"The Invisible Man" (1933)

This movie absolutely blew my mind! To think that this movie was made in 1933 is incredible. Now, I will admit that I have a soft spot in my heart for Hollywood's classic monster movies, but this is genuinely incredible. The visual effects to create the Invisible Man are spectacular. Sure they do the classic (I guess in this case they'd be the original) invisible effects; doors opening, glasses being thrown, books dropping, and the like, but when you first see the Invisible Man start to unwrap his bandages and he is truly invisible underneath, you cannot help but be amazed at how great it looks. Toss aside the annoying innkeepers wife, what deficiencies the story may have (I'm not necessarily saying it has any), and anything else you may see as a detraction. What negatives this movie may possess are completely overshadowed by the brilliance it definitely contains. I cannot get over how blown away I was; this is why you watch movies, and it is a borderline religious experience to have a movie that is nearly 80 years old do such a thing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024184/

"Ironclad"

The biggest problems you're going to run into with doing a period piece (especially when it's a medieval war movie) has to be budget and, related very much to budget, scale. The biggest problem with "Ironclad" is budget and, related very much to budget, scale. When your large fight sequences have 20 guys on screen when you're supposed to have an entire army with you, it tends to leave much to be desired. I'm pretty sure the same three guys lifted the same ladder 27 times in 88 different shots to create the illusion. Unfortunately it failed. With the small budget that was, they tried to create beyond that a larger scale and was unsuccessful. Another problem with this movie was the story. Toss aside the stereotypical nature, but why is it that this moral and righteous Templar Knight is perfect in every sense until a pair of medieval bosoms attached to a pretty face flash before him and his chain-mail  comes flying off faster than that guy-with-a-wooden-eye-in-"Pirates of the Caribbean"-but-doesn't-have-a-wooden-eye-in-this-movie-because-he's-not-a-pirate's arrow shoots from his bow. It's just ridiculous, more so than the comparison I just made in the last sentence. My third and final complaint was that the dialogue was filled with all these one-liners that were meant to be smart, witty, funny, powerful, riveting, thought provoking, and/or moralistic. Instead they fell painfully flat. You watch this movie and it has a lot of recognizable faces (is it Hollywood law that Brian Cox or Brian Gleeson must be in any and every medieval movie these days?), but they all are over-dramatic, even Paul Giamatti who I think is fantastic. Just not in this. It's always disappointing when you weren't expecting much and even then the film fails to live up to those limited expectations.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1233301/

"Little Shop of Horrors"

For most movies a certain level of suspended reality must be adhered to. For any musical, that level of suspended reality must be increased exponentially. What's great about "Little Shop of Horrors" is that they accept that this is not reality, that singing in life is absurd, a mean green mother from outer space is absurd, and present this movie in an absurd way. This movie being based on a stage play, the story is limited on what you can do on stage. The movie didn't try to change that. This movie was probably shot on the same sized area as a stage play. Now, before I go further let me say that all this that I'm saying is a good thing. A great thing. This is a fantastic little movie. I'm not saying these things as drawbacks to the movie. I'm saying them as praise for the movie. Rick Moranis was surprising as far as singing goes, not that he was extraordinary, but he was good. Ellen Greene may have sounded more irritating than Fran Drescher, but perfectly complimentary to Rick Moranis' Seymour. Cameos by numerous individuals added to the good time that this movie was I'm still humming "Suddenly Seymour" and probably will be for the next week. I think that's a good sign. This movie didn't try to be something that is wasn't, it tried to be exactly what it was and it succeeded. This is a campy, fun musical with good, memorable songs, and exaggerated and silly characters.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091419/

"Best in Show"

The brilliance of "Best in Show" is that these are frighteningly realistic characters that you can imagine actually meeting and genuinely being obsessed with such a, what I perceive as, ridiculous hobby. They aren't over the top to the point of disbelief, but they are crazy enough to incite a mixture of fear, pity, and awkwardness. The deficiency of "Best in Show" has to be the length. The mockumentary style just doesn't seem conducive to a full length feature film. This often leads to somewhat boring and dragging segments of the movie. But between these boring, dragging segments you have a continuous smile from the ridiculousness of these people and some good laugh-out-loud moments. I understand that this is not a movie for everyone and not one I would watch over and over again, maybe not even ever again, but it still has the memorable factor working for it. Not to mention I'm madly in love with Parker Posey.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0218839/

"Sleepy Hollow"

Can someone please tell me why I love this movie so much? Even better, can anyone give me a reason why I should not love this movie so much?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0162661/

"The Terminator"

The problem with this movie is that it is an 80's action movie, and I'm pretty sure that type of movie ages the worst. Another problem with this movie is that James Cameron is not very good at having great dialogue or original characters, and this movie is no different. The single redeeming quality of this movie is that it lead to the incredible sequel that is "Terminator 2: Judgement Day."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088247/

"Nosferatu"

This is a tricky movie to gauge. I don't want to say all these positive things about this movie only to have you watch it and think I'm ridiculous. Nor do I want to say negative things about it and have you stone me for blaspheming against a horror classic. Now, with that said, I realize if you're reading this blog you are either bored out of your mind or care what I think about the movies I watch, so I should just say what I honestly thought. First off, this movie is said to be based on Bram Stoker's "Dracula." I am immediately throwing out the criteria of adaptation since there is no good adaptation of Bram Stoker's "Dracula" (yes, not even the movie titled "Bram Stoker's Dracula). My biggest complaint is simply a product of it being an old movie that is silent. Being such, the movie has a tendency to be campy, actors having to be over-dramatic because you're relying on their physical performance, not their words, in order to get the correct emotion. That being said, this movie is as fantastic as proclaimed. A true symphony of horror that leaves impressive visions in your mind of the Count. The musical aptitude combined with the contrasting imagery is great at invoking tension and leaving these images in your mind. I wouldn't say this is my favorite Dracula or vampire movie (I mean, how can it even compare with the brilliance of the Twilight Saga*), but it certainly is up there, especially when considering when it was made. This is one I would recommend to any and everyone, just to see what they think.

*I bet you're wondering if I'm serious or not. Well guess what? Keep wondering!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0013442/