FRANKI'S FAVORITE FILMS: silent eddition

they just don't make movies like they did back in the day. i don't mean back in my day, as those movies, with very few exceptions, also tended to suck. i meant way, way, way back in the day, like in the first days of film, when people were still figuring out the tricks of the trade for the very first time. i'm talking teens, '20s and '30s here, before they knew how to syncronize image and sound, so everything was silent, with occasional title cards to fill in crucial dialogue and other explainations.

back then, an actor really had to know how to act, because they couldn't exactly rely on exposition and social status to offset their horrible skills; they had to be able to tell a story through gesture, expression, and timing (something most actors of today lack, due to being born in the era of "talkies").

so today i decided to pay tibute to this lost art by reviewing my favorite silent films.

NOSFERATU.
i can already hear it, my loyal readers rolling their eyes and grinning to themselves as they think, of course franki would review this one first. and, yeah, i do tend to put a lot of signifigance on this film because it was the first real horror story of its kind. classic horror. (i mean classic horror -- not that the "Exorcist" isn't a classic, it's just a different kind of classic). of course, this story is based on Bram Stoker's "Dracula," though all names had to be changed due to lack of permission to reproduce the story. and no, they didn't change his name to "nosferatu" which is the romanian word for "vampire", but to "count orlock" (though in some more recently restored versions, the title cards were replaced to have all the corresponding character names, so he becomes "count dracula" again). in fact, it follows the story of "Dracula" better than the actual film a few years later of the same name, starring Bela Lugosi (click here to read more about him: http://therandomturtle.blogspot.com/2010/10/bela-lugosi-man-wed-go-necropheliac-for.html ). max shreck (not shrek) stares as the nosferatu (ok, it's just easier to refer to him as the word, especially to those who are not exactly connisseurs of the silent film industry... it's just easier on me, as i do not have to constantly explain), and back then, the actors did all their own make up and prosthetics, so he had to have a great vision of himself as a character, and does some great eye-acting, and his "lurking" scenes are ledgendary.

THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA

this frame of the film was one of THE most groundbreaking moments of film history: the moment Erik the Phantom (though he is never referred to by name in this film) is first unmasked on screen, for the very first premiers, audience members would scream, faint, vomit, and run out of the theater (not all at once). great moment in history. ledgendary lon chaney stars as the phantom, did all his own make up and prosthetics (in fact, there was no make up and prosthetics team for actors till like the '60s, and even then, it was only on big-budget films -- the "star trek" series was among the first low-budget small-screen projects to have this -- unfortunately, they only aided in the application, not the removal, and poor leonnard nimoy... sorry, off-topic...), and he was one of the greatest silent film actors of the era (and, while there may be some fairly compared silent film talent of acting, chaney was probably the greatest of all time). anyone who does not know the story line of "phantom" is truely missing out -- it is not a horror, as people like to claim, because the villain is presented with compassion to the audience. we feel sorry for Erik, and, while not all may agree with his decisions, we can understand why he did them (hypnotize and kidnap the girl -- sure, how else would he get a date? murder joseph boquet -- the dude was spreading rumors about him!! sure, they were true rumors, but still.... why haunt an opera house at all? -- i don't know, but i do know that i really wanna give it a try!). this is one of those stories that people just can't seem to get over. there have been over ten different reincarnations of the phantom, never mind the many, many, many references within other films. this is the one stage production that i really, really, really wanna be involved in, with a leading role (no, not christine, that bunny-fart of a crazy girl -- I wanna be the phantom!)

THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI

a mental mindwarp of a psychological horror. good stuff. would've been tough to see it in theatres back in the day, though -- kinda have to go back and watch it twice to really get it all. ('course, back then, they played showings of the same movie back-to-back-to-back, and if you payed your five cents once and smuggled in some food, you could've just stayed there all day, watching the movie until you had it memorized, picking up on little nuances every new viewing). ok, so there is a magical man in a box in Doctor Caligari's travelling gypsie circus (box=cabinet). he only wakes up every so often, with years between rise-and-shinies. while the circus is in town, there are a string of murders that no one can solve -- the first serial-killer film! and with everything we have in films of the sort today: a set of mysterious circumstances with evidence that the authorities interperate wrong the entire film, until an epiphany in the last quarter, a man with deep regrets, a love interest that serves no purpose but to keep women and little girls from walking out in boredom and/or disturbance, and one of those great twists in the ending. a word on visual graphics: eerie, crooked angles everywhere, makes no bones about the fact that everything's a set, no on-location filming, all sorta through the eyes of a madman, and i can see some aspects that are sure to have influenced Tim Burton, my absolute favorite director, at some time in his impressionable childhood: the crazy angles, of course, the way even mundane objects and settings seem a little off and maybe a bit frightening, and of course character designs for the famous Burton characters, "the Penguin" (his version, at least) and "Edward Scissorhands". very dark, very cool.... (for those in the know....FAKIR!!!)

MODERN TIMES

on a lighter note, after the previous horror-esque films, this is my favorite comedy of the day, starring comedy mastermind, Charlie Chaplin (the only actor of the time, and i think, but don't quote me, of all film history, to ever get the rights to his own character, the Little Tramp, so that he has become non-reproducable or immitatable by law -- the first man to become a rich celebrity through acting). this one starts with him working in a factory in the depression era, where (after a fight with an eating machine, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4sjKJvUia0 , my favorite sequence in the film) he has a nervous breakdown, gets sent to a "sanitarium" (what a forboding word...), comes back having lost his job, goes to jail after a misunderstanding, gets high on crack (YES!!! charlie chaplin on crack!), stops a prison riot and becomes the favorite inmate, gets out with a job recommendation, screws up his jobs, meets up with a cute homeless girl (who actually has a very contemporary look to her), gets back his job at the factory, loses it again, gets a job as a singing waiter (first chaplin film with tiny snippets of sound, but is otherwise silent), and loses his job again, and, my favorite aspect of the film, it is a great movie, wonderful comedy, that does not have a happy ending. oh, it's optomistic, but the two are both out of the job, homeless, and wanted by law, when the Tramp whipes away the girl's tears and says, on his title card, "don't worry, we'll think of something" and they walk down the highway into the sunrise, the girl on his one arm, and his dusty, once-debonaire bamboo cane in the other. sigh. i smile and choke a sob just thinking about it.

so, those are my all-time favorite silent films. hope you liked my review, now friggin' GO TO YOUTUBE AND FIND THEM SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!

you won't (or shouldn't) be disappointed.

"DreamWorks" computer-graphic films -- WHAT the HE**!

okay, anyone who has paid any ammount of close attention to my favorite films (at least the recent ones...) knows that i vastly prefer DreamWorks to that horrid collaboration of Disney/Pixar (idea-stealing, cheeting, too-friggin'-predictable hacks!!).

DreamWorks studios, established 1994, has always been the major producer of "children's" movies that the whole family can enjoy -- they do this by slipping some cultural references and sexual innuendos beneath the pollished computer graphics that kids just overlook untill they're old enough to get the jokes.... but with every film, they work harder and harder to keep the adults and teenagers interested (that includes sexual innuendos and cultural references that most kids overlook untill they're old enough to get the jokes, and increasing use of curse words).

so, here's my DreamWorks CG film list:

ANTZ (1998)-- the story of, well, a bunch of ants, specifically one guy who wants to get away from the unavoidable social structure of ant world, and a princess who wants more from life than giving birth every three seconds every day until she dies. worst thing in there: a few sexual inuendos, and the phrase "come hell or high water". that's about it. (idea to ANTZ stolen by Pixar to make "A Bug's Life")

"Shrek" (2001) -- story of an ogre who secretly hates being an outcast, a donkey that won't shut up but who ya can't help but love, and a princess who is anything but your typical girl, who i kinda looked up to after seeing her on the big screen at age 9. worst parts: lots of sexual inuendos, a few cultural referances, and the use of the song, "bad reputation" in a fight scene. (Pixar'd decided not to steal this idea -- a decision i'm sure they're kicking themselves over, now!)

