Escape From New York

Escape from New York (1981)

Runtime: 99 minutes

Directed by: John Carpenter

Starring: Kurt Russell, Lee Van Cleef, Ernest Borgnine, Donald Pleasence, Isaac Hayes

From: AVCO Embassy Pictures

This was not the movie I was expecting to watch today. But, complications happened (which I won't get into) and I figured it was time to start going through the pile of Blu-ray discs I have that I haven't gone through (that's a big pile, too; I can buy discs easily enough; it's just watching them that I am not so good at) and I decided upon this classic film which of course I'd seen before but not in a long time. They're thinking of doing a reboot but I'd rather not be depressed by thinking of such things. I mean, it's not the worst thing to reboot... I will just presume they will royally screw it up and it'll be a piece of crap. The IMDb synopsis then the Letterboxd review:

"In 1997, when the US President crashes into Manhattan, now a giant max. security prison, a convicted bank robber is sent in for a rescue." Yes, that's as basic a description as you'll get without it being inaccurate.

This was not the movie I was expecting to watch today. But, complications happened and I had to fall back upon a film which of course I've seen before but not in a long while and I hadn't checked out the Blu-ray I've had of the film for months now. With talks heating up again of there being a reboot of this (a major “sigh” to that story, by the way) I figured it'd be the perfect opportunity for me to finally review this for the site.

Everyone should know the plot by now so I won't recap that. Instead I'll jump right into my thoughts on the picture. I've always thought that while certain things about the plot/story could be nitpicked, what makes me rate the movie the way I do is a number of factors, from the awesome cast compiled & their performances to the incredible score from Carpenter/Alan Howarth, the look of a destroyed Manhattan being great as they filmed in the worst parts of the pretty much awful city of East St. Louis, to the general plot itself.

Oh, and Kurt Russell-no relation-was a great choice as the antihero Snake Plissken.

I'll be honest and say that there are definitely Carpenter films I prefer to this, such as The Thing or those movies that I need to watch and review for the site; I am looking at you, Assault on Precinct 13. That said, EFNY just has a COOL vibe to it and it helps erase enough deficiencies to give it a 3 ½ star rating. There are many colorful characters and they're cool and I'd like to hang out with them... even the villains.

Also, this is definitely better than Escape From L.A.; what a misguided film that was...

I'll return tomorrow night.

Taxi!

Taxi! (1932)

Runtime: 69 minutes

Directed by: Roy Del Ruth

Starring: James Cagney, Loretta Young, George E. Stone, Guy Kibbee

From: Warner Brothers

Here's a short-ish review which is different from the review I did last night, for sure. It's a pretty obscure James Cagney I found at the site known as (redacted) and for rarity's sake I had to see it. The IMDb plot description then the Letterboxd review:

“Amidst a backdrop of growing violence and intimidation, independent cab drivers struggling against a consolidated juggernaut rally around hot-tempered Matt Nolan. Nolan is determined to keep competition alive on the streets, even if it means losing the woman he loves.”

This is a film I understand was tremendously hard to find until Warner Archives put it out on DVD recently; it wasn't even on VHS. This should not be confused with the TV show that featured Reverend Jim Ignatowski, the Luc Besson films from France or heaven forbid, the version with Queen Latifah and Jimmy Fallon.

Rather, this movie concerns a vicious feud going on in a major city between two taxi companies and right away you see that they aren't afraid to bash their own cars to ruin those of the competition, or engage in fistfights... or worse. The main stars are James Cagney and Loretta Young (who engage in a contentious romantic relationship) with a young George Raft in a small appearance.

There are “well, THAT escalated quickly” moments, broad stereotypical characters-including one named SKEETS-rampant sexism and other things which I found... well, interesting. I definitely was not comfortable when Cagney mentioned how he wanted to beat up Young with his fists. That's pretty terrible by 2014 standards.

At least you get to see him beat up several men-what a surprise, Cagney as someone with a quick temper-in a plot that is about the romance between the two stars as it is the feud between the two companies; it goes to such places as a dance contest, a seafood joint owned by a major Jewish stereotype and a nightclub; a joint named “The Cotton Pickers Club” where there are black entertainers... that also made me squeamish.

Melodrama is another word you can use to describe this. “A very ridiculous ending that made me laugh out loud” is an entire phrase to use here. Yet I was entertained by the melodrama (and how angry Cagney usually was) so I'll give it this rating and note three things:

* This is movie where James comes closing to uttering the line “You dirty rat!”, which he never actually said in a film.

* The two stars are swell dancers.

* If you ever wanted to hear Cagney spoke Yiddish (something he spoke fluently in real life) then this is the movie for you.

I'll return tomorrow night.

The Lego Movie

The Lego Movie (2014)

96% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 198 reviews)

Runtime: 100 minutes

Directed by: Phil Lord, Christopher Miller

Starring: The voices of Chris Pratt, Will Ferrell, Elizabeth Banks, Liam Neeson, Will Arnett

From: Warner Brothers/Village Roadshow

Yep... yep. Here's one of those review that most will strongly disagree with, and some will think that I am like Armond White. I usually don't watch movies like this but it doesn't mean I hate all of them; I've seen the Toy Story films as an adult (the first one, also as a teenager) and I rate all those 4 stars or higher as they're great movies. This one, though... at least already I got some support on Letterboxd for my against the grain review, from a person that said he couldn't even finish the movie.

I am sure everyone by now knows of the plot (and likely knows that there's a big plot twist, even if they don't fully know what it's all about) so let me skip ahead to the lengthy Letterboxd review and I'll mention that I'll return tomorrow afternoon with a shorter review.

I hope this rating (only 2 out of 5 stars) doesn't ruin anyone's long Labor Day weekend...

Here I am (rock you like a hurricane)... but no really, here I am finally watching a movie Letterboxd went wild for this year, the majority of the people I follow here having seen it already and most love it; me, I had no idea what to expect as I actually didn't think the trailers were all that great and I never really played with Lego's as a kid. But, as I haven't seen too many films from this year that would be appropriate for a Top 10 of this year list, I had to check it out on the chance I would put it on the list I'll do early next year.

Well, it's not going on the list. Let me explain why in a detailed (& hopefully not too long) manner.

I may have been hampered by how I heard so many people giving it so much praise and I had my expectations too high. It may have been that all the films these two directors have done, when I've seen their trailers I didn't think any of them were funny at all (that's why this is the first film of theirs I've even seen... and I don't think I'll see the others) and I've seen many of the “funny” gags elsewhere AND knew there would be a big plot twist and I just knew its basics... maybe the deck was stacked against me.

Or maybe I just thought the movie was more annoying than funny, with intolerable aggravating characters, an unbelievable buffoon for a “hero”, and “humor” that I mostly did not enjoy. What people find to be funny is SO subjective and throughout the years I've learned that my tastes there are usually pretty far off from most other people.

It is in fact ironic to me that in a movie preaching not conforming to what everyone does (before then changing its message quite a bit) that my opinion of it would be way off from how most people feel about it. Believe me, I am all for nonconformity and dissing the mass-market commercialization that is ever-present in today's society-especially in the United States and its entertainment field-and telling people not to go with the flow.

