There Will Be Blood (revisited)

We’re about to get back to watching these movies, so I thought now would be a good time to finish up a post I started writing ages ago.

After writing my scathing review of There Will Be Blood, I thought it might be a good idea to get a second opinion from someone who studies movies professionally, just in case I didn’t “get” the movie. After all, I railed on the movie for cinematography when it won the Oscar for “Best Achievement in Cinematography” in 2008. So I spoke to Dr. Kendrick (mentioned in my review of The Killing), and apparently everything I hated about the movie is very enjoyable to some people. I complained about the fact that the cinematography was comprised primarily of visually appealing shots that lacked any secondary purpose. As it turns out, this is something of an homage to European art films, which focus much more heavily on visual aesthetics than story. What I saw as mind-numbingly slow pacing was supposed to create tension, enhanced by the bizarre soundtrack. I suppose if you were actually attached to any of the characters, you might have felt it.

Long story short, I still hate the movie, but there are people out there who liked it, so while the majority of my previous review stands, I will retract the part urging people not to see the film. You might like it. Maybe.

Snatch Reevaluated

Man. Been waiting for Ben to post his review of Snatch (and the scores) to post this, so now it’s old. Contents of this post are from a text document I whipped up the morning after watching the film, so no critics saying “you waited too long to re-score this.” Turns out, I did not.

Anyway:

After hearing Ben talk about how he didn’t understand one of the scores I gave to Snatch, I was forced to reexamine the way I felt about the film and the way I scored it.

Script: 8
I stand by this. Honestly, the story is really good. It doesn’t approach perfect, but it does provide a decent amount of entertainment. My only real complaint was the over-reliance on the element of coincidence. I know that was kind of the point, but once the film depicts coincidences so often, it becomes predictable that the next scene will contain some sort of coincidence as well. What I would have liked to see was a coincidence followed by its lasting effects, kind of like the bit with the dog near the end of the film. That would have diversified the storytelling to keep the viewer guessing and intrigued. The characters were more or less splendidly drawn out, though Boris was a bit TOO immortal for suspension of disbelief. Also, sometimes the characters felt like caricatures, though for some characters, I could see that being the point. Overall, a solid script, so I stand by my previous assessment.

Acting: 8 (Reevaluated from 9 )
Yeah, I dropped the score. Previously when I rated the acting, I believe I was thinking “Hey, they had accents” or something stupid like that. Actors are expected to be able to do accents, and most second rate actors can do them just as well as headline stars. So, reevaluating the acting without really taking accents into account (even if I did, the result would not change), the score drops slightly. Acting was solid, not brilliant. There were moments that felt more forced than they should have been, especially, I felt, scenes that focused on the black guys. Their interactions were on a lower level than the other interactions, so the acting becomes firmly solid, rather than on the brink of brilliant. Also, when Turkish and the “pikers” are speaking the interaction feels (appropriately) awkward. There is a difference between appropriately awkward and characters’ lines not meshing together properly. Therefore, I reevaluate the film’s acting as a solid element, though it did not completely dazzle me.

Cinematography: 7 (Reevaluated from 8 )
Thinking back on it now, the cinematography wasn’t all that impressive. My tendency is to split the execution of the shots to cinematography and the choice of what to shoot and choreography to the directing. The shots were good, they just didn’t impress all that much. There were few really interesting angles and composition. I believe the best bit of cinematography was in keeping the continuity during the part with the three groups of characters all in different cars. That was impressive, given the different angles the shots were taken from. All in all, I found the cinematography to be good, but not great. It satisfied the needs of the viewer, but it did not leave me noticing the quality of the cinematography.

Soundtrack: 8
I stand by it. Marc thought I was crazy. The soundtrack was solid, and I agree. It’s not Lord of the Rings quality, and we all know that. I found it to be at the same level as the soundtrack for Into the Wild, in terms of the soundtrack matching and enhancing the film, and lo and behold, Into the Wild recieved the same ranking. The sound effects really were what pushed the soundtrack to being so good. Otherwise, it could have been simply sufficient.