"Shrek 2" (2004) -- continuation of "Shrek," after the ogre and the princess got married, and the donkey and the dragon got together, they all go the Far Far Away to perform a screwed-up fairytale "meet the parents" scenario in a fairly hillarious sort of way, introducing Antonio Banderas as Puss in Boots (who will have his own movie in 2012... we'll see how that goes...). worst parts: some sexual innuendo, tons of cultural referances, and there were a couple parts where Fairy Godmother had a bit of a foul mouth on her tiny self. (apparantly, Pixar assumed that they couldn't possibly succeed with that messed-up fairytale idea twice... haha! losers!)

"Shark Tale" (2004)-- story of a fish seemingly down on his luck who teams up with a vegetarian shark to make his big brake, and get an Angelina Joile fish girlfriend, leaving the Renee` Zellwegger fish in the watery dust. biggest things here: no cursing, minimal sexual innuendo (only inasmuch as to describe the relationship with the two girl fish and Oscar), loads of cultural references. (Pixar decided not to screw up three times, and took this idea to do "Finding Nemo", which turned out to be a bigger success than "Shark Tale," unfortunately)

"Madagascar" (2005)-- story of a bunch of zoo animals who find themselves kicked out of New York and sent to the real wild, and the lion starts craving friends... his friends... for dinner... No sexual innuendo, only a few cultural references to establish that they're New York animals, and language stops at a few puns and play-on-words. (Pixar stole this storyline almost exactly in "the Wild")

"Over the hedge" (2006) -- about a bunch of woodland animals who emerge from hybernation to find that a suburb had been built in the middle of their forest while they slept, and a raccoon teaches them how to steal human food. yeah, that's it. as for the big things in this movie: there are none. it is very much a kids' movie... and it sucked. (Pixar did not steal this idea, which, unfortunately, was smart thinking on their part, 'cause this one sucked.)

"Shrek the Third" (2007)-- more continuation of the ogre, princess, princess' parents, donkey, dragon, and puss in a boring recollection of how Shrek doesn't want to be a king, a father, or anyone with a real backbone, as he is always whining and fretting. they also changed his design, so that, if you look closely, he's gotten more "handsome" since the first movie: his cheek bones are higher, his eyes are lighter, and he has better teeth. that, and he'd lost a lot of weight over the, what, two weeks since the last movie ended? big things: couple sexual innuendos, few cultural references in relation to high school (a topic that has just been done to death), and a bit of mild language here and there. (after so much dawdelling in the fairy-tale department of Pixar, they just gave up here)

"Bee Movie" (2007)-- about a bee who wants to leave the hive, and when he does, he falls in love with a human girl who saved his life, sues humankind for stealing honey, and majorly screws up the entire ecosystem as a result, and has to fix it by stealing a rose parade float and embracing his inner-bee. that's the movie. (what is the deal with DreamWorks making such assy movies in this time period? bad management?) biggest things: couple innuendos, few cultural references, language maybe once, kinda preachy on "respecting all life"... duh.

"Kung Fu Panda" (2008)-- a panda joins a team and does kung fu the way fat guys do, and eventually gets accepted by his peers. i know a lot of people like this movie, but if it weren't for Jack Black as Po, i probably wouldn't have watched it at all; kung fu movies aren't really my thing. big things: i'm sure theres a few innuendos, though can't recall any cultural references or language -- still appealing more to the kids than adults -- but good animation design; better than it has been.

"Madigascar: Escape 2 Africa" (2008)-- more on the zoo animals in the wild, the lion finds his parents, the zebra finds his brethren, the girraffe finds his calling, and the hippo finds her soul mate in the girraffe (sweetness). the penguins are increasingly psychotic and slightly homicidal (had to be very tamed down for the weekly series which aired on Nickelodian that same year). big things (besides the homicidal penguins): bit more laxed in the language, a few sexual innuendos, almost no cultural references.