It's just that I did not really enjoy the film or was entertained by it. I was mostly just irritated by it, wondering what it is about this that most people love and yet I can't seem to grasp; I seem to think that way more often than a lot of people as I am a pretty “different” and “odd” individual in general but I really do wish I could see what's so special about this. All the pop culture references and bits actually reminded me of f'ing Family Guy, which is not a positive.

Oh, and I'd have to go into spoiler territory to discuss specific issues; however, I can say that once I saw what the big plot twist exactly was... it only made things worse and eye-rolling cheesy rather than did anything to warm my heart or make me feel good about life... or fit the story being told, for that matter.

At least I can say that there were some amusing gags and the way the movie looked was great; at least I can appreciate the aesthetic aspects of it.

Last year while reading about the film I was not only surprised that it was a thing (then disappointed by the fact it was a thing) but that it'd have such an elaborate plot. With that I hoped it would be worth seeing. Alas... if everyone else loves this I am OK with that, as I am OK with having my opinion and thinking that not Everything is Awesome with this motion picture.

Allan Quatermain And The Lost City Of Gold

Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold (1986... or 1987)

Runtime: 99 minutes

Directed by: Gary Nelson... and Newt Arnold

Starring: Richard Chamberlain, Sharon Stone, James Earl Jones, Henry Silva, Cassandra Peterson

From: Cannon

I know, I wasn't planning on seeing this so soon, but things changed and I'll explain why in a bit. The IMDb plot description then my Letterboxd review:

"Allan Quatermain once again teams up with Jesse Huston where the discovery of a mysterious old gold piece sends Quatermain looking for his long-lost brother, missing in the wilds of Africa after seeking a lost white race."

Remember when I said it'd be a long while before I'd see the sequel to King Solmon's Mines?

I lied.

Actually, I saw this last night as my plans to watch another movie fell through and I decided to go through the EPIX On Demand feature while I can still use it and saw that they had this movie; as it may be difficult for me to track this down in the future I had to bite the bullet and watch it, even if I thought it'd likely be bad... and oh it was.

This tale which has Allan looking for the title city and his missing brother has a number of problems, from the nonsensical story to an odious comic relief character that's never funny, appallingly bad special effects (I am pretty sure greenscreening if done right isn't supposed to give the actors a blue halo!) to an ending that just may be the most befuddling devoid of logic conclusion I've ever seen in a motion picture, no lie. You can read about it on Wikipedia if you wish but trust me, as seen it's even more inane and bewildering than it sounds.

However, there's James Earl Jones embarrassing himself by dressing up and playing an African warrior dude, Cassandra Peterson as a character that's not Elvira, and Henry Silva as the villain (come to think of it do I REALLY need to clarify that Silva's role in a movie is that of a bad guy?) who wears a purple & gold robe and a huge obviously fake wig; I just about howled with laughter when he first appeared, that's how goofy he looked.

Also, seeing it in a print that says it's HD (but still has a lot of print damage to it) isn't kind to the film; what helped make it have such a strange ending is that when you see some stunts being done, the wires are SO obvious; I mean, they're as clear as crystal and helped remind me that this was a troubled production where apparently there "were substantial reshoots". I say you shouldn't see either of these Cannon productions but if you must, King Solomon's Mines is the way to go.

I'll return tomorrow night.

King Solomon's Mines (The Cannon Version)

King Solomon's Mines (1985)

Runtime: 100 minutes

Directed by: J. Lee Thompson

Starring: Richard Chamberlain, Sharon Stone, Herbert Lom, John Rhys-Davies, Ken Gampu

From: Cannon

Finally, I was able to salute the late Menahem Golan by watching something made by him, and this was something I hadn't seen before. I hadn't seen any of the other movies based on the H. Rider Haggard novel, either. After seeing this, I don't know about tracking down the sequel, Allan Quartermain and the Lost City of Gold, although it may happen one of  these days... or years. The IMDb plot description, then what I said about the film on Letterboxd:

“Fortune hunter Allan Quatermain teams up with a resourceful woman to help her find her missing father lost in the wilds of 1900s (around World War I, to be exact) Africa while being pursued by hostile tribes and a rival German explorer.”

I finally paid tribute to the late Menahem Golan by watching a Cannon production. Despite being a child of the 80's and 90's I hadn't seen this movie before. Oh, I saw plenty of Golan-Globus films during my youth, just not this one. But, as it was on an EPIX channel late last night I figured it was about time to see this and tip my cap to Mr. Golan.

Well, maybe I should have chosen a Cannon movie I was more familiar with. Sure, this had a lot of action scenes, a Jerry Goldsmith score where he tried really hard to be John Williams, nice scenic Zimbabwe scenery, and villains Herbert Lom and John Rhys-Davies wisely deciding to camp it up. But, I can't rate it higher than 2 stars.

My initial reaction after watching this was, “What the hell did I just watch?” I know they wanted to be light in tone like the Indiana Jones films but this went way over that and this was a cartoony ridiculous preposterous film the entire time, with many goofy things, some actually clever things, and many stupid things also. It can be fun in a campy way at times and it's a breezy watch but that doesn't mean it's a good film or something I'd see again, as there are also some real annoying things.

I always love it when the HEROES of a picture use racial slurs; in this case it's against an Arab guy, but as he's aiding and abetting the villains I guess it's OK... well, maybe back then but not now. Then again this is a film where many Africans of the time (around World War I) are portrayed as painted up people in huts who carry around spears and some of them even cook human beings in giant pots, so there's more than one questionable racial moment...

Richard Chamberlain was goofy as Allan Quartermain but Sharon Stone as the lady that tags along... the character and the performance made me realize that I shouldn't rip on Willie from Temple of Doom ever again.

If I saw this as a kid I'd probably think higher of it; as a 33 year old man, this was just juvenile and silly too often. The special effects, many of them are SO dated and some look really bad. That doesn't apply to a giant creature you briefly see that appeared to be straight out of Roger Corman's warehouse, where it's been stored since about 1960; then again something you see at the very end is also likely from the same warehouse and it doesn't have the kitsch charm that made me howl with laughter with the first thing... then again, there's many things here that are dated even by 1985 standards.

I'll return tomorrow night; what I think I'll do is that I'll post again on Friday night and I may have to do a long epic post where I review several films that are "smaller" than the one I know I'll review tomorrow night from now till then at the same time. It just depends on how things turn out.

RIP Richard Attenborough

This wasn't what I was planning on doing today but I found out about an hour ago that he passed away at the age of 90. Of course I know him best from Jurassic Park but he appeared in and directed a plethora of films, some of which I have in my collection. I figured that for Letterboxd I should rewatch the John Wayne film Brannigan (where he's a co-star), as the review I have for it there is quite brief and it deserves a better one for me, and I can tip my cap to Sir Richard in that new review.

Also, I won't be back until Wednesday night as in the meanwhile I'll watch some movies I reviewed here but never even posted a review for on Letterboxd due to the last viewings being years ago.

The Doorway To Hell

Doorway to Hell (1930)

Runtime: 78 minutes

Directed by: Archie Mayo

Starring: Lew Ayres, James Cagney, Dorothy Matthews, Leon Janney

From: Warner Brothers

I was thinking about seeing more than one film today but I just had time for this one, a movie that is pretty much forgotten about now and I explain why I picked it out. I explain the plot in the Letterboxd description so onto that.

