Cavalcade Review

How the heck did this win Best Picture back in '33? It's aged, it's boring, it's heartless, horribly acted, HORRIBLE PACING, HORRIBLE CHARACTERS, HORRIBLE DEPICTIONS OF REAL LIFE DRAMATIC EXPERIENCES, HORRIBLY OVERRATED, HORRIBLE DIRECTION, HORRIBLE DIALOGUE, AND WORST OF ALL, I SPENT TWO HOURS ON THE INTERNET JUST SO I COULD WATCH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! *Breaths* OK, now that I got out the complete hatred of this film, let's get to the review. First, a little bit of history. Cavalcade was a rather unknown film released in 1933, and is known as the second worst film to actually win Best Picture, which belongs to 1931's "Cimarron". It cost more than $1,000,000 to make, which is amazing considering that was in the 30's, where everything cost less, so a film that doesn't have very much action scenes or amazing actors, having a budget over 1,000,000 is pretty insane. It was critically acclaimed back then, but not as much nowadays. Actually, it was so unknown, it doesn't even have a DVD release! The best it got was a limited VHS release, and nothing else. I managed to get it on a video sharing website, as I guess that company doesn't copyright anything nowadays, unlike huge companies like Fox, Viacom, etc. So, this film has quite a history, which is funny, cause the history itself is 10x more enjoyable than the movie itself! So, what's the story of this "Film" anyways? Well, it's a decent premise, pretty unique for it's day. It covers the years from 1901 to 1933, showing the events of the Titanic (The movie Titanic did it better), World War 1 (Countless movies did it better), and the Depression (The Grapes of Wrath did it better). It's from the perspective of a Upper Class British family and it's servants. It sounds interesting, except for the fact that the British family is completely uninteresting, leaving no impression at all on the viewer or anyone else. Every single character doesn't matter. You're not going to see their faces on the sides of theater opening like you would with John Wayne from The Searchers or True Grit, and Charlie Chaplin from Modern Times, they're just regular bland people with little personality that didn't even need ten seconds of discussing to figure out what personality traits they'll have, they just made them little pawns to have all of this stuff happen too, and with no individuality at all. Now, the HORRIBLE ACTING! *Breathes* Sorry, but it just sucks. No one stands out, everybody overacted, it's like they took the extras from the first half of Back to the Future Part 2, took out the screaming and silliness and creativeness, yet still keeping their overacting nature, so they would be as bland as possible, yet somehow STILL overact! It really took me out of the movie, even though I was already out an hour and 50 minutes ago. Now, the worst. The worst thing of this movie: The drama. Good GOD it sucked! The only dramatic scene was when the two people talk, and when they leave, you see they were on the Titanic, and even then, the characters are lame and the scene doesn't even matter afterwards, so it just shows how heartless this movie is. World War 1 looks completely stupid. All it shows for it is just several soldiers marching, and then one soldier get's shot in the chest, covers the bullet hole, makes a funny face, dies, and that just repeats for five minutes. It's LAME. I didn't feel sad, I didn't feel like I did watching Saving Private Ryan or Enemy at the Gates, I felt like this movie was trying to hard. So, with all of these problems, was there anything good about the film? Well, the ending was kinda cool, that Titanic scene, like I said, was pretty decent, even though it's pretty pointless, and the story, although executed horribly, was pretty unique. But none of these cool things help out the movie at all. Overall, it's an overrated, heartless, poorly executed bland film that should never be regarded as a classic. No one should see it unless wanting to see a really old film that people somehow liked in the '30s. In short, it sucked.

0.5/5