I'll keep it short and sweet. I have seen a decent amount of films by him in my life (even though some I have never reviewed here, much less Letterboxd) so I was saddened to hear he passed away. I had no idea he even had brain cancer, so it came out of nowhere. Last night I watched again The Hills Have Eyes, which despite its goofiness is still effective in my eyes. Later I'll watch again the sequel to that movie, the one with the dog flashback. It's pretty awful but I wanted to write more about it on Letterboxd. I'll review something here in a few days at the most.
Rest In Peace Wes Craven
Monday, August 31, 2015
Sunday, August 30, 2015
Shack Out On 101
Shack Out on 101 (1955)
Runtime: 80 minutes
Directed by: Edward Dein
Starring: Terry Moore, Frank Lovejoy, Keenan Wynn, Lee Marvin, Whit Bissell
From: Allied Artists Pictures
After too long I finally saw another film noir. I explain below in the Letterboxd review why I picked this one to see.
Recently I realized I haven't watched a noir in too long a time so I figured I should go with this one, a movie I first heard about right here on Letterboxd, shortly before several people plugged it on the Rupert Pupkin Speaks website in the past few weeks. The plot sounded interesting to me and it was nice to see familiar names, from Terry Moore and Frank Lovejoy to Keenan Wynn and Lee Marvin. I never watched Seinfeld but all you fans of that will laugh when you hear that Uncle Leo is also part of the cast. When I saw that Marvin played a cook named SLOB, I knew I had to watch this. It's not hard to find but legally, Olive Films put it out on DVD and Blu, so you may want to throw a few shekels their way if you want to see this:
The plot: It's set in California at a greasy spoon diner off of U.S. Highway 101; it's not a popular joint, so you rarely see customers in there aside from the people who are integral to the plot. It's run by Wynn, who plays-shock of shocks-a person who more often than not is gruff and cantankerous. Marvin is Slob, the cook. There's a waitress known as Kotty (who is usually referred to as a "tomato"), and among the regulars you do see include Kotty's successful scientist boyfriend and there is also a war veteran who has what would be known not as PTSD. There are important secrets which are being stolen and that's as detailed as I'll get with the plot.
The movie is rather odd in ways I'll mostly not spoil. Yet I was quite entertained with it. Most of the movie takes place in the diner; to echo the comments of someone else here, it does come off as a stage play at times. Thankfully this pulpy tale is never dull and it's nicely acted by the cast, who spout out acres of great and hard-hitting dialogue. There are also some pretty rough moments for a 50's film.
To give but one example of the weirdness: there's a random scene where Wynn and Marvin are working out in the diner, as there are no customers around. Things come off as quite homoerotic as they compare their bodies to one another. Note that more than one even odder thing happens in this movie.
At least this movie does stand out due to being one of a kind and even 60 years later it is still a gas to watch.
Runtime: 80 minutes
Directed by: Edward Dein
Starring: Terry Moore, Frank Lovejoy, Keenan Wynn, Lee Marvin, Whit Bissell
From: Allied Artists Pictures
After too long I finally saw another film noir. I explain below in the Letterboxd review why I picked this one to see.
Recently I realized I haven't watched a noir in too long a time so I figured I should go with this one, a movie I first heard about right here on Letterboxd, shortly before several people plugged it on the Rupert Pupkin Speaks website in the past few weeks. The plot sounded interesting to me and it was nice to see familiar names, from Terry Moore and Frank Lovejoy to Keenan Wynn and Lee Marvin. I never watched Seinfeld but all you fans of that will laugh when you hear that Uncle Leo is also part of the cast. When I saw that Marvin played a cook named SLOB, I knew I had to watch this. It's not hard to find but legally, Olive Films put it out on DVD and Blu, so you may want to throw a few shekels their way if you want to see this:
The plot: It's set in California at a greasy spoon diner off of U.S. Highway 101; it's not a popular joint, so you rarely see customers in there aside from the people who are integral to the plot. It's run by Wynn, who plays-shock of shocks-a person who more often than not is gruff and cantankerous. Marvin is Slob, the cook. There's a waitress known as Kotty (who is usually referred to as a "tomato"), and among the regulars you do see include Kotty's successful scientist boyfriend and there is also a war veteran who has what would be known not as PTSD. There are important secrets which are being stolen and that's as detailed as I'll get with the plot.