Nevermind how I can find such obscure titles such as this and others I've reviewed for the site, except that I have my ways... I picked it out as it was only the second film James Cagney ever did, it was his first as a gangster (even before The Public Enemy) and hey, it has a pretty cool title.

This tale is about how gangster Louie (Lew Ayres, who looks like Kyle MacLachlan) tries to run all the gang territories of Chicago with his second in command, the greatly named Mileaway (Cagney), and he does so while wishing he was Napoleon. Not to spoil anything but there are several allusions to Mr. Bonaparte throughout the picture, whether they're obvious or more subtle. He then quickly decides to leave the game in order to marry a dame, but of course things go awry. Louie's little brother in a military academy also factor into things, and there are some melodramatic moments.

This movie is fine; not awesome but it's still fine. You have some expected “tough guy” dialogue that's a trademark of the genre (not to mention such things as shootouts), there's some nice cinematography and there were some nicely-done moments. While it does drag at times even with its 78 minute runtime, While the acting was nice overall, I'd say that Cagney was the highlight of the picture.

Overall the movie isn't as grand as the classic gangster hits of the 1930's but then again this was one of the first non-silent ones in the genre Hollywood did and others improved upon this film and made sure to make the violence more explicit, among other things.

I'll return tomorrow night.

Doctor X/The Public Enemy

Doctor X (1932)

Runtime: 76 minutes

Directed by: Michael Curtiz

Starring: Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, Lee Tracy, Preston Foster

From: First National Pictures (a subsidiary of Warner Brothers)

The Public Enemy (1931)

Runtime: 84 minutes

Directed by: William A. Wellman

Starring: James Cagney, Jean Harlow, Edward Woods, Joan Blondell, Donald Cook

From: Warner Brothers

Last night on TV I saw the former and earlier tonight I watched on the DVD I have in my collection. I explain the plots to both films in my Letterboxd reviews so I'll skip right to those.

First, Doctor X, which I rated 3 stars:

This was a movie that was on Turner Classic Movies late last night so I figured I would give it a watch; its horror plot, two strip technicolor, and stylish ways made it sound interesting.

In short, it's about a head of a college (Doctor Xavier) which happens to have a bunch of eccentric weirdos in its science department and he's convinced by the cops that one of those professors is a serial killer of women who leaves his mark only during a full moon... oh, and the killer's a cannibal too. Via a Rube Goldbergian process the Dr. tries to experiment and figure out who the killer is. A newspaper reporter (who, while having some amusing moments, is more often “odious comic relief”) and the Doctor's daughter (Fay Wray) also figure into the proceedings.

Like I said this is filmed in an early version of Technicolor, which is definitely not refined like what we're familiar with, but it gives the movie a unique look. It has a pretty good atmosphere, cool makeup from Max Factor, really nice sets from Anton Grot (a lot of the action takes place in an old Gothic mansion, which does help in the atmosphere department) and nice usage of light and shadow. Unfortunately it does drag at times despite it being only 76 minutes long and that odious comic relief... it's a shame.

At least the movie has memorable moments (including tense ones) and a pretty rad finale in particular due to its ghoulish and wacky nature.

Now, The Public Enemy, which I rated 4 1/2 stars:

I have seen this movie before but that was years ago and it was long overdue for me to revisit this classic gangster tale that made James Cagney a star.

This chronicles the rise and downfall of the greatly named Tom Powers, a bootlegging gangster during the Prohibition Era. You first see him pal Matt Doyle as kids, and they were troublemakers, especially Tom. Then, as they grew up Tom's straitlaced brother Mike joined the Marines during World War I and became respectable while Tom fell in with the gangster crowd and enjoyed the spoils of that; this resulted in a feud where their poor “ma” was caught in the middle.

Originally Tom Powers was going to be played by Edward Woods and Cagney was to be Matt Doyle, the loyal pal. However, as they rehearsed they realized it'd be best if they did the switcheroo so the two actors traded roles and history was made.

That was really for the best as old James does a tremendous job as the antihero, someone who is willing to smash a grapefruit in the face of a dame he's grown tired of, or get revenge for grudges from long ago, and yet the character is so captivating, and Cagney's performance so magnetic, you almost root for him to succeed despite his bad ways and a personal life that's actually a mess. It's no surprise this role launched him into acting superstardom.

But, the rest of the film is great in general also. You have a well-filmed tale, nice stock sets, quality performances from the rest of the cast (whether they're part of the menagerie of colorful gangster characters or the more innocent parties; the most charming of the former was Nails Nathan) and an always fast-paced and entertaining story with plenty of tough moments. It is also aided by its Pre-Code nature and some rather suggestive scenes.

Like I said I was long overdue to see this again and now I wish I wouldn't have waited so long for the repeat viewing.

I'll return tomorrow night.

Crack-Up

Crack-Up (1936)

Runtime: 71 minutes

Directed by: Malcolm St. Clair

Starring: Peter Lorre, Brian Donlevy, Helen Wood, Ralph Morgan, Thomas Beck

From: 20th Century Fox

I can thank a website and YouTube for the film I watched today. The IMDb plot synopsis then the Letterboxd review:

"Colonel Gimpy heads a spy organization trying to get the plans for a new airplane. Test pilot Ace Martin agrees to help." Yes, those are real names... well, the Colonel is in disguise... and in the review below I didn't mean to make an implied Top Gun reference; maybe it's just that films about pilots are destined to have homoerotic undertones!

I'll admit, I discovered this film via the great website Rupert Pupkin Speaks, where many guests post lists of films on the obscure side that they recommend and while it tends to be action-oriented all sorts of genres can be brought up. Recently, someone brought up this film and when they mentioned that Peter Lorre was the star and he played someone named COLONEL GIMPY and he played someone who acts like a person that I'll call “mentally challenged” but actually is an undercover spy named BARON RUDOLPH MAXIMILLIAN TAGGART working for “the enemy” and I had to see this politically incorrect tale, which is easy to find online and yet it's only been seen by a few people here.

Overall, it is an odd tale and yet I was still entertained by it. I heard it described as an early version of a film noir and that seems to make sense. There's a star pilot with the great name ACE MARTIN and with the name you'd think he would be a hero but well... there are multiple people who aren't as virtuous as they first appear to be. Lorre is the clear highlight of the movie whether he acted as his true evil spy self or acted as the “harmless eccentric”. The MacGuffin here is plans for a new airplane that “enemies” would love to have.

I also have to make note of how Joe Randall (a fellow pilot) is a HUGE fan of Ace Martin; Randall has a fiance but he seems to worship Ace in an almost homoerotic way, which I don't think was the intention but that's how it came off.

Anyhow, it's a curio and if you're a Lorre fan it's worth checking out.

I'll return tomorrow night and I plan on talking about two films.

Test Pilot

Test Pilot (1938)

Runtime: 119 minutes

Directed by: Victor Fleming

Starring: Clark Gable, Myrna Loy, Spencer Tracy, Lionel Barrymore

From: MGM

Here's a random film; it's one that I believe is still not out on DVD, for whatever reasons. Nevermind how I found it but I did and I checked it out. The cast did intrigue me for sure and the plot sounded interesting to me too. I explain the plot in the Letterboxd review, so onto that.

