Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
ListsAn error has ocurred. Please try again
Directors to watch movies from: -Kubrick -Renoir -Fellini -Bergman -Kurossawa -Fellini -Welles -Scorsese And others, but this are the ones i want best
City Lights (1931)
Here, this is Charlie Chaplin at his best.
There are three characters in this film. The first one is the Tramp (Charlie Chaplin). He is, as his name says, a tramp. He is everything. The other two characters can't see him. One is a blind girl, who is yet to lose her home, and the other is a businessman, who only recognizes the tramp when he is drunk.
And that is the setup of the film. The Tramp borrows money from the businessman, every time he is drunk, and gives this money to the girl, making it look like he is rich. He is afraid she won't accept he for what he is.
Charlie Chaplin may have never been better as a comedic performer. He can be hilarious, romantic, and heartbreaking.
The Tramp, while at the girl's finds out she is going to lose her and her grandma's place. The girl didn't know that either. He promises to pay the rent in the next day. He tries to get the girl money - he even boxes - but fails, hilariously, every time. Hopeless, he bumps into the millionaire, drunk, coming back to town. The Tramp talks to him and the milionaire lands him 1000 dollars. Unfortunately, the police arrives, and the millionaire - not drunk anymore - can't recognize the Tramp. He runs away to the blind girl's house.
He gives her the money, but he is arrested.
9 months later, he is released and the magical close-up, that everyone's heard about, happens.
The Blind Girl isn't blind anymore - she, with the Tramp's money bought her surgery. She still has the belief she is going to find the millionaire who helped her. The tramp bumps into her store, and stares at her, like and admirer
She recognizes his voice. She didn't like him because of the money, but because he was kind.
"Can you see now?"
"Yes, I can see now"
I'm not sure...
I saw this movie with subtitles, and it's complicated. Overall, I should watch it again. I understood most parts of the film, but didn't get the last 30 minutes. It's a good film, even if I didn't understand it all.
Overall, it's a 7.5, not as bad as people are saying.
"I think this is the end of a beautiful friendship
Following the 1981 Masterpiece
In 1981, Raiders of the Lost Ark was released. It was a box office acclaim, but not only that, it was a huge critical acclaim. Great critic Roger Ebert put it as 6th best film of the entire decade, only behind "Raging Bull", "The Right Stuff", "E.T", "Do the Right Thing" and "My Dinner with Andre". Of course, in 1984, the dark sequel/prequel was released, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Yeah, this one was neither. People thought it was too "dark". Critics thought it didn't live up to what Spielberg was doing.
Well, anyways, we're here to talk about the Last Crusade. This time he is looking for the Holy Grail, which was his father's obsession. He has got his father's diary (cliché), and he is obviously better than him (another cliché). But we don't get to see Henry until the movie reaches 50 minutes or so, and it is a pleasant surprise, since Henry may be the best part of the film. The movie ends in a huge temple, with Indiana and his father getting out in a wonderful sunset.
But it is nowhere near flawless. Jones does in 5 minutes what his dad couldn't do in more than 40 years. That's ridiculous. There is another scene where the Nazis tie him with his dad and leave the room. Haha. You've got one of the most agile person in the world, you know about his reputation, and you leave him alone with his dad, and with a lighter? There are many of these flaws. But it serves for its purpose, which is being an entertaining film. I like it. But it certainly isn't better than Raiders