The movie is rather odd in ways I'll mostly not spoil. Yet I was quite entertained with it. Most of the movie takes place in the diner; to echo the comments of someone else here, it does come off as a stage play at times. Thankfully this pulpy tale is never dull and it's nicely acted by the cast, who spout out acres of great and hard-hitting dialogue. There are also some pretty rough moments for a 50's film.
To give but one example of the weirdness: there's a random scene where Wynn and Marvin are working out in the diner, as there are no customers around. Things come off as quite homoerotic as they compare their bodies to one another. Note that more than one even odder thing happens in this movie.
At least this movie does stand out due to being one of a kind and even 60 years later it is still a gas to watch.
Saturday, August 29, 2015
Halloween III: Season Of The Witch
Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)
Runtime: 98 minutes
Directed by: Tommy Lee Wallace
Starring: Tom Atkins, Stacey Nelkin, Dan O'Herlihy, Ralph Strait, Jadeen Barbor
From: Dino De Laurentiis/Universal
Here is something I don't often do: really change my mind on a film. When I saw this in the past (more than once) I didn't really care for it, and not for the stock answer many give as to why. I explain why I felt that way and why I feel different now in my Letterboxd review below:
Note 1: After this review it may be some time before I get back to seeing movies from the franchise. It may be more appropriate to see them in October anyhow.
Note 2: This “not being like the others as it has nothing to do with Michael Myers” has nothing to do with my rating.
Note 3: As like a 7 or 8 year old I saw the opening part of the movie on television one night. My mom put a quick end to that. That was likely for the best as I probably was too young for horror films at the time.
Since I first saw it I never really enjoyed this film, not due to it being separate from the rest of the Halloween franchise, but rather due to issues I had with the story. Yet, I realized the last viewing was who knows how many years ago so I figured it'd be most fair if I watched it again with new eyes and as it turns out, my opinion actually did change.
The plot: a middle aged man runs to a gas station carrying a Silver Shamrock Halloween mask then is attacked by a mysterious man in a suit before then being killed in the hospital by the same man. A Dr. Challis (Tom Atkins in a solid performance) at the hospital is troubled by this. When the man's young daughter arrives at the scene, they soon agree to go to the town of Santa Mira, California (a nice Invasion of the Body Snatchers reference) to do some investigating of the Silver Shamrock company, and what a plot they uncover.
When I saw the movie those few times in the past, I thought it was absolutely ridiculous with a massive plot hole and yet I did always recognize it had some great deaths. Well, viewing it now, it turns out I was always incorrect on believing the movie acted like the entire United States had only one time zone. It wasn't crystal clear but I just read too much into it, PLUS I finally noticed a piece of machinery in the background of one scene that gave the time for the four time zones. I will admit I was wrong.
Yes, the movie is still ridiculous, some of the special effects look on the fake side-especially viewing it on Blu-and a lot is left unexplained. Yet, this time I found the movie to be pretty entertaining, and I can rate it as being "fine". While emulating Carpenter, first time director Tommy Lee Wallace still does a nice job. Dean Cundey returns to do the cinematography and he does good work there. And the 80's synth score from Carpenter and Alan Howarth is simply awesome.
Also, the movie is constantly creepy throughout. Various weird things happen during the picture. Santa Mira looks like a rustic little town but there's a nightly curfew and no one from the town actually works at the factory. As I said before, there are still great deaths in this movie and you'll never forget them. The main cast all does a swell job, from Atkins to Stacey Nelkin as Ellie, the murdered man's daughter, and what a villainous turn from Dan O'Herlihy as Conal Cochran. He does some great subtle things throughout; while preposterous his scheme-involving Samhain, a reference to the last movie-is definitely diabolical.
Of course there were some moments that made me laugh. That old homeless guy who brazenly cursed out Cochran and then had a Cheez Whiz sandwich was pretty funny. Dr. Challis being a middle-aged guy who is a womanizer, divorced, and loves alcohol, not automatically a laugh riot. But him bringing along a six pack of Miller High Life for a drive to Santa Mira-at least he wasn't driving-and there being the expected romance between he and Ellie, resulting in him asking what her age is AFTER having sex with her... hilarious.
I don't often change course on a movie like this. But this is a time that I will have to. I was mistaken about it all these years, and I am glad I could see the light now. This bombing at the time ruined the plans of the franchise becoming a yearly anthology thing, which is definitely a shame, especially looking at the quality of those movies once Michael Myers were brought back.