Here's a random movie I watched late last night. I will admit that it was the three stars and the topic of aviation that caught my attention.

This melodrama is about the cad known as Jim Lane (Clark Gable). He races airplanes and also tests them out and does dangerous things. He acts rather goofy and childish often; I wondered if he smelled too much gasoline while flying, but him loving the alcohol is probably understandable considering the job. Anyhow, complications happen and he lands on a Kansas farm where he meets the smart and sassy Ann (Myrna Loy), literally the farmer's daughter. They have a whirlwind romance and get married.

Always around as the third wheel is Jim's mechanic and buddy, the greatly named Gunner (Spencer Tracy). Now, I'd say that they were more than friends... oh no, not like THAT. What I mean is that Gunner is pretty much Jim's caretaker; you'll understand if you saw how impulsive and reckless Lane acts, especially if he goes on a bender. I know, it was a little weird for Gunner to always be around and be asked for advice from both Jim and Ann, but I just went with it. And Jim can do some nice things for other people; it's just that he's often a victim of his gung-ho attitude.

Like I said it's melodrama; you get to see how dangerous the job can be, which puts a strain on the marriage. Overall it's a pretty entertaining film. A big asset is the three stars and they all do a quality job, especially Loy, who has to run through a gamut of emotions, from spunky girl full of attitude to a wife that's overwhelmed due to worries concerning her husband's job, and she does it all well without overacting. All three are able to deliver some nice, long speeches which are also interesting.

All that drama, some laughs and nice aerial footage from the aircraft of the day make this a fine watch even if all three stars have been in clearly superior films to this.

I'll return tomorrow night.

Expendables 3

Expendables 3 (2014)

34% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 134 reviews)

Runtime: 126 soul-crushing minutes

Directed by: Patrick Hughes; well, I understand there was studio interference, or at least that's the rumor

Starring: A whole bunch of people; probably too much, as a matter of fact

From: The incompetent buffoons at Lionsgate

Oh boy... here we go. For the record, I gave this 1 ½ stars at Letterboxd. I'll explain why.

"Barney augments his team with new blood for a personal battle: to take down Conrad Stonebanks, the Expendables co-founder and notorious arms trader who is hell bent on wiping out Barney and every single one of his associates."

If I was the type of guy to give one sentence reviews, for this movie I would have said, “I really should have downloaded the leaked copy...” and I probably would have gotten many likes. But I like to be more in-depth than that and in this case I have quite a bit to say about this movie and why I feel so let down by it when I saw it today... not via torrent but on the big screen at my local cineplex.

Now, I am someone who loved the first two movies in this series, rating them at 4 and 5 stars respectively. I know most would disagree strongly with the ratings but that's my honest opinion; the second film in general gave me an incredible adrenaline rush when I saw it in the theatre. I think both movies are a lot of fun in an 80's sort of way.

With this film, I started to worry about it early in the year. As others noticed, most of the people in the huge cast were on the side of the good guys and that was just stupid. Then, the rating of PG-13 hit; the horrible movie studio known as Lionsgate always wanted the rating for the movies and those clowns finally got their way. Well, you saw how well the rating helped out at the box office... I know the excuse is that the movie leaked. IMO it's not that many people who would have seen it just watched it on their laptop; it's that people saw it on their computer screens and spread the word that the movie sucks, and well... I agree! It does suck.

I place a lot of the blame on Lionsgate. They had to be the ones that wanted “the youth angle” and they also had to be the ones to choose non-actors for some of the roles; you get to see Victor Ortiz fire a shotgun a few times and that's about it; you don't even see the people that presumably got mowed down by those blasts. Ronda Rousey was nice to look at in the movie, sure... she's not even Gina Carano when it comes to acting, to be honest.

I was hoping I'd enjoy the action scenes despite the stupid rating. Well, besides things being neutered the rating may as well have been irrelevant as the action was poorly filmed (way too close too often) and when it wasn't hard to follow it was just not engaging or exciting in the least bit. The rather bad CGI didn't help either.

On a messageboard someone described “the young crew” as “The Forgettables” and that is really the perfect description for them. What a blank void they were and their contributions were pretty much meaningless.

The story... terrible. Too often I was wondering what was going on or what happened to a character that resulted in them being where they suddenly ended up with no explanation. How an important character got captured I still don't get; did I literally blink and miss it? Was it just badly filmed? Probably both... really, this is a poorly made movie all around. I hadn't seen any of the young director's films before but I did hear a rumor that there was the dreaded studio interference... I've already given a few of many reasons why Lionsgate is just atrocious all around.

Antonio Banderas... I don't know why most people went wild over the character; as someone here mentioned, he was as loathsome and obnoxious as Jar Jar Binks and that really was true. Then again pretty much all the characters were A-holes and spouted off acres of horrible dialogue and “bro-speak” and in general acted like A-holes.

Really, the only reason this gets the rating it does is Mel Gibson as the villain. It was an interesting character and old Mel does a swell job with the role. Even he can't help how the character got treated, though, or how the final showdown between Stallone and Gibson was incredibly limp and flaccid.

So, this movie sidelined the people that most people wanted to see for far too long, introduced terrible characters you couldn't give a flying F about, was poorly made and filmed, had unexciting action and a weak plot... no wonder why there was bad buzz once people first saw this. This year has had some disappointments movie-wise but this is a big one to me; I had the sinking feeling I wouldn't have a blast with it like the first two but for it to be a lame waste of time generic action movie of modern times is almost soul-crushing.

I'll return tomorrow afternoon.

All Is Lost

All Is Lost (2013)

93% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 214 reviews)

Runtime: 106 minutes

Directed by: J.C. Chandor

Starring: Robert Redford

From: Lionsgate

Here's a movie I was finally able to check out, via the Epix channels, which I get for free now but that'll be ending at the end of the month, so I figured I'd better watch it now before it's too late. I did not always hear the best reviews for this but I was intrigued as this was literally a one man show with Redford the only actor on screen and you see the story unfold with basically only a few lines of dialogue after an opening letter that's read at the very beginning of the picture. Of course it's been compared to Gravity but this is a lot different, especially when you compare the budgets. The IMDb plot description then the Letterboxd review.

“After a collision with a shipping container at sea, a resourceful sailor finds himself, despite all efforts to the contrary, staring his mortality in the face.”

Since it came out last fall at around the same time as Gravity (and due to the plots there were the obvious comparisons, which is unfair as the latter is a 100 million dollar blockbuster and All is Lost had like a tenth of that for its budget) I was interested in seeing it but I wasn't all in. I heard some middling reviews so I wasn't sure how I'd feel about it. Finally, last night I sat down to check it out.

While this isn't a 5 star classic like Gravity, this is still a movie well worth seeing and I was glad they pulled off the gimmick where you followed only one person for an entire film and through only a few lines of dialogue you saw an old sailor on a solo journey on his yacht in the middle of the Indian Ocean experience catastrophe and catastrophe and how he dealt with each event by seeing his actions and not being aided with any sort of dialogue, whether you see him speak or get an inner monologue.

“Gimmick” is probably making it seem like a cheap device, which is not what I want to imply. You get not too many spoken words and yet it was still entertaining the entire time and never boring. You always knew what this boater with no name was thinking just from the way he was acting and his facial expressions.

