration techniques, discoveries of better quality prints, and more public interest, we can see these old treasures for the priceless art that they are.

If anyone besides me also thinks that most of today's movies are just cookie-cutter crap, but aren't familiar with silent films, then I know of a pleasant surprise that just may be in store for them! Well-done silents like "The Circus" are indeed a welcome relief from a simpler time but when quality DID matter! Back then and through the golden age of Hollywood, stories were told without CGI, inane dialogue, explicit nudity and violence, nihilistic world views, tasteless, gross-out sophomoric humor, etc... all the easy ways out filmmakers use today to get a reaction out of jaded audiences.

Well, I say let what's old be new again and let fans see how well the old movies did a rather difficult thing, and that is entertain without all the empty sensationalism so prevalent today. :-)

Plenty of action here as Charlie gets drawn into a nefarious insurance scam plot hatched by a boat's owner. The owner's also determined, however, to keep Charlie away from daughter Edna. Thank goodness all ends well but not after a LOT of high sea hi-jinks! Someone else commented on the dance routine Charlie does in the galley - yes, he could'a been a ballerina! But I too noticed the backwards shuffle that I'd seen before in Modern Times - I saw the later movie first, but here was its first appearance (first that I'm aware of).

Lotsa fun; was hard to follow for me a few times but I chalk that up to a so-so video quality or I'd have rated it higher. Plus a couple of Charlie & Edna's kissing scenes got interrupted so I took a few points off for that, too! lol Anyway, I hope to get this on a good DVD copy, the best I can find, because this one IS a "keeper"!

So many now-classic (and later oft-duplicated) comedy scenes and scenarios that still hold up so well nearly 90 years later!! Some reviewers have said the plot in this one wasn't so much, but *I* think plot wasn't the focus - I think it was mostly just all-out for laughs and I got plenty of them!

My review title, "Just For Fun", sums up how and why Chaplin made this film as he did, in my opinion. He could totally do whatever the heck he wanted as long as he had a film to fulfill his obligation to First National. His movies had already become "HIS" movies in every sense of the word, far from any days when he had to worry about one bad performance costing him basic room & board. Plus by this time, I'm sure he was more than confident that he knew how to please his comedy fans so he just let the gags run full throttle on "enjoy"!

Finally, there was one little bit of comedy I hadn't seen anyone else mention thus far. When the boys are all standing outside the speakeasy, at one point Charlie's "standing" (lol) with the help of his cane, unaware that his back is to a ground-level metal grate. But like the elevator, his timing (and luck!) was with him as he managed to twirl the cane several times to have its point land ON the grate! UN-like the elevator, though, his luck runs out and the cane lands in one of the grate holes and takes him down with it!

All in all, a grate -- er, I mean, a GREAT work and a fitting end to Chaplin's short film repertoire. ;-)

Recently I saw this for the first time in its entirety, and I absolutely loved it. As others have said, only Chaplin the master could likely have pulled off this great combination of dark humor and pathos. Chaplin early on believed that sometimes comedy is funnier when it's on the edge of sadness, which at the time was such a contrary notion to the prevalent school of madcap, take-nothing-seriously comedy as Keystone studios made famous.

Monseiur Verdoux's last years show very strong examples that life isn't always so clear-cut in black & white or right & wrong; there are usually several shades of gray that are also woven in. Here, the "gray" isn't cloudy enough to justify Verdoux's crimes, of course - but enough to see that calling him a cold-blooded killer doesn't quite so neatly explain his actions, either.

His scenes with Martha Raye were priceless! Not often did we get to see Chaplin in the role of "straight man", but here I think he played it off so well against the looney Annabella. And you knew he couldn't just explode on her by losing his temper, but OH, could you feel the frustration oozing off of him as all his efforts to kill her fail!

I also kept watch for any little signs or "flashbacks" to any of his silent movies. One that particularly stood out was as I point out on my "Bad Day" YouTube video**, his quick movement into a grinning, cross-legged hunched-up "innocent" act in the boat was a direct flashback! Plus I noticed that he could count money with the same amazing quickness and dexterity as he did shuffling cards in "The Immigrant".

It was nice hearing Charlie's voice, too! The Little Tramp needed no such voice, but here it allowed him to use another tool in his vast repertoire of acting skills developed over decades of experience. Loved the reaction of the flower girl as she overheard him speaking to Madame Grosnay! Speaking of acting, others have commented that they never realized he COULD "act" until they saw this film, and that always surprises *me* when people are surprised at a comedian's acting skills. It's often far easier for a comedian to do drama than for a dramatic actor to do comedy!

Finally, it always saddens me when I think how the U.S. treated the great Charlie Chaplin during and after the time of the film's release, allowing its anti-Communism paranoia to get so out of hand as to alienate him, a great genius who brought a lot of joy and goodwill to our country. But - this is why I'm SO thankful that one generation later, the priceless Chaplin was finally vindicated with an uproarious ovation at the 1972 Academy Awards Ceremony. It still breaks my heart with joy just thinking about it!

This review was purposely titled Chaplin's most "silent" movie - not because there was no spoken dialog in the film, of course, but because thanks to negative and undeserved public opinion in its day, this great work was nearly "silenced" here in the U.S. for good and still remains probably his least-watched film. Given the lack of attention it's received compared to his other films, this is his movie about which the world, thus far, has remained the most silent. At least maybe until now. :-)

**http://youtu.be/joNY9Xe18vw

The packed-house midnight premiere audience I was in (amidst mostly 17- to 30-year-old fanboys) watched in reverent awe (with, of course, shouts of exclamation during the more shocking scenes) of what this "fangirl" calls one of the most well-done movie adaptations to film of ANY novel I've read to date.

Certainly no movie is perfect, but I'm not going to bother nit-picking here as I deeply feel Zack Snyder & Co. gave it their all to do proper and faithful justice to the original "Watchman" graphic novel - and for that they have my utmost respect and appreciation (are you listening, Joel Schumacher?). Another cast & crew may have done it differently and perhaps equally AS well, but I dare anyone else to try and do it better. I think Alan Moore's missing out... oh, well.

This is not going to be for everyone's taste, especially those who are expecting a smash-'em-up, explosive action film with well-known, mainstream superheroes. Oh, yes - there's literally some great "bone-crunching" action, sometimes quite disturbing, delivered with wicked intensity (and daresay occasionally a little amusement) by equal-opportunity butt-kickers. There are also some erotic scenes, and one main character is often nude (true to the original story). But what you have in total is a dark, epic emotional story of powerful but disenchanted protagonists who are still trying to do the right thing for their fellow Americans - at least in their own eyes.

For those unfamiliar with "Watchmen": before you see the film I'd recommend you either just familiarize yourself a little bit with its basic plot and characters, or at least go in with an open mind and no preconceived notions. Its "R" rating is well-deserved; "Watchmen" is no children's tale. But to me, all of the more "adult" aspects of the story were handled within good context of the characters and the storyline, not with immature, gratuitous excess for shock value alone.

My recommendation: go see this intriguing, intelligent, dark and disturbing story of fallible superheroes versus the world. Fans, if nothing else I think you'll appreciate the filmmakers' efforts to stay respectfully true to the original story - others, expect the unexpected and enjoy the ride. :-)