Directing: 8
Directing is subtle, and as such, hard to rate. But I stand by my previous assessment. The sequences of shots never stagnated. There was always some sort of action in the screen frame, be it the moving of the frame itself or the movement of the actors. The movements of the characters through the frames was solid, no real issues. All in all, I found the directing to be proficient. And proficient directing is hard to notice. Bad directing, mediocre directing, and superb directing are all many times easier to see, but proficient directing is definitely subtly charming. So the directing is overall really solid.

Special Effects: 8 (Reevaluated from 7 )
I’ll be frank: I was really tempted to keep the 7. Simple realistic blood effects come down to a formula now that they have been more or less perfected, and that was the majority of the special effects in the movie. The real difference in the special effects in the boxing matches compared to Million Dollar Baby (only other movie recently watched containing boxing scenes) is the complete lack of any sort of swelling. Over several rounds of being pounded on and being made to bleed, there would be some swelling in the bleeding areas. The trailer fire could only really be accomplished by burning something, so that’s not too impressive. The guns were not really impressive looking. I mean, they pointed, there was some recoil, and they played a gunfire sound effect. I don’t remember if there was any muzzle flash. I assume so, but since guns are used so often in modern films, there is a formulaic approach to making them semi-realistic. The dog is the element that pushed the score from upper 7 to lower 8. There is a reason most films do not actively use animals: they are unpredictable, even when trained, and will ruin many shots by one wrong move. Snatch managed to not only keep the dog where they wanted it, but in a believable manner. The dog swallowing the squeak toy was probably one of the more difficult scenes from the special effects point of view, since the dog could not be allowed to ACTUALLY swallow the toy. It did look like he did, however, so that scene pushed the special effects score over the cusp. I’ll be honest though: the special effects score is still damn close to a 7. I thought I might have been wrong when Ben questioned me on the score, but upon reevaluation, I could have stuck with it and had no problems from an ethical standpoint. ”

So that’s that. If the scores are changed on the scorecard, whatever. If not, also whatever.

Man…first post on the blog and it’s about something like Snatch. I am severely disappointed.

Snatch

First of all, I’d like to apologize for our recent absence.  Between some other responsibilities, my own crazy personal life happenings and our final exams, we’ve been out of commission for a while.  BUT we managed to work in some movie-watching for relaxation time during finals.

So without further ado, let’s talk about Snatch.

Snatch comes in at 132.  With some of our movies, it’s easy to give a knee-jerk reaction, saying that the movie is clearly too high or too low or that it’s about where it belongs.  For me, Snatch — even after about a week — is still an enigma.

I liked the Script.  To me, the story is disjointed.  I wouldn’t call it difficult to follow because while the story raises questions as the plot moves forward, it answers them satisfactorily.  However, the pieces don’t fit quite how they should.  It’s like reading a book where the chapters come in a seemingly nonsensical order and you don’t understand anyone’s motivation.

Ultimately, that’s Snatch’s downfall story-wise.  The story is compelling and unique and interesting, but there is no clear motivation for most of the characters other than maybe that it’s fun?

The acting is also a mixed bag.  The quality is there, and Jason Statham, Brad Pitt and Alan Ford are phenomenal.  I had some problems with the black guys who were working together.  The relationship between the three men just doesn’t appear genuine.  It truly feels like they are reading off cue cards at times.  That being said, the issue rarely arises due to their smaller percentage of scenes throughout the movie.

As far as directing and cinematography are concerned, they do some unusual things and do them well.  UNFORTUNATELY, it’s been a week since I watched the movie and can’t find my notes on it, even though I have them for the other three films we’ve watched.  I can say that I particularly enjoyed the fight scenes and the timing throughout the film.  The way that silence was utilized is a tribute to Guy Ritchie (director).