Runtime: 98 minutes
Directed by: Tommy Lee Wallace
Starring: Tom Atkins, Stacey Nelkin, Dan O'Herlihy, Ralph Strait, Jadeen Barbor
From: Dino De Laurentiis/Universal
Here is something I don't often do: really change my mind on a film. When I saw this in the past (more than once) I didn't really care for it, and not for the stock answer many give as to why. I explain why I felt that way and why I feel different now in my Letterboxd review below:
Note 1: After this review it may be some time before I get back to seeing movies from the franchise. It may be more appropriate to see them in October anyhow.
Note 2: This “not being like the others as it has nothing to do with Michael Myers” has nothing to do with my rating.
Note 3: As like a 7 or 8 year old I saw the opening part of the movie on television one night. My mom put a quick end to that. That was likely for the best as I probably was too young for horror films at the time.
Since I first saw it I never really enjoyed this film, not due to it being separate from the rest of the Halloween franchise, but rather due to issues I had with the story. Yet, I realized the last viewing was who knows how many years ago so I figured it'd be most fair if I watched it again with new eyes and as it turns out, my opinion actually did change.
The plot: a middle aged man runs to a gas station carrying a Silver Shamrock Halloween mask then is attacked by a mysterious man in a suit before then being killed in the hospital by the same man. A Dr. Challis (Tom Atkins in a solid performance) at the hospital is troubled by this. When the man's young daughter arrives at the scene, they soon agree to go to the town of Santa Mira, California (a nice Invasion of the Body Snatchers reference) to do some investigating of the Silver Shamrock company, and what a plot they uncover.
When I saw the movie those few times in the past, I thought it was absolutely ridiculous with a massive plot hole and yet I did always recognize it had some great deaths. Well, viewing it now, it turns out I was always incorrect on believing the movie acted like the entire United States had only one time zone. It wasn't crystal clear but I just read too much into it, PLUS I finally noticed a piece of machinery in the background of one scene that gave the time for the four time zones. I will admit I was wrong.
Yes, the movie is still ridiculous, some of the special effects look on the fake side-especially viewing it on Blu-and a lot is left unexplained. Yet, this time I found the movie to be pretty entertaining, and I can rate it as being "fine". While emulating Carpenter, first time director Tommy Lee Wallace still does a nice job. Dean Cundey returns to do the cinematography and he does good work there. And the 80's synth score from Carpenter and Alan Howarth is simply awesome.
Also, the movie is constantly creepy throughout. Various weird things happen during the picture. Santa Mira looks like a rustic little town but there's a nightly curfew and no one from the town actually works at the factory. As I said before, there are still great deaths in this movie and you'll never forget them. The main cast all does a swell job, from Atkins to Stacey Nelkin as Ellie, the murdered man's daughter, and what a villainous turn from Dan O'Herlihy as Conal Cochran. He does some great subtle things throughout; while preposterous his scheme-involving Samhain, a reference to the last movie-is definitely diabolical.
Of course there were some moments that made me laugh. That old homeless guy who brazenly cursed out Cochran and then had a Cheez Whiz sandwich was pretty funny. Dr. Challis being a middle-aged guy who is a womanizer, divorced, and loves alcohol, not automatically a laugh riot. But him bringing along a six pack of Miller High Life for a drive to Santa Mira-at least he wasn't driving-and there being the expected romance between he and Ellie, resulting in him asking what her age is AFTER having sex with her... hilarious.
I don't often change course on a movie like this. But this is a time that I will have to. I was mistaken about it all these years, and I am glad I could see the light now. This bombing at the time ruined the plans of the franchise becoming a yearly anthology thing, which is definitely a shame, especially looking at the quality of those movies once Michael Myers were brought back.
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
I Talk The First Two Halloween Movies
I'll be short and sweet here. Sorry for vanishing for a few days, but those are the breaks. I did watch the last two nights the first two Halloween films. I reviewed the second one here long ago but my opinion has lightened on it. You can read the review for the first one here and the second one here.
Saturday, August 22, 2015
Terminator 2: Judgment Day
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Runtime: 154 minutes; at least that's the version I saw
Directed by: James Cameron
Starring: Arnold, Linda Hamilton, Edward Furlong, Robert Patrick, Joe Morton
From: Carolco
Here's a movie I somehow never reviewed for this site, and I am talking about either Letterboxd or this Blogpost page. I have seen it a good number of times in my life so I figured it was about time I talked about it. The Letterboxd review is below:
(Note: I saw the 154 minute version on Thursday night. Although, I'd rate both that and the theatrical version the same, as I've seen both more than one time each)
I won't join in on the debate of this film or the original is the “better” of the two. There's only a half star difference between the films according to me but as of this moment I think the first one is just a little better. One is a serious and perfect B movie with a quality plot and an awesome villain, the second a pumped up action spectacle that is helped by quality special effects. To think that I saw this movie first and I've watched it more than the original. Point being, I am happy thinking that according to my canon this was the second and last Terminator film they made, and the lesser entries in the franchise that came out afterward never actually happened.