Oh yeah, and the boater being Robert Redford was a big asset; as he's been acting since 1960, you knew he'd deliver a quality performance and be a huge reason why this film with a unique gimmick would work and not be considered dull and boring (well, at least not so by the majority that have seen it). I also hear that he did a lot of the stunts in the water by himself and not with a double which is impressive considering he was in his mid 70's when this was filmed.

Anyhow, if you're worried that the gimmick doesn't work or that the movie is just that, a gimmick... be rest assured the movie is more than that and if it sounds at all interesting to you I definitely say you need to track it down for a viewing.

I'll return tomorrow night.

Maniac (The 2012 Remake)

Maniac (2012)

Runtime: 89 minutes

Directed by: Franck Khalfoun

Starring: Elijah Wood, Nora Arnezeder, America Olivo, Genevieve Alexandra, Liane Balaban

From: Several different studios, including Canal +

Before I watched this remake of the 1980 Maniac starring Joe Spinell, I figured it would be appropriate to watch for a second time the Joe Spinell Maniac. You can read that original review I did in 2011 here. Note that my opinion of the 1980 film hasn't changed; it's still something I rate highly, even if it isn't an easy movie to watch.

Now, onto this remake, which I've actually heard good things about. However, as has been reminded to me in the past week, many people praising a recent horror movie doesn't always mean a lot as I think that more often than not I'll strongly disagree with them and actually think they have low standards for what the genre is putting out in recent years. Sad to say the same thing goes for this remake.

The IMDb plot description, then what I said about it on Letterboxd: “As he helps a young artist with her upcoming exhibition, the owner of a mannequin shop's deadly, suppressed desires come to the surface.”

Right before I saw this movie I decided to rewatch the 1980 Maniac, starring Joe Spinell, which of course this is a remake of. The original version is still not an easy watch due to its claustrophobic feeling and how it gets under your skin with creepiness. The performance of Spinell was also a big asset in making it a memorable film.

I did not know what to expect from this movie; I thought it was kind of dumb to remake such a film as how can you improve it, and why would you change it except to make something that's just not the same as the original? Still, I went into this with an open mind and I thought the gimmick of the movie being a first person view through the eyes of the killer protagonist was certainly different and yet it sounded like a cool bit of experimentation.

Unfortunately, I wasn't too big a fan of this movie or its version of Frank Zito. I knew there'd be trouble from the first kill, which in a few ways made no sense; also early on you hear a popular song infamous from its usage in a popular horror-related movie and I sighed that they were SO obvious in using such a song as it was just needless to use it. It's been spoofed in later movies, you know.

Sure, the movie has gruesome moments but the 1980 movie was more than that. The setting here is Los Angeles of modern times and you lose the sleazy feeling of New York City from that era and the vibe of how the '80 film included scenes that were filmed without permits and this you get the “dangerous” vibe; not here. “Way over the top” is how you describe Frank when he has his “episodes”; it was more goofy than scary or chilling. And there are a few times where you lose the first person aspect and you get a third person view of the lead; I did not get that at all. Getting to see Zito in mirrors on a frequent basis got to be a bit much.

Also, showing Frank's mom in another over the top element to be a drug-abusing tramp... explaining Frank's past too much was just not needed. and that's an unfortunate trend in recent years, overexplaining things that didn't really need it. Eh, oh well; at least the final 15 or so minutes before the end credits were funny, even if that wasn't the intention; I just laughed due to how silly and goofy a lot of the elements were.

I did note hate this movie; it had some moments. I just didn't get why many have rated this so highly as to me I can't help but compare it to the Joe Spinell Maniac and in that regards it's clearly inferior.

I'll return early tomorrow night.

Three On A Match

Three on a Match (1932)

Runtime: 63 minutes

Directed by: Mervyn LeRoy

Starring: Warren William, Joan Blondell, Bette Davis, Ann Dvorak, Humphrey Bogart

From: First National Pictures (this was a subsidiary of Warner Brothers)

I'll be short and sweet, like this movie. I had actually seen this before, but that was a long while ago and I found it on a site I typically find movies, which is (redacted), and as it was short and fit my schedule, I figured I should give it a revisit... and yes the title of the movie is explained in the movie; it's an old expression said to relate to World War I. After the IMDb synopsis, the Letterboxd review.

“Although Vivian Revere is seemingly the most successful of a trio of reunited schoolmates, she throws it away by descending into a life of debauchery and drugs.” True, and some melodramatic situations happen.

I've actually seen this movie before but that was a long while ago. As I found it again recently I figured I should give it another watch. This is an entertaining B picture made in the Pre Code days (meaning various levels of debauchery are seen, including implied cocaine use) where three girls are followed from a short look at childhood then you see their adult lives and it turns out that the girl predicted to be the most likely to succeed actually took a few wrong turns in her life and ends up in some melodramatic situations.

The cast is great: Ann Dvorak, Joan Blondell, Bette Davis, Humphrey Bogart in a small role, etc. The plot is not complicated and yet it's still interesting. If only they had more time than 63 minutes and some of that runtime was used better... alas.

Still, it is a quick watch and it's not a bad tale; just one that I wish had more time to make a bigger impression. At least the talented cast makes it a 3 star film and they'll all go on to make plenty of good or better movies after this.

I'll return tomorrow night.

College Kickboxers

College Kickboxers (1992)

Runtime: 86 minutes

Directed by: Eric Sherman

Starring: Ken McLeod, Tang Tak Wing, Matthew Ray Cohen, Mark Williams, Kendra Tucker

From: Curb/Esquire Films

Yes, this is a real movie I watched, a real low-budget thing from the early 90's which has some pretty bad early 90's fashion and music, and it's pretty bad overall... yet it's unintentionally pretty darn funny too. The IMDb synopsis then what I wrote about it on Letterboxd:

"A college freshman who trains in martial arts is beaten up at work by a racist gang. His co-worker, a Chinese cook, beats the gang up and trains the young man in kung fu. When a tournament is to be held, the teacher tells the student that he will not teach him for money. However, when the gang beats up the student's best friend, the student now must make the choice of entering the tournament or keeping the promise to his teacher."

It's a long story as to why I finally watched this film; I've known about it for awhile now and I always thought its title was pretty darn funny. Basically, it was strongly suggested to me that I check this out, and as it's easy to find online that's what I did, and if you enjoy crappy action films of old...

The movie's pretty terrible, let me state that first. But it is so great to laugh at. It's a low-budget thing set in California about some surfer boy blonde dude who befriends a fellow martial artist, who happens to be his roommate, and he's also black. They run afoul of the local gang in town, THE WHITE TIGERS, led by a racist leader who looks like a cross between Scott Ian from Anthrax and Jason Mewes and has long stringy hair. If they were looking for a weasel character they succeeded. Of course everyone in the gang is a martial artist too. Well, they befriend a Chinese short order cook (named Wing!) who-shock of shocks-is a martial arts master and they learn from him. A “martial arts tournament” and ecology (?!) also factor into the plot.