The soundtrack was appropriate.  There isn’t too much to say about it, really.  I scored it an 8 because I enjoyed how it was utilized, but not much more than that.

The special effects are prevalent throughout that movie, but in unorthodox ways.  For example, the fights.  The blood and spittle were good.  I understand that this sounds mundane, but we have ALL seen movies where such makeup necessities can forcibly tear us out of the immersion and ruin the film altogether.  But the best special effect is the dog that squeaks throughout the entire movie (Medlocks’ favorite).  Seriously, the puppy swallows a chew toy at the beginning of the movie and squeaks for the remainder of the film.  Loved it.

Ultimately, Snatch was good but not great.  Marc will tell you otherwise.  Marc is a fanboy.  As a friend I spoke with this weekend says “I feel like Snatch is a college movie.  You love it, and then you get over it.”  So get over it, Marc.

Author	Script	Acting	Cinematography	Soundtrack	Directing	Special Effects	Overall
Ben	9	8	8	8	9	9	8.500
Marc	10	10	9	9	9	9	9.333
Jon	8	8	7	8	8	8	7.833

Wild Strawberries

IMDb’s 131st movie was tough. The reason it took so long to post a review is that it’s taken this long to really decide how I feel about it.

The verdict is that the movie was retroactively better than I originally thought. Like Napoleon Dynamite, the movie had to grow on me because I wasn’t expecting it. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not think that I am saying these two movies are similar. They absolutely are not.

The reason I say my opinion of the movie evolved with time is due to its cerebral nature. It requires that you put yourself in the place of Dr. Isak Borg (Victor Sjöström) in order to truly enjoy the film.

As far as the script is concerned, it does a very good job of putting you in Borg’s shoes, assuming you try to stand in his shoes. It doesn’t force it on you as a first-person narrative might. Some of the dialog is a little forced, but I chalk that up to me not speaking German. This could easily be due to the fact that I can only read subtitles. However, English is a Germanic language so many of the tones of voice are similar.

The acting is great. Every now and again it felt a little stale, but then it felt stylistically intentional. The movie is very odd and the world is thick, as if you could cut it with a knife. This leads to a somewhat robotic feel, but the movie as a whole seems intended to be trippy like this. I really enjoyed the feeling the acting and script gave me.

The same can be said for the directing and cinematography. If Ingmar Bergman was trying to create a heavy, imaginative, cerebral film, then he definitely succeeded. He held the shots a long time and this unfortunately reminded me of Solaris. For anyone curious about Solaris, don’t be. It’s dangerous to your health. It’s a Russian film and some of the shots are held for a solid minute, sometimes even two. I mean you’re staring at a part of a lake for two minutes without the camera moving and nothing really happening. Your Anthropology professor will tell you that Americans these days lack patience and that’s why we don’t like this type of film-making, but let’s be fair. It’s boring. So that was my only problem with it — mostly due to a predisposition.

The soundtrack really took me out of the movie, but it’s 1957. What did I expect? Nothing. I expected nothing. The same can be said for the special effects. HOWEVER, they do pop someone’s head and that was really awesome for 1957.

Ultimately, I would not discourage anyone from watching this film, but it’s not like I’m going to go out and talk it up the way that I do Harvey.

Author	Script	Acting	Cinematography	Soundtrack	Directing	Special Effects	Overall
Ben	8	9	8	6	7	7	7.500
Marc	7	9	8	8	8	8	8.000
Jon	7	8	7	7	7	8	7.333

Million Dollar Baby

Million Dollar Baby is ranked #149 on our list and that’s about where it belongs.

I found myself frustrated for the last 30 minutes or so of the movie.  I knew I was supposed to cry and that the whole story was sad, but I couldn’t.  I just…  I didn’t care about the characters enough.  This is even more upsetting when coupled with the realization that Toy Story 3 will make me cry like a 6-year-old girl whose older brother just poured 7up in her hair (shoutout to Rachel).  If I’m not attached to the characters, that’s not the sign of a great movie.  But where does the blame lie for that?