I don't need to spend much time talking about the plot as I am sure everyone is familiar with it. So, I'll mention that it is interesting to see how Sarah Connor has changed now knowing that human life will change forever and her son will be responsible for saving humanity; no wonder why she acts pretty crazy. However, when the chips are down you do see that she hasn't become cold-blooded and she still has a heart and conscience. I understand why people would be annoyed at how young John Connor is an obnoxious punk who wears a Public Enemy t-shirt. Some blame the performance of Edward Furlong for that but I never thought that was really the case. While it is sad to see what became of him in real life as an adult, at least in this film the character does grow up and has to make some decisions, making it easier to see how he becomes a hero in later years. Also, at times it's rather goofy at best seeing John try to “humanize” Arnold as a now good guy T-800 model. Yet, it is interesting to see that warped father figure and John bond, as that's also important for the character's development.
Of course, after the events in this movie you can wonder how Skynet still becomes a thing, except that the timeline is pushed back. I am ignoring how the third movie tries to explain it. You end up getting into how all time travel movies at heart have “hey, what a minute...” moments or how with this particular franchise, “Why didn't they keep sending back people or machines to kill John, or his past ancestors?' Unless it's the simplest of time travel movies, all are liable to give you a headache thinking about them and if they're complex, oh boy. Instead I just try to enjoy them for what they are unless they break the basic logic rules you expect and here, it is interesting to see how they deal with the one person who unwittingly is responsible for Skynet. To me I think that time travel movies are usually interesting and it can be fun or intriguing seeing how changing the past can affect things and here, it's trying to stop a cataclysmic event.
Anyhow, the main characters are all interesting (it isn't hard to see why Arnold and his character here became iconic, with several lines still a part of pop culture today) but what a performance from Robert Patrick as the liquid metal T-1000. What a terrifying villain it is and he brought it to life perfectly to life. I understand he put in a lot of effort to make it so (even learning how to run like the T-1000 does and not get tired) and I am glad he did.
While the T-800 becomes like Batman and doesn't kill any human beings (although at times it seems like people are knocking on heaven's door due to the damage they received... again, like Batman), it doesn't really matter as this is still an epic film where you have a lot of carnage, tremendous set pieces, still effective action moments, CGI that doesn't look dated 24 years later, a terrifying dream sequence of a nuclear bomb destroying a city, and it's all seen with nice cinematography and augmented by a quality score from Brad Fiedel which is more symphonic than the 80's synth goodness that is his soundtrack for the first movie, but both are pretty sweet for their own reasons.
No matter which one you think is “better” (I say a lot of that depends on what you prefer when it comes to movie tastes, as there are many differences between the two) I say that both are still classics and are still effective in 2015.
As an aside, in like '08 or '09 I got to see the theatrical cut on the big screen, original film print and all. It was great... aside from a near fight breaking out. From that and other screenings of old films I've been at in the past, let me declare: don't be “that guy” who loudly recites the dialogue from the movie while it's showing. There's been a few problems I've seen personally with this, and it's best if you just don't do it. Yelling out an iconic line or two is understandable. Otherwise, you'll just come off as a know it all and/or rude.
Runtime: 154 minutes; at least that's the version I saw
Directed by: James Cameron
Starring: Arnold, Linda Hamilton, Edward Furlong, Robert Patrick, Joe Morton
From: Carolco
Here's a movie I somehow never reviewed for this site, and I am talking about either Letterboxd or this Blogpost page. I have seen it a good number of times in my life so I figured it was about time I talked about it. The Letterboxd review is below:
(Note: I saw the 154 minute version on Thursday night. Although, I'd rate both that and the theatrical version the same, as I've seen both more than one time each)
I won't join in on the debate of this film or the original is the “better” of the two. There's only a half star difference between the films according to me but as of this moment I think the first one is just a little better. One is a serious and perfect B movie with a quality plot and an awesome villain, the second a pumped up action spectacle that is helped by quality special effects. To think that I saw this movie first and I've watched it more than the original. Point being, I am happy thinking that according to my canon this was the second and last Terminator film they made, and the lesser entries in the franchise that came out afterward never actually happened.