Like I said, it's bad technically, from the plotting to the porn-level acting, the characters and the situation. Yet I laughed in a Miami Connection sort of way, although this is more incompetent aside from the martial arts itself, which range from fine to actually sort of good. The best part, though, was how the hero was really an annoying buffoon so whether it be from Wing humiliating him while training, his potential love interest recognizing his stupidity or from the villains, it was great watching the protagonist be made to look like a chump often and figuratively having his pants be pulled down many times. The fact that the hero has an Ambiguously Gay relationship with the roommate was like icing on top of the cake.

But really, what else would you expect from a movie that's sometimes known as Trained to Fight (which is a more accurate title) and is usually known as COLLEGE KICKBOXERS and yet I'd say that not much if at all of the martial arts you see is actually kickboxing?

I'll return tomorrow afternoon.

V/H/S 2 & Resolution

V/H/S 2 (2013)

Runtime: 96 minutes

Directed by: 7 different guys! This is a horror anthology

Starring: A bunch of low-budget or microbudget actors no one would have heard of before.

From: The Collective

Resolution (2012)

Runtime: 93 minutes

Directed by: Justin Benson/Aaron Moorhead

Starring: Peter Cilella, Vinny Curran, Zahn McClaron, Bill Oberst, Jr.

From: Tribeca Film

First, I'll be talking about the V/H/S sequel then I'll get into Resolution; both are horror-related so reviewing both at once makes sense. For both I'll give some brief thoughts, then give a plot synopsis then copy and paste what I said about the movies on Letterboxd. I will return tomorrow night, hopefully with a movie I actually enjoyed watching.

I reviewed the first V/H/S (review here) and I did not like it. When I heard they were rushing a sequel into production I thought that was a bad sign, but when seemingly everyone bellowed loudly how the sequel was “much better”, I actually believed them and thought that'd be the case. Well...

From the IMDb: "Searching for a missing student, two private investigators break into his house and find collection of VHS tapes. Viewing the horrific contents of each cassette, they realize there may be dark motives behind the student's disappearance."

Here's another review from me where I'll go against the popular opinion. I never seek out the opportunities to do such a thing; it just happens sometimes.

To clarify, I've seen the first V/H/S before and I thought it was pretty bad; there was a cool segment and one that had its moments but otherwise the movie was hot garbage, filled with loathsome protagonists (or as I'd like to call them, asstagonists). Most people I heard said something to the effect that this was “a noted improvement” and went wild over the long segment directed by Gareth Evans and Timo Tjahjanto, so I figured I would think the same way and that's why I watched it last night on Instant.

Unfortunately, I have to rate this the same as I did the first one, i.e. pretty low. The movie's segments made no sense in general (and I am not talking about the usual trappings of the found footage genre) and once again, the segments are full of asstagonists.

The overarching story was just bad and made zero sense at all.

The segment with the fake eye started off OK then just got way confused and just turned pretty bad.

The zombie GoPro segment was actually by far the best segment in my opinion. It was a simple idea and while the ending makes me wonder which version of the zombie mythology they were following, overall it was an amusing idea and I was entertained.

The much hyped Safe Haven segment (the one from Gareth and Timo)... I thought it was awful! I have no comprehension why everyone else loves it besides me; was everyone blinded by all the gore and bloodshed? I suppose so. Again, things are nonsensical and you want to talk about protagonists I couldn't stand, these A-holes who were the documentary filmmakers doing a piece on an Indonesian cult, they were not only complete D-bags who treated each other awfully and end up rolling out some bad cliche moments, but they are brutally inept and buffoons at their job! This was just crap all around and I'm wondering if there's an Emperor With No Clothes going on with this... which I can also say about the massively overrated The Raid 2...

The last segment... oh boy, even more asstagonists and this time it's teenagers or prepubescent children acting REALLY terribly and constantly dropping F-bombs; I'd rather not even say anything else about the segment or those pieces of crap to be honest.

When I first heard they super-rushed this into production I took it as a bad sign and I should have listened to that initial instinct. I sure as heck know that as they're super-rushing a third one into production I won't be watching it nor any other sequels no matter what strong praise I hear about it from everyone else. I don't even have a general problem with the found footage genre; I do have problems with stuff that apparently pleases easy to please people (no offense to my followers who actually enjoyed this) and is just bad filmmaking and the type of horror I'd rather not see.

Now, onto Resolution.

Here's another highly regarded film (on messageboards and even horror movie websites) that's on Instant and I hadn't seen before so I decided to check out on Instant. Turns out, I would rather have watched V/H/S 2 again than see this once! I just had no idea...

From the IMDb: “A man, looking to save his best friend from the throes of methamphetamine addiction, ties him up in an abandoned cabin and induces withdrawal.” Needless to say things go wrong.

Here's a movie I've known about for awhile, due to various people on messageboards and even horror movie websites praising it to high heaven, so I figured I should give it a chance. I knew little about it going in. Come to think of it, if I did know more than I probably wouldn't have watched it in the first place. Yeah, sad to say this is yet another review where I have to disagree with the general opinion.

In short this is about a man who goes to a cabin in the woods to make his meth head friend go cold turkey and stop the drug. Stuff happens and it's not so much a horror film except for the source of what's causing some odd things to happen there; once you find out what it is... I am sure most will disagree but it made me roll my eyes and sigh in disgust as it was not a satisfying payoff to the misery of having to watch this; to be perfectly honest if it wasn't me wanting to review it for this site I would have turned it off rather early. That's pretty bad for a movie called Resolution to have a bad resolution.

You see, it did not take long to see that I would hate EVERYONE in the movie. No exaggeration. By far the worst offender is the disgusting drug addict piece of crap. I am far from a prude and I am not someone who is against people speaking vulgarities. But just about every sentence that A-hole said had at least one instance of the F-bomb! He had to have said it about 300 or 400 times during the movie, no lie. When I speculate if Scorsese, Tarantino or Rob Zombie would go, "Hey now you guys! You're using the F word way too much here!", that's a problem.

This movie just rubbed me the wrong way. You'll probably feel differently; personally I just don't get all the hype this got.

One Hour Photo

One Hour Photo (2002)

Runtime: 96 minutes

Directed by: Mark Romanek

Starring: Robin Williams (RIP), Connie Nielsen, Michael Vartan, Dylan Smith, Gary Cole

From: Fox Searchlight Pictures

My apologies for this being up so late; things happened so I had to put this off. I will return Thursday night with two movies reviewed instead of one.

To tip my cap and pay tribute to Robin Williams I figured I had to watch one of his movies last night; it was hard figuring out which one to see but I decided to pick out this one as it was one I hadn't seen before and it is highly regarded in some circles. After the IMDb plot description, what I said about it on Letterboxd.

“An employee of a one-hour photo lab becomes obsessed with a young suburban family.”

Like everyone else I was gutted when I heard the news yesterday that Robin Williams had passed away. As I am someone in my early and nearing middle 30's I had seen more than a few of his movies in my lifetime and heck I even remember watching reruns of Mork & Mindy when I was real young. I am especially sad with how the death happened.