Is it the script?

Doubtful.  The storyline is compelling, with twists and turns, as well as a genuine progression of events.  Everyone’s motivations are understandable and out in the open, excepting Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank).  Her determination to escape from her family and her old life in order to do something new and different and her drive to excel are apparent.  They make sense.  But why boxing? All we get is her assurance that “this (boxing) is the only thing I’ve ever felt good doing.”

The dialogue itself works.  In particular, the relationship between Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood) and Eddie Dupris (Morgan Freeman) is entertaining and provides a significant amount of insight.  They’re lovable.  It takes Clint Eastwood and makes him LOVABLE, while maintaining his requisite level of scary.

Is it the acting?

Maybe.  The acting is superb.  Eastwood and Freeman are exceptional.  (Did you expect less?)  Maggie’s family will make you hate them.  Seriously, my fists were clenched nearly every time they showed up on the screen.  Hilary Swank was OK.  Sorry, but I — yet again — disagree with the Academy.  Admittedly, I’ve never been a Hilary Swank fan, but I gave props to Kristen Stewart the other day and — trust me on this one — she ranks much higher on my list of ‘People Who Should Not Appear in Movies I Watch.’  She wasn’t bad by any means, but I do not understand how she won an Oscar for that performance.  If you can’t make me care about you enough to cry after all of that goes down, you did not earn an Academy Award.

Cinematography?  Directing?  Soundtrack?  Special Effects?

None of these things particularly lent to the movie.  However, none of these aspects detracted from the film either.  The camera shots and usage of the soundtrack and lighting are fairly traditional.  There are a few scenes with interesting lighting set-ups, most of them taking place in the gym.  Other than that, the technical aspects of the film are safe.  To be fair, the special effects are great.  Even today, there are too many movies with unbelievable blood.  The amount, consistency, color and behavior are all wrong.  In Million Dollar Baby, they got it just right.

Overall, I enjoyed this movie.  It was entertaining and told a new story.  However, I didn’t feel satisfied when the movie was over.  If you haven’t seen it, you probably should, but I don’t plan on running out and buying it on Blu-Ray or DVD.

Author	Script	Acting	Cinematography	Soundtrack	Directing	Special Effects	Overall
Ben	8	10	7	7	7	8	7.833
Marc	8	10	10	9	8	8	8.833
Jon	7	8	7	7	7	8	7.333

How did these movies get left out?

As we tell people about our project, they inevitably ask the same question:

“Is __________ on your list?  What is it ranked?  When are you guys watching it?”

Some of the ones people have asked about weren’t on the list, and we can’t figure out why.  We’ve come up with a list of films we’re surprised didn’t make the list, and will continue to update the post whenever we add to it.  Please comment with films you’re surprised were left off the list.

• Apollo 13
• That movie actually happened.  “You can’t make this stuff up” honestly applies to this movie.  How it isn’t considered a top 250 movie by IMDb voters is astounding.  Speechless.