I don't need to spend much time talking about the plot as I am sure everyone is familiar with it. So, I'll mention that it is interesting to see how Sarah Connor has changed now knowing that human life will change forever and her son will be responsible for saving humanity; no wonder why she acts pretty crazy. However, when the chips are down you do see that she hasn't become cold-blooded and she still has a heart and conscience. I understand why people would be annoyed at how young John Connor is an obnoxious punk who wears a Public Enemy t-shirt. Some blame the performance of Edward Furlong for that but I never thought that was really the case. While it is sad to see what became of him in real life as an adult, at least in this film the character does grow up and has to make some decisions, making it easier to see how he becomes a hero in later years. Also, at times it's rather goofy at best seeing John try to “humanize” Arnold as a now good guy T-800 model. Yet, it is interesting to see that warped father figure and John bond, as that's also important for the character's development.
Of course, after the events in this movie you can wonder how Skynet still becomes a thing, except that the timeline is pushed back. I am ignoring how the third movie tries to explain it. You end up getting into how all time travel movies at heart have “hey, what a minute...” moments or how with this particular franchise, “Why didn't they keep sending back people or machines to kill John, or his past ancestors?' Unless it's the simplest of time travel movies, all are liable to give you a headache thinking about them and if they're complex, oh boy. Instead I just try to enjoy them for what they are unless they break the basic logic rules you expect and here, it is interesting to see how they deal with the one person who unwittingly is responsible for Skynet. To me I think that time travel movies are usually interesting and it can be fun or intriguing seeing how changing the past can affect things and here, it's trying to stop a cataclysmic event.
Anyhow, the main characters are all interesting (it isn't hard to see why Arnold and his character here became iconic, with several lines still a part of pop culture today) but what a performance from Robert Patrick as the liquid metal T-1000. What a terrifying villain it is and he brought it to life perfectly to life. I understand he put in a lot of effort to make it so (even learning how to run like the T-1000 does and not get tired) and I am glad he did.
While the T-800 becomes like Batman and doesn't kill any human beings (although at times it seems like people are knocking on heaven's door due to the damage they received... again, like Batman), it doesn't really matter as this is still an epic film where you have a lot of carnage, tremendous set pieces, still effective action moments, CGI that doesn't look dated 24 years later, a terrifying dream sequence of a nuclear bomb destroying a city, and it's all seen with nice cinematography and augmented by a quality score from Brad Fiedel which is more symphonic than the 80's synth goodness that is his soundtrack for the first movie, but both are pretty sweet for their own reasons.
No matter which one you think is “better” (I say a lot of that depends on what you prefer when it comes to movie tastes, as there are many differences between the two) I say that both are still classics and are still effective in 2015.
As an aside, in like '08 or '09 I got to see the theatrical cut on the big screen, original film print and all. It was great... aside from a near fight breaking out. From that and other screenings of old films I've been at in the past, let me declare: don't be “that guy” who loudly recites the dialogue from the movie while it's showing. There's been a few problems I've seen personally with this, and it's best if you just don't do it. Yelling out an iconic line or two is understandable. Otherwise, you'll just come off as a know it all and/or rude.
Thursday, August 20, 2015
The Man From U.N.C.L.E.
The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015)
66% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 183 reviews)
Runtime: 116 minutes
Directed by: Guy Ritchie
Starring: Henry Cavill, Armie Hammer, Alicia Vikander, Elizabeth Debicki, Hugh Grant
From: Warner Bros.
Last night I returned to the Cinepolis theatre in Davenport (where I only went to once before and I had a bad experience there on a bad day and I saw the bad film Jurassic World) and this time I had a better experience there. Despite the middling reviews on it I still decided to see this movie. Well, it is a middling film, sad to say. See me explain why below in the Letterboxd review:
Should I have considered it a bad sign when I was recently told by my parents that even they didn't really watch the 60's TV show this property was based on, and they were teenagers at the time? I am pretty sure I never saw any reruns of it as a kid. Guy Ritchie... I have seen and rated LS&TSB pretty highly and Snatch (which I'll review here at a later date) I also would give a high score to, but Sherlock Holmes I haven't seen since I saw it on the big screen and I didn't really care for it; once I see that again I'll discuss at that time my issues with it. Despite those signs, it disappointing at the box office and not so solid reviews, I still took a chance on the movie, and I may be a little generous in giving it an average rating.