I figured I had to watch a film starring him last night so I did. I picked out one I hadn't seen before, one that wasn't a comedy and one that's highly regarded and this fit the bill. To be brief, Williams plays a rather awkward person who works at a one hour photo that's in a store I would describe as Walmart-esque. He is obsessed with the job and providing the best possible product for the people he serves. You feel bad for him once you see he's a lonely man with no friends or family and only has a hamster as a companion... until you realize he's a sociopath-to use a term a few people here used already, as it's apt-and is way too obsessed with the pictures brought in by family of a husband, wife and 9 year old boy who seem to lead an idyllic American life in the suburbs. I mean, I'd call “hanging the pictures of that family on the wall of his apartment and doing so for years” to be rather disturbed behavior.

The movie is well shot, directed, and scored (the latter aids in making you feel creeped out) but it's the performance of Robin Williams that makes the film. It's great. Even when he does some pretty horrid things, a small part of you still feels sympathy due to how he does lead a sad loner lifestyle & the situation itself, which is actually a little complicated and I dare not reveal it here for those that haven't seen this yet. Just know that if you enjoy your dark psychological thrillers then this is a must-see.

While I enjoyed his comedy and his comedic roles, I do wish that Robin would have made more films like this where he could have shown off his dramatic chops and played creepy disturbed people like he did here with the character of Sy Parrish. That said, I still tip my cap to him for all the entertainment he provided me and everyone else during his life.

Thirteen Women

Thirteen Women (1932)

Runtime: 60 minutes (at least that's the only version of it out there that can be found)

Directed by: George Archinbauld

Starring: Irene Dunne, Myrna Loy, Ricardo Cortez, Jill Esmond, Mary Duncan

From: RKO

First off, I will return tomorrow night and yes I will be watching then reviewing a Robin Williams film-I don't know which one yet-so I'll talk all about him then. Hearing that bit of news shocked me as it did everyone else. Until then, the review of this movie:

Here's a film I did not discover until just recently. After reading the plot synopsis I HAD to see it; thankfully I was able to find it and give it a spin. The (sort of racist) IMDb plot synopsis then me talking about it on Letterboxd.

“Thirteen women who were schoolmates send to a swami for their horoscopes. Little do they realize that Ursula, a half-breed Asian, is using her hypnotic powers over the swami and them to lead them or their families to their deaths. It seems that she too went to their school, but was forced to leave by their bigotry, and is exacting revenge. Will she be stopped in time to save Laura's son, Bobby?” To clarify, Ursula is called “half-Hindu” and she does try to kill a little boy. This was definitely before the Hays Code. Now, onto Letterboxd.

Sometimes, you stumble upon a film (whether here or elsewhere) and once you read the plot synopsis you realize you HAVE to check it out. That was the case here with this obscure Precode movie based on an obscure novel by Tiffany Thayer, who was actually a guy.

Here's the plot that got me interested: a sorority does not allow a young lady to join because she's “Half-Hindu”. Well, a few years later this lady (Ursula Georgi, played by a ravishingly lovely and devilish Myrna Loy) gets revenge for this racism by teaming up with a fake swami to create fake horoscopes (or maybe in this case it's horrorscopes) which portended and the women who believe in that malarkey (and horoscopes are malarkey) did end up dying in harsh ways or had bad things happen to them, and as she was “Asian” that meant “mystical” and “possessing magical powers”.

Pretty outrageous, yes, but also a lot of fun.

Sad to say it was made to be the second part of double features; if you don't know, back in that time when you went for a night out at that cinema, you got a newsreel, a cartoon and/or a short (such as one from The Three Stooges) and then a pair of films, the “big” one first then the minor one last; this movie was a minor one. Imagine if it would have gotten more attention and a bigger budget... as is, you have rather vicious deaths/situations and even children being targeted. It was cut from 74 to 59 minutes but allegedly they cut out “boring sections”. Still, only a few girls are affected and not 13 in total.

Point is, while I wish that more time/effort/money would have been attached to it, it's still a macabre and entertaining hour and the general idea (the whole stereotyping and racism stuff can be excised) would probably make for a pretty fun modern slasher/mystery; THERE is the sort of film that should be remade, not something like Total Recall or Robocop or other things that only idiots would think need a remake.

Alice In Wonderland

Alice in Wonderland (1933)

Runtime: 76 minutes

Directed by: Norman Z. McLeod

Starring and from: This was made by Paramount; way back in these days and the “studio system” the studio picked the movies you appeared in so you had many of their biggest stars here, such as Gary Cooper, Leon Errol, W.C. Fields, Sterling Holloway, and way early in his career Cary Grant

I'll explain in the Letterboxd review why I am reviewing a pretty obscure film (albeit one that is noteworthy due to how odd it is and how until a few years ago it was real hard to find); I'll admit that personally the entire Alice in Wonderland story hasn't always been my favorite. That's just me talking. Still, I've had a copy of this movie for a long time and while thinking of an old movie to watch I figured it was about darn time I check this out.

The plot synopsis... wait, everyone knows the Alice in Wonderland story so I won't recap that; it's not a tale that takes massive liberties with the Lewis Carroll tale or puts a weird new spin on things. So, onto me copying and pasting what I said about it on Letterboxd, after I show the trailer to the movie.

Don't ask me how but for a long while now I've had a copy of this live action film, back when it was pretty obscure and real hard to find. Now, it's on DVD & you can pay a few bucks to watch it on YouTube or Amazon. The reason why I got it is that I heard it was quite strange and I was amused that back in the studio days they could put whoever they had under contract in their films so that's why this has a famous cast of familiar at the time guys (Leon Errol, W.C. Fields, Sterling Holloway) and some actors who would become a lot more famous later on (Gary Cooper, Cary Grant).

This isn't an adaptation of the classic story that goes too far from what Lewis Carroll wrote, so that's not another noteworthy aspect, but what is... the costumes that are used in the movie. They are terrifying! They're liable to give nightmares to adults in 2014, let alone the poor kids that saw this in 1933. I realize that costuming back then is different from what is available today but believe me it just comes across as incredibly creepy and bizarre; between that and the sets this comes across as a surrealistic acidtrip of a nightmare. I suppose that's appropriate as many people have made a connection between any of the film adaptations/the original story and drugs, but still...

Then, there's how with the costuming you can barely even tell who most of the actors are unless you recognize their voices. What hampers it is a rather slow glacial pace. Thus, weirdness aside I can only rate it as being about average, even if the novelty of seeing some of those famous faces in aberrant costumes is high. I mean, Fields as Humpty Dumpty, Cooper as a knight with a giant fluffy mustache and Grant as a turtle with a cow's head... images I'll never forget.

I'll return tomorrow night.

Deepsea Challenge 3D

Deepsea Challenge 3D (2014)

Runtime: 91 minutes

Directed by: John Bruno/Ray Quint/Andrew Wight

Starring: This is a documentary and most of the focus is on James Cameron

From: National Geographic Entertainment

Here's a review that'll be on the short side. It's about a documentary that I literally discovered was a thing last night and it's in limited release in a little more than 300 theatres across the country. I was interested and it did fit into my plans so I checked it out and I ended up liking it enough to give it 3 ½ stars out of 5 on Letterboxd. After the IMDb plot synopsis, the Letterboxd review.

“DEEPSEA CHALLENGE 3D follows the dramatic story of James Cameron's odyssey as he undertakes an expedition to the deepest part of the ocean. This is a journey of historic proportion and risk. The film will mesmerize viewers of all ages with the thrill of true discovery and the allure of the unknown, of new life forms, and of vistas never before captured on camera - all right here on planet Earth.”