• Jurassic Park
• It was a dinosaur story that actually made some sense.  The story wasn’t bad, the actors were good and the dinosaurs looked great.  Nothing to complain about with this film.
• Shutter Island
• The acting is great, the story is fresh and it’s captivating.  The film was good, but the thoughtful twist at the end made it great.
• A Beautiful Mind
• Medlock provided the insight on this one: “The story is written in such a way that the conflict is skillfully disguised and becomes more and more apparent as the film progresses.  Russell Crowe does a great job portraying schizophrenia.”  The film measures up in multiple categories and was more deserving than some films on the list, at least at our first glance.
• Rainman
• Acting.  Script.  Novelty.  Soundtrack.  How did this movie not make the list?
• Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
• This movie was good.  People hate on it because of Jar Jar Binks and Hayden Christensen.  However, he did not dominate this movie the way he did Attack of the Clones (which we agree did not live up to the original trilogy).  Also, we acknowledge that the end is a little sketch.  The film should have ended with Vader’s first breath.  The movie has witty banter, a compelling plot, good actors surrounding Christensen, and the music is phenomenal.  Watch the lightsaber fight between Obi-Wan and Anakin.  That is a masterpiece of special effects, music, directing and cinematography.
• The Birds
• Personally, I loved this Hitchcock film.  Great script.  Great directing.  Nothing really dragged it down.
• Animal House
• It’s definitely influential and allusions are plentiful.  The acting is outstanding (Who doesn’t love John Belushi?), the jokes will always be funny and there’s no other film quite like it.
• Harry Potter
• There are seven of them.  Not all of them are terrible (Yes.  4, 5 and 6 were bad.) and they’re so beloved that it’s surprising none of them made the list.
• Pretty in Pink, Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club, etc.
• These films weren’t bad and they have such a huge following that it’s surprising that none of them made the list.
• The Postman
• This one comes from Michael: ” The plot is good enough that even though it puts you in an unrealistic situation, it works.  The acting was good…  It was interesting in that the main character is not the character you become the most attached to.  You get done with that film and you’re like ‘That was a really good movie…  and it’s been three hours.  Wow.'”
• Airplane!
• Airplane! was the first of the many 1980/early 1990s spoof films. Airplane! mastered intelligent yet simultaneously moronic humor. Without Airplane! there is no Naked Gun series, and you could even propose later series like the Wayans’ Scary Movie films.  Airplane! is a hilarious movie, standing the test of time over 30 years later, and even managed to include Kareem Abdul-Jabaar without feeling forced.
• Submitted by David S.

So please let us know which ones we missed that IMDb missed.  If you want, even include a small paragraph telling us why and we’ll update the post with your entry.

Into the Wild

Into the Wild came in on IMDb’s list at #147, one spot ahead of There Will Be Blood.

Watching these two movies one after the other proved quite interesting, as Into the Wild seems to be the type of movie that There Will Be Blood was trying to be.

Into the Wild also moves slowly and replaces a significant amount of dialogue with music and montages.  However, the action is interesting and the music — in addition to sounding wonderful — matches up perfectly and evokes both strong and appropriate feelings.

The script, as far as dialogue is concerned, was well above average.  However, at times the interactions feel a bit forced, so that leaves something to be desired.  The storyline itself is intriguing and works in a more modern style, using one consistent timeline with flashbacks interspersed in something of a “chapters” format.  At many points, I found myself engrossed in the action.

The acting was superb, but there is definitely a standard for exceptional acting, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest has set the bar.  There are moments when the main character (Emile Hirsch) has the most genuine expressions and others when the veil slips off for a moment and the fakeness seeps in.  The only other main character is his sister (Jena Malone), also the narrator.  She does a terrific job.  We’re talking Morgan Freeman-level narration.  Exceptional.  Her emotion permeates the entire film and by the end of it, I cared more for her than I did the main character.  Additionally, there are many side characters, all of whom add a tremendous amount to the film.

NOTE:  All my fellow Twilight haters be warned, Kristen Stewart IS in the movie.  However, she does a great job.  I cannot stand her due to my immense dislike for Twilight and everything associated with it (Thank you, fanboys — er, fangirls).  She also sings.  Also good.  I was surprised.  Despite my predisposition, I did not want to punch her in the face.  Kudos to you, Kristen Stewart.

The cinematography — once again — is outstanding.  They try a ton of stuff, and most of it works.  The viewer will not be bored watching this film.

The directing, along with the cinematography, is well above average.  Sean Penn (directed and did not appear) makes strong choices and they certainly pay off.  The result is strong characters, emotional moments, and an engrossing atmosphere.