The plot... there isn't much to it. Super spies Napoleon Solo and Illya Kuryakin from the CIA and KGB respectively must team together to stop the production of a nuclear warhead in Italy by some mysterious people. It's really as simple as that, which is not necessarily bad. I wasn't disappointed with the simplicity or how the story did not have a lot of action. I only barely paid attention to the commercials and if I ever saw a trailer it went in and out of my mind so I wasn't swayed by what I presume was just another example of dishonest marketing. Rather, as the story unravels you realize just how hollow things are and once it was over and examined it as a whole, I realized how bad and nonsensical it actually was; the fact that it was another “style over substance” product and I am usually not a fan of those...
Also, as someone who never watched the source material, did Robert Vaughn as Napoleon Solo CONSTANTLY act hammy and campy to the point of being creepy and unnatural? Because Henry Cavill certainly did here. No matter the case, I don't blame the actor for the performance; I wish that the director wouldn't have directed him to act that way, as at least with me it got old pretty quickly and it annoyed me more than anything else. At least I thought the rest of the performances were fine or better. Armie Hammer did a nice job portraying a Soviet in Illya; I discovered after the film that his great-grandfather was Armand Hammer, a very rich man who had ties to the Soviet Union and in fact is rumored to have been a spy for the KGB. What a wild story.
Despite the major issues I have with the story and how it was a whole lot of nothing, I can still rate it as average, albeit with a reservation or two from me. Hopefully I am not being too generous here but it does have some merits. The setting is the early 60's, which I was happy with, as it meant groovy clothing, a cool style, a classic setting that should have led to better than what we got, and what I thought was a very good score, whether it be the songs they used or what Daniel Pemberton came up with; I especially enjoyed the jazzy interludes.
Also, while I haven't seen Ex Machina yet it does sound like something more to my tastes and to be honest, I noticed that Alicia Vikander was a rather attractive lady, at least according to my tastes. Well, in this film she looked very pretty and was great in those colorful early 60's outfits. She also delivered a quality performance as the dame who has to work with the two spies as her dad is involved in the nefarious plot from the villains. I think it's cool that there are a pair of brunette Swedish women who have broken out this year and are well-known around the world rather than just in their native homelands.
I wonder what would have happen if Tarantino had done his adaptation in the 90's, or if the studios weren't their typical idiotic selves and Soderbergh would have directed Clooney back a few years ago. I will presume both would have had better plots than this did. The general idea seemed fine-a retro cracking spy film-but the execution was lacking here.
66% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 183 reviews)
Runtime: 116 minutes
Directed by: Guy Ritchie
Starring: Henry Cavill, Armie Hammer, Alicia Vikander, Elizabeth Debicki, Hugh Grant
From: Warner Bros.
Last night I returned to the Cinepolis theatre in Davenport (where I only went to once before and I had a bad experience there on a bad day and I saw the bad film Jurassic World) and this time I had a better experience there. Despite the middling reviews on it I still decided to see this movie. Well, it is a middling film, sad to say. See me explain why below in the Letterboxd review:
Should I have considered it a bad sign when I was recently told by my parents that even they didn't really watch the 60's TV show this property was based on, and they were teenagers at the time? I am pretty sure I never saw any reruns of it as a kid. Guy Ritchie... I have seen and rated LS&TSB pretty highly and Snatch (which I'll review here at a later date) I also would give a high score to, but Sherlock Holmes I haven't seen since I saw it on the big screen and I didn't really care for it; once I see that again I'll discuss at that time my issues with it. Despite those signs, it disappointing at the box office and not so solid reviews, I still took a chance on the movie, and I may be a little generous in giving it an average rating.
The plot... there isn't much to it. Super spies Napoleon Solo and Illya Kuryakin from the CIA and KGB respectively must team together to stop the production of a nuclear warhead in Italy by some mysterious people. It's really as simple as that, which is not necessarily bad. I wasn't disappointed with the simplicity or how the story did not have a lot of action. I only barely paid attention to the commercials and if I ever saw a trailer it went in and out of my mind so I wasn't swayed by what I presume was just another example of dishonest marketing. Rather, as the story unravels you realize just how hollow things are and once it was over and examined it as a whole, I realized how bad and nonsensical it actually was; the fact that it was another “style over substance” product and I am usually not a fan of those...