While I did hear a few years ago about how James Cameron created his own personal submarine and for the first time in history went down 7 miles (11 kilometers) down to the deepest part of the ocean and was able to explore it, I literally only discovered last night when looking through movie listings that in limited release was a 3D documentary about this expedition so I was intrigued and I wanted to check it out.

Note that it's more about the preparation for such an unprecedented thing rather than what you see while down at those depths; then again, not to spoil anything but there's no real wildlife down that deep, at least not that you can see with the naked eye. I was OK with that as I am a nerd and I was interested in how they prepared and all the practice runs they did and how there were problems along the way but it got fixed and there was only a relatively minor issue on the big dive itself.

As for Cameron himself, as he was the executive producer it's no surprise he was always shown in the best light. Although, a few times members of his crew alluded to his infamous reputation of being demanding at times and not always being the easiest person to work with/for. Still, it was a documentary I enjoyed for the 3D visuals, the interesting deep sea creatures you do get to see, the interesting tale, and how it was clear that for most of his life, James Cameron has had the strongest interest in exploring the world's oceans.

I'll return Sunday night.

Libeled Lady

Libeled Lady (1936)

Runtime: 98 minutes

Directed by: Jack Conway

Starring: Jean Harlow, William Powell, Spencer Tracy, Myrna Loy

From: MGM

My apologies for this being posted a little later than expected; I had to do something unexpected in the afternoon that ate up some time. In short, this is a movie I saw because in a messageboard thread, after I mentioned I had seen The Thin Man, it was recommended to me I should check this out, so that is what I finally did last night. After I give a brief IMDb synopsis of the plot, 

“A newspaper man, his jilted fiancée, and his lawyer hatch an elaborate scheme to turn a false news-story into the truth, before a high-society woman can sue for libel.”

Basically, I taped this movie awhile back and I finally watched it last night; it was recommended to me in a messageboard thread (long story) and as I enjoyed the teaming of Powell and Loy in The Thin Man and this movie also includes Spencer Tracy and Jean Harlow, I figured those 4 together made this a must-see, and I was correct.

It is a screwball comedy concerning how the newspaper Tracy works for accidentally publishes a libelous statement about the rich daughter (Loy) of the guy that runs the rival newspaper, and to avoid a massive lawsuit, Tracy plans a scam with Powell and Harlow (then a real-life couple) to make the libelous statement-that she tried to hook up with a married man-actually a statement of fact.

As I expected this was a really funny movie, with plenty of rapid-fire quips & bon mots and as the story grows more absurd with more complications-and I say that in the best way possible-I grew even more amused with how the story was progressing. All four stars do a great job and it was interesting seeing how various combinations of all four would interact with each other. You also get some physical comedy along the way. It's just a pleasant and very entertaining film.

I'll return tomorrow night.

Masterblaster

Masterblaster (1987)

Runtime: The copy I found online was only 85 minutes long; I do not know if that's the definitive version or not

Directed by: Glenn R. Wilder

Starring: Jeff Moldovan, Donna Rosea, Joe Hess, Robert Goodman

From: Overseas Film

This was not what I was planning on watching last night but, once again I can thank Letterboxd; now, I had heard of this movie before. It was even recommended for a bad movie podcast but it hasn't been chosen by the hosts... at least not yet. You see, this is a movie about PAINTBALL, and how someone is using live rounds and killing people during a big tournament. This sounded like something I'd find to be hilarious. The IMDb plot description (what's posted is hilarious in of itself) then me writing about it on Letterboxd:

“The national 'Gotcha' championship brings a variety of queer fellows together. A Vietnam veteran always looking for adventure, a female police officer with a trauma, because she once could not shoot in the right moment, a Japanese martial-arts master always looking for the opportunity to train his skills as well as some people who wish nothing more as to get the 50,000 dollars which await the winner. All in all it could be an exciting weekend, when suddenly the game becomes reality as someone is shooting live rounds. ”

This was not what I was planning on watching last night; however, several people here have posted reviews for it the past day or two (via it being uploaded to a certain streaming video website) and as I have actually heard of this movie before, I was happy to be able to see it and I figured I should do it immediately before it could possibly be taken down.

The title's great (sad to say it has nothing to do with the Stevie Wonder song; as this is a low buck production you shouldn't dream of the song being in the film itself; however it does have a hilarious 80's-riffic soundtrack, especially the incredible slick R&B opening/closing credits ditty) and the plot: it's all about paintball! A wide assortment of amazing people go to Florida for a big tournament, but someone starts killing the competitors. Which one of the red herrings is it, or is it someone else?

Oh, do I ever enjoy laughing at the 1980's, and believe me I enjoy a silly low budget action movie from the period, and this is definitely one of those; I just about howled with laughter often. I'll warn everyone that from the next paragraph on I'll be giving some details as to why I rate this so highly (it's mainly due to entertainment value rather than the quality of filmmaking present) and in case anyone reading this wants to watch this for a podcast in the future (hey, it's possible), I'll advise you to stop reading after the next paragraph.

To sum it up, the soundtrack is SO dated it's great, the characters are all wacky and over the top (my favorite being the rather astounding looking guy who is best described as if you put John Travolta, Warren Oates and Clint Howard in Seth Brundle's Telepod and they're combined into one human being), there's T&A, violence, some nice fight scenes, and stuff you sure as heck couldn't do today, such as all the racist, homophobic and sexist slurs. It's directed by a stuntman (yes, his only film) and to me that's a good thing as you have a good idea what to expect. For those of you that enjoy such movies, I highly recommend this, especially if you enjoy stuff like Miami Connection.

Now, onto some details:

* There's a theme song called Masterblaster; it's so bad it's knee-slapping funny and you hear it a few times

* The people you see in the tournament are broad stereotypes, from a pair of Cubans who wear such things as black mesh shirts and anti-Castro white t-shirts (that's Snake and Monk, the Travolta/Oates/Howard guy) to a Vietnam vet with issues, racist rednecks to a middle-aged Japanese guy who of course is “descended from samurais.”

* The opening bit of the movie is some of the people in the tournament meeting at a random bar/restaurant in the middle of nowhere, and the Vietnam vet gets into a brawl with some other rednecks (not to be confused with the rednecks in the tournament), the leader of that group looking like a bearded Chris Pratt.

* The movie pretty much has a laugh track in one scene; it's supposed to be the other people in the room laughing at various jokes, but it was pretty much a laugh track.

* One of the people in the tournament is a “rock star” who drives a sweet Porsche 911 convertible and he looks like Brian Bosworth, blonde mulleted hair and all.

* A random dance party happens in the woods the night before the tournament; really.

* The people who run the tournament include a young woman with dark blonde hair who obviously doesn't wear a bra-the film zooms in on this to make it as clear as possible-and a large humanoid who is best described as a fat 400 pound version of Hulk Hogan, in one scene he wears a shirt that says BROAD SIDE OF A BARN. It does lead to a joke and it did make me chortle.

* I did guess who the killer was; their motivation, though, that did come as a surprise.

Overall, I had a great time with this; I laughed often as this piece of crap. I'll return tomorrow afternoon.