As stated above, the soundtrack may have been the best part of this movie.  The music varies, but there is a definitive central theme to it.  Instead of taking the viewer out of the movie, as many soundtracks do, it lends creedence to the atmosphere.  Without the music in the background, this movie would be significantly lacking.

There are few special effects, but the good ones are good.  Most of them involve flora and fauna, but there are a few others such as fireworks.  (To be honest, special effects are great in movies and are important in determining how good the film was, but Marc and I have agreed that if a movie simply didn’t use special effects significantly because they weren’t required, then we cop out with an 8.  It’s only fair.)

From what others have said about this movie, it is certainly polarizing.  Most people will either love it or hate it.  I loved it.

Author	Script	Acting	Cinematography	Soundtrack	Directing	Special Effects	Overall
Ben	9	9	9	10	9	8	9.0
Marc	9	7	7	10	9	8	8.333
Jon	8	8	7	8	7	7	7.5

There Was Very Little Blood

Into the Wild proved rather difficult to find, so we moved on to There Will Be Blood for the time being. In my opinion, this was a rather unfortunate turn of events. This film was the worst film so far, and will likely remain so for quite some time.

I’ll get the good thing out of the way first: the acting was very good. Daniel Day Lewis was excellent in his role. He delivered his lines well, and I actually was disappointed that there were so few of them throughout the movie. Actually, that brings me to my next point: the movie was far too long for its own good, and most of it was not even populated by dialogue. Apparently the key to making an Oscar-winning movie is to include long stretches of time in which very little actually happens. Arguably, these segments are where the film’s cinematography was supposed to shine, but I despised the cinematography. Don’t get me wrong; the technical elements of the cinematography were exactly as they should have been; the framing of every shot was perfectly balanced, the colors were what they should have been, and the focus was precisely in the ideal location, but I didn’t feel that it added anything whatsoever to the movie. I felt like the cinematographer was trying to take the best picture possible, with no concern for how it might help the story. As a result, there were far too many wide-angle shots. I know what the drill looks like, I would like to see the characters now, thank you. Combine this with the general lack of narrative assistance from the cinematography and you might as well have had a radio program. A radio program that would be silent for long periods of time.

Speaking of the film’s audio, the soundtrack was awful. In the first scene, there was some nice mood-setting music, but that was regrettably short-lived. The rest of the film’s score was indescribably poor, and used many times at highly inappropriate moments. For example, when the main character is surveying in the midst of some trees, one should not insert highly suspenseful and intense background music. Also, when things are on fire you shouldn’t use… whatever music was that was in the background during that scene. I cannot even describe what it sounded like.

Do not watch this movie. For your own sake.
I’ve retracted this statement as of this post. There are people out there who like it, and there is a chance you might be one of them, so it wouldn’t necessarily be a bad idea to watch this one for yourself. If you’re thirty minutes in and hate it, though, feel free to skip to the end.

There Will Be Blood

There Will Be Blood “earned” the #148 spot on IMDb’s top 250 list.  Only God knows how.

IMDb has a bottom 100 list.  It would have been more appropriate to find it there.  Medlock says that’s harsh.  He could easily think of a hundred movies that are worse.  This is true.  However, none of those movies were hyped up like There Will Be Blood.

Does your back hurt, Daniel?

From carrying the team?

The only saving grace for this film was Daniel Day Lewis.  He carried the film for over two hours before nearly bailing it out altogether with his performance at 2:17:00.  In a way, viewers could have predicted this after he similarly shouldered The Crucible. The entire movie was almost worth it just to see him play John Procter better than any other man could have: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n07C3awP7A8

The script was awful.  Well, the plot was awful.  When there was dialogue (rarely), it was not only genuine but also effective.  Relationships were easily apparent and the plot itself did not cause confusion.