"Monsters v. Aliens" (2009)-- a girl grows to be 50 feet tall on her wedding day so her shallow man-whore can deny her, she is kidnapped and taken to a top secret facility where they keep the monsters, and, after a series of strange events, she learns to lover herself as she is -- taller than a mountain. not bad, in terms of entertainment. Hugh Laurie voices for Dr. Cockroach. big stuff: few sexual innuendos, not many cultural referances, lots of language (or suggestion of language).

"How to Train your Dragon" (2010)-- a geeky viking boy finds a dragon, befriends it, trians it, and uses his new knowledge to become popular and get the viking girl. ta-da! not as boring as i just made it sound just now... acutally pretty good. Gerard Butler voices for the guy's giant viking father. big stuff: i can only think of one sexual innuendo, no cultural references except maybe a little bit to high school (but they're digging themselves out of a boring film funk, so i can forgive that), a little more suggestion of language than in the last one.

"Shrek Forever After" (2010)-- CRAP!!! ah, DreamWorks, you were doing so good building yourself back up, then you releas THIS!!! ok, where do i begin.... Shrek is a class-A whimp. Fiona, while the powerful woman i always admire, came off as the emotionally-repressed, yet extreamily angry person that kinda gives of a lesbien vibe that, after my experiences with rumors, i don't feel comfortable relating too much to her new character. Puss is a fat kitty, donkey's just weird and i wanna smack him, dragon is evil, and to top it all off, there's Rumplestiltskin running the show with the most annoying voice in existance. big stuff: lots of sexual innuend0, very little cultural reference, and a bit of outright language, no suggestion about it.

"Megamind" (2010)-- okay, they rebounded well here. of course i like this movie. bad guy wins, creates new good guy to have a purpose, screws up, must become good guy himself, gets girl... ta! bit of sexual innuendo here and there, cultural reference limited to comic book culture, and occasional language. (Pixar seemed to remember at the last minute, hey these guys used to have really good ideas! lets take this one! and they made "Despicable Me". cute, a bit predictable, but i admit, i find it hard to hate any movie from a supervillain's point of view)

"Rango" (2011)-- kind of boring on the surface, as i went in expecting another somewhat kid-oriented film (hello! talking lizards! western movie setting!), but it was a lot more in-depth than a lot of their films, and and philosophy played a big role in the plot. true, Johnny Depp did do the voice of Rango, and he usually picks some good roles, so i decided, ok lets do this thing. ya really have to pay attention to the twists and turns in the story to get it all, though. and, i won't give anything away here, but the dream sequences looked like they were inspired by Salvadore Dhali's surrealist pictures. big stuff: mild sexual innuendo, culteral references to theater, western as a film genre, and some suggestion of alcahol ('cause it's a western...). as for language: all-friggin-out! tons of uses of "hell," "damn," "son of a *squck*" and the occasional "shit." wow, DreamWorks... you under new management, or something? is this the kind of films we can expect from future works? i kinda hope that, if it does reflect future works, they are a bit more interesting between plot developments, and don't start quite as slow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs88zTvplus this is a "Bum Review" of "Rango" if you are interested.

ok, that's my rant for now! bye! go watch some movies!

nouns that piss me off

a noun can be either a person, place, thing, or idea. here are the nouns of each category that piss me off.

PEOPLE

1. a complete jerk-wad i went to high school with who shall henceforth be referred to as Stuck-Up Preppy Ass-face, SUPA for short (pronounced more like "supper", not "super"). he started out as my best friend (for, like, a year, which is about as long as all my "best friends" last -- except Lord Semaj, who is now going on two years, but to refer to him as merely a "best friend", at least as how i determine one to be, would be an insult... neither time nor place), and was actually an ok guy -- odd, extravorted freak obsessed with broadway shows -- then something went wrong, and he became... mainstream (pardon my french)! he told me at the beginning of high school that i had to be more normal (again, with the french) so that i would not embarrass him like last year... according to my memory, i wasn't the one who threw a chair at the school photographer because he didn't want to lift his chin... neither here nor there... but i tried, because i didn't want to become friendless. sunk into a real depression for supressing my true oddness, and finally realized that a true friend wouldn't want to change me (well, maybe as much as "please don't say that, anymore, it's annoying", but not as much as "i hate your personality, and would prefer you to be a completely different person") and rebelled by coming to school in my favorite cape and combat boots with about eight braids in my hair, and started singing "we're not gonna take it!" when he criticized me for standing out too much. we've hated each other ever since. now he's a prep with no friends and expensive, pre-ripped abercrombie pants. and i'm a total geek with friends who love me and wouldn't ever change me, except for the better, and an entire collection of capes, masks, and tiny bells. who's the loser, now?!

