Singin' in the rain (1952)

what is considered the greatest musical of all time is deserving, if not a bit overrated, but it's a simple film, easy to understand with some of the best dance choregraphy i've evn seen on screen

Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) is a silent film star in 1927, famous for his pairing with Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen), but the studio is moving to talkies and theres a reason why Lina has to stay silent- she has a scratchy and horrible voice. But Don meets Kathy Seldon (Debbie Reynolds in her breakout role), who can sing and talks great! Lina doesn't like Kathy, and that's how the fun begins!

well in all honesty i watched the film last week and might have gotten a few deatils wrong but thats the basic outline of the story.
the acting is great, it's not brilliant, although Jean hagen was hysterical with that voice! i found it an interesting piece of trivia that she actually could sing in real life and even dubbed herself in the silent picture that we see in the film.
the music was great! fun to listen to and simple too. Dancing was what made the movie, it hold one of the most iconic dances in history, where Gene Kelly sings in the rain, but theres moe than just that scene! "Good Morning" is my favourite part of the whole film, that made it look so easy, Donald O'Connor was perfect in his solo "Make Em' Laugh".

acting: 4/5
songs: 4/5
dancing: 5/5
story: 3/5
writing: 4/5

film: 4/5
it's the greatest musical ever made, on regular film standards it's not brilliant but it deserves being the ruler of all musicals, after this film was released i'm sure that any musical the followed were compared it, it's unfair but this film is the perfect musical/comedy.
just my opinion but such a simple plot was elevted by electric performances and amzing dancing.
if you haven't seen it... SEE IT!!!!!!!!

Real Movies

a real film isn't a film that has a great special effects, that is a show, when you strip down a film like that you generally find the acting to wooden, the script to be mediocre and plot to be overly contrived. an exception to this rule is Star Wars, it's special effects pale in comparison to Avatar, but the rest of the film(s) make up for that! with characters that aren't as cliche'ed and if they are than they're acted very well.

a real movie doesn't need special effects, their were no giant technical machines or computerised worlds in films like The Shawshank Redemption,. All about Eve and Sunset Blvd. the latter 2 are 60 years old and still entertaining, witty and well done. no special effects required.
films are made to rake in money, and Avatar did that, and in 70+ years will people still be talking about it? no. with this new trend in film making it'll be only a matter of time before you won't even need actors for films! Avatar, will always be remembered for it special effects, not for dynamic story or amazing acting, or great dialogue, nothing like that. its a laser/lights show, made to keep people attentions with the pretty colours, its cheaper to go and see a fireworks display. don't get me wrong the effects were spectacular to look at but they're like models, great to look at but sometimes there isn't much else to rave over.

one of the great things about films is that you can switch off to them, not have to rethink your entire life during it.
i generally grade films on these things:
acting
story
dialogue
music (for musicals)
dancing (for musicals)
design
special effects

in that order, i don't care about effects, i don't need them to be present in every film i watch unlike some people, if i'm watching a sci fi and they have great special effects then thats a plus, but i can watch a sci fi with low budget special effects and still be entertained if something else makes up for it. films that rely on one specific aspect of film making (eg: just having name value etc etc) then it's not worth it if they only have one or 2 things going for it.
i'm one of those people who is not screaming over Avatar, its was good to watch but i'll never watch it again. But i will be buying Alice in Wonderland, purely because i found that more entertaining.