The acting was impeccable.  The only reason — aside from the fact that I agreed in principle to watch the full length of all these movies — that I was able to sit and watch this move for two and a half hours was the acting.  Every actor, particularly the two main characters, was fantastic.  As mentioned above, Daniel Day Lewis makes the movie almost worth watching, and his counterpart, Paul Dano — who played both Paul and Eli Sunday — played opposite him well enough for the few scenes that contained conflict to interest viewers.  H.W. both as a child and adult was serviceable.

Viewers may not be able to tell if there was a director, but Paul Thomas Anderson was rumored to be on-set during the shooting of the film.  He may be just as deaf as H.W. however, because none of the music seemed appropriate for the situation.  Film techniques are unoriginal and ineffective throughout the picture.  Additionally, the movie drags on, including unnecessary segments and a generally slow-pacing.

The special effects were OK.  Oil shooting up out of the ground is always cool, especially when it bursts into flame.  The inclusion of a towering inferno almost gives Daniel Day Lewis enough lower back support to avoid crippling arthritis in his later years.

Only the hardiest of Daniel Day Lewis fan club members should watch this film.  It was so terrible that we needed to bring in another friend, David, just so someone would rank the movie over a 7.

Author	Script	Acting	Cinematography	Soundtrack	Directing	Special Effects	Overall
Ben	5	9	8	5	6	7	6.667
Marc	5	9	6	2	3	7	5.333
Jon	7	9	7	5	4	8	6.667
David	8	9	8	6	6	7	7.333

Harvey

Honestly, when we read the summary of IMDb’s #240 movie on Netflix, we were skeptical:

“Affable tippler Elwood P. Dowd (James Stewart) lives with his sister, Veta (Josephine Hull), and her bashful daughter. They hate his drinking, but what rankles them more is his faithful companion: a 6-foot-tall invisible rabbit named Harvey. Elwood’s embarrassing flight of fancy is foiling Veta’s plans to marry off her daughter, so Veta decides to commit Elwood. But when she confesses she’s seen Harvey, the doctor institutionalizes Veta instead!”

So…  the movie is about Elwood P. Dowd, a man with an invisible 6-foot-31/2-inch rabbit Harvey for a best friend…

To preface this, we had already watched One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest immediately beforehand, and today while I was writing reviews, my roommate Michael watched Shutter Island.  Needless to say, I’ve had enough insane asylum movies for the next few weeks.

That being said, Harvey’s script was exceptional.  It’s full of one-liners and sports a bevy of quirky characters, all of whom are enjoyable, minus the insufferable Veta.  Her voice is that of the maid from 101 Dalmatians after breathing helium.  At times, the interaction feels forced, but the situation as a whole is terribly awkward, and the character’s behavior portrays that.

As stated above, Veta tortures viewers.  However, the other characters are phenomenal, particularly Dowd and Judge Gaffney.  The scenes without either of those two tend to be flat and slow.  Luckily, there are few of them and the other scenes more than make up for them.

The directing and cinematography are average for a good movie.  The techniques and style used live up to the script and characters.  The scenes in the bar are well done, particularly for a setting that many directors struggle with.  There are very few sets, but all of them are detailed and used to their fullest extent.  It’s nice to see a move from 1950 use its resources efficiently.

The soundtrack detracted from the movie, as is expected with a movie from the era, but was largely unnoticed.  It did its job.

The special effects were interesting, as most of them involved how the filmmakers would portray Harvey.  If there is a 6-foot tall invisible rabbit romping about opening doors and swinging in swings in 1950, then count me impressed.

Ultimately, Harvey belongs in the top 250 list with a unique style of comedy suited better for the stage (it was adapted from a play) than the screen, but made the transition well enough due to strong acting and a good literary adaptation.  An older audience will appreciate its subtle humor, but it leaves very little for younger audiences to enjoy.

Author	Script	Acting	Cinematography	Soundtrack	Directing	Special Effects	Overall
Ben	9	7	8	7	8	8	7.833
Marc	10	8	7	8	8	9	8.333
Jon	9	7	7	7	7	7	7.333