2. my dad. not the one who has adopted me, the one who emotionally abandoned me, before destroying my ability to readily trust. sure, the one who's around now i don't always get along with (but, really, who does get along with their parents all the time?), but at least he is around. that makes him more of a parent than my biological slut-bunny, alcohol-tard of an ejaculation. i've cut off all possible communication with him over a year ago (not that he was begging for "quality time" the previous decade and a half), but every so often i still think of him, all the crap he'd put me through, and the wound reopens, tearing the scar tissue of my heart, and it takes days to heal back up, and in that time i regress to my angry, distrustful state i'd been before (incidentally, the full two and a half years that followed the fallout with the SUPA). sometimes, i even cry.

PLACES

1. gyms. whether it be the jr. high or high school gymnasium, or a place where people exercise and lift weights, the moment i enter, a lump fills my throat, and i feel completely inadequite and assy as compared to everyone else in there (think the volleyball sequences of the opening credits of "Daria", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxTqEJgdNXU&feature=related ... i like Daria).

2. grocery markets. don't really know why. just annoys me.

THINGS

1. G-strings -- not the musical kinds, but the ass-crawling kind. if a girl wants to wear one, go for it, but i don't wanna friggin' see it! what goes up your ass is none of my business! if it were, i'd be interviewing every guy your slut-bunny-butt has slept with during a drunken stupor. i swear, every time i see a G-string sticking outa someone's crack (non-gender-specific), i just wanna kick them in the face!

2. those new l.e.d. siren lights on top of the cop cars, now. makes them too hard to identify at a distance. i swear, it's like the cop car from some 80's flick mated with Kit from "Night Rider", and that l.e.d. car was the unprotected result...

IDEAS

1. normalcy -- there is no such thing! why are people so desperate to join it? there's nothing like becoming a part of nothing, and even if you succeeded, normal people are alwasys forgotten. those who are now famous, chances are, have never been normal. so, what's the glamour in normalcy? it's dumb!

2. heroism -- too subjective. this culture's heroes are another culture's assassins!! and what makes a hero? the too-bigness-for britches (that's why they wear tights) behavior and self-glorification that all famous heroes show? or overcoming past failures and bettering yourself at whatever the cost, which is more of a "villain" thing?



ok, have to stop, now. am pissing myself off.

what nouns piss you off?

SWEET SCHEIZER AND HUZZAH!

first off, i should appologise for recent silences... but, no, i won't, 'cause apologizing so much is making my sorry-box ache.

now that i have that out of the way, i want to offer up a recent victory in my own realm: after weeks of griping and moaning that "i really need to get some real drumsticks," i have finally scraped together enough money to actually do so!

my internet research had mislead me; everything i'd found when googling drumstick prices, they always seemed quite expensive (the smallest monetary value for a pair of quality drumsticks came out to be $18.50), however, when i'd finally took the initiative to go to the nearest music shop to price some real ones, they ranged anywhere from $3 (for child's-first-instrument type sticks) to $8 (for fancy, sparkly ones). i settled on a pair of simple, non-varnished pine, 13.5 inch, teardrop vynal-tipped 5B drumsticks for $4.

i have named them Ziggy and Lars.

as of yet, i still have no, you know, drums to practice on, but why get ahead of myself? i have buckets galore, some pot-lids for cymbals, and a pair of perfectly good snare-hat boxes (that i actually bum from Lord Semaj when we jam).

so, yeah... sweet scheizer and huzzah for my sticks!!!