Also, as someone who never watched the source material, did Robert Vaughn as Napoleon Solo CONSTANTLY act hammy and campy to the point of being creepy and unnatural? Because Henry Cavill certainly did here. No matter the case, I don't blame the actor for the performance; I wish that the director wouldn't have directed him to act that way, as at least with me it got old pretty quickly and it annoyed me more than anything else. At least I thought the rest of the performances were fine or better. Armie Hammer did a nice job portraying a Soviet in Illya; I discovered after the film that his great-grandfather was Armand Hammer, a very rich man who had ties to the Soviet Union and in fact is rumored to have been a spy for the KGB. What a wild story.
Despite the major issues I have with the story and how it was a whole lot of nothing, I can still rate it as average, albeit with a reservation or two from me. Hopefully I am not being too generous here but it does have some merits. The setting is the early 60's, which I was happy with, as it meant groovy clothing, a cool style, a classic setting that should have led to better than what we got, and what I thought was a very good score, whether it be the songs they used or what Daniel Pemberton came up with; I especially enjoyed the jazzy interludes.
Also, while I haven't seen Ex Machina yet it does sound like something more to my tastes and to be honest, I noticed that Alicia Vikander was a rather attractive lady, at least according to my tastes. Well, in this film she looked very pretty and was great in those colorful early 60's outfits. She also delivered a quality performance as the dame who has to work with the two spies as her dad is involved in the nefarious plot from the villains. I think it's cool that there are a pair of brunette Swedish women who have broken out this year and are well-known around the world rather than just in their native homelands.
I wonder what would have happen if Tarantino had done his adaptation in the 90's, or if the studios weren't their typical idiotic selves and Soderbergh would have directed Clooney back a few years ago. I will presume both would have had better plots than this did. The general idea seemed fine-a retro cracking spy film-but the execution was lacking here.
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
On The Waterfront
On the Waterfront (1954)
Runtime: 108 minutes
Directed by: Elia Kazan
Starring: Marlon Brando, Karl Malden, Lee J. Cobb, Rod Steiger, Eva Marie Saint
From: Columbia
I don't have a lot to say now, except that I finally saw this classic movie, and as least in my eyes it still does deserve the status of being an all time great. Read why in the Letterboxd review below:
This is one of those times I have to admit embarrassment at not seeing a classic film; this was me with On the Waterfront until last night, when I saw it on TCM. I now wish I would have seen it sooner, as the movie is outstanding.
In short: the plot centers around Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando), who works at the docks and because his brother works closely with the mob-connected union boss known as Johnny Friendly (Lee J. Cobb), Terry has an easy job while the rest of the blue collar workers have a rough go of it as they are constantly mistreated and paid poorly. After Terry unwittingly assists in the murder of Joey Doyle (a man about to talk to prosecutors), he gets to know Joey's sister Edie (Eva Marie Saint) and they fall in love. With the added pressure of a priest (Karl Malden) who wishes to rid the docks of corruption, and Terry has to make several different choices and no matter what he chooses, the ex-boxer will anger some people and the consequences could be deadly.
Everything about this movie is great: the direction from Kazan, the captivating story, the real life blue collar setting of the shipping yard and the surrounding neighborhood, the score from Leonard Bernstein, and Boris Kaufman's cinematography are but a few examples. However, it's the performances from the cast as a whole that makes this a classic. From Cobb as the detestable villain and Malden as the priest to Steiger as Terry's brother and Eva Marie Saint in her debut, all are quality acting jobs. But it is Marlon Brando in the lead who is legendary; it is an all-time great performance from him. It's not an easy role as he has to go through the gamut of emotions and he knocked it out of the park.
Of course for years I've known of the “I coulda been a contenda” line but never knew the context of how it was used. Now, I finally know and that is an all time great scene in the back of the cab between Brando and Steiger. Then again there are many great scenes throughout. It will remind you why Brando-despite all those issues later in life-still has such a reputation for his acting skill. I say that this is a classic worth seeing, as it will tell you not to live a D & D (deaf and dumb) life and you'll be inspired by the journey of Terry Malloy. What an ending it has too.
Runtime: 108 minutes
Directed by: Elia Kazan
Starring: Marlon Brando, Karl Malden, Lee J. Cobb, Rod Steiger, Eva Marie Saint
From: Columbia
I don't have a lot to say now, except that I finally saw this classic movie, and as least in my eyes it still does deserve the status of being an all time great. Read why in the Letterboxd review below:
This is one of those times I have to admit embarrassment at not seeing a classic film; this was me with On the Waterfront until last night, when I saw it on TCM. I now wish I would have seen it sooner, as the movie is outstanding.
In short: the plot centers around Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando), who works at the docks and because his brother works closely with the mob-connected union boss known as Johnny Friendly (Lee J. Cobb), Terry has an easy job while the rest of the blue collar workers have a rough go of it as they are constantly mistreated and paid poorly. After Terry unwittingly assists in the murder of Joey Doyle (a man about to talk to prosecutors), he gets to know Joey's sister Edie (Eva Marie Saint) and they fall in love. With the added pressure of a priest (Karl Malden) who wishes to rid the docks of corruption, and Terry has to make several different choices and no matter what he chooses, the ex-boxer will anger some people and the consequences could be deadly.
Everything about this movie is great: the direction from Kazan, the captivating story, the real life blue collar setting of the shipping yard and the surrounding neighborhood, the score from Leonard Bernstein, and Boris Kaufman's cinematography are but a few examples. However, it's the performances from the cast as a whole that makes this a classic. From Cobb as the detestable villain and Malden as the priest to Steiger as Terry's brother and Eva Marie Saint in her debut, all are quality acting jobs. But it is Marlon Brando in the lead who is legendary; it is an all-time great performance from him. It's not an easy role as he has to go through the gamut of emotions and he knocked it out of the park.
Of course for years I've known of the “I coulda been a contenda” line but never knew the context of how it was used. Now, I finally know and that is an all time great scene in the back of the cab between Brando and Steiger. Then again there are many great scenes throughout. It will remind you why Brando-despite all those issues later in life-still has such a reputation for his acting skill. I say that this is a classic worth seeing, as it will tell you not to live a D & D (deaf and dumb) life and you'll be inspired by the journey of Terry Malloy. What an ending it has too.
Monday, August 17, 2015
Stay Away, Joe
Stay Away, Joe (1968)
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Peter Tewksbury
Starring: Elvis, Burgess Meredith, Joan Blondell, Katy Jurado, Thomas Gomez
From: MGM
Yesterday was the day that Elvis passed away, back in '77. Thus, I figured I should watch another one of his films. Maybe this wasn't the right one to pick... I explain it all in the Letterboxd review below:
Or: Stay Away, Moviegoers
The jokes do write themselves sometimes. Yesterday I was reminded that it was the day Elvis passed away in 1977. Thus, I figured I should see another one of his films and I went with one in my collection. I decided to go with the one that sounded pretty wacky. When I saw that Elvis would be playing a (to quote the IMDb plot description) a “half-breed”, that got my attention.
The plot of this: Joe Lightcloud (Elvis; like the Cher song he's half white and half Native American) returns to his home at the Navajo Indian Reservation. OK, his abode where his full-blooded dad Charlie and half-Indian half-Mexican stepmother Annie lives is more of a shack, but Charlie is still given an offer to raise some cattle by the US Government and if he succeeds they will help the entire reservation. But really, the story is a bunch of bull. Most of it is random crap and a lot of that is inane shouting and yelling and general buffoonery.
It should be noted that Charlie is played by noted Native American actor... Burgess Meredith. It's one thing for Elvis either to have some bronzer on his face or be sporting a hell of a tan in order to play an ethnic role. Meredith does the full brownface act (as does most of the cast; there's few if any actual Native Americans to be seen) and at best it's awkward; at worst it's offensive, and it doesn't help that in this film full of stereotypes, the Navajo are portrayed as party animals who love drinking alcohol-including Pabst Blue Ribbon-making light of a still serious issue with Native Americans.
But even if you don't have that, you still have a film which too often thinks that “loud and boisterous” automatically equals “funny”, when that was rarely the case here. There isn't much of a plot so you get to see random things happen instead, and characters doing a 180 and acting completely different just because the script says so. There's at least some chuckles and a few moments of both visual and physical humor that were OK but this is the sort of film where there's a final act fight and it's full of cartoon sound effects.
As for the songs, there's only a few of them; the real highlight (or maybe lowlight) is the tune Dominic, where Elvis sings about a lazy old bull that he wishes would wake up and start mating. Honest. Aside from the guffaws I got from that and the pretty scenery of the Arizona setting, most people should stay away and there definitely are more tolerable Elvis flicks out there.
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Peter Tewksbury
Starring: Elvis, Burgess Meredith, Joan Blondell, Katy Jurado, Thomas Gomez
From: MGM
Yesterday was the day that Elvis passed away, back in '77. Thus, I figured I should watch another one of his films. Maybe this wasn't the right one to pick... I explain it all in the Letterboxd review below:
Or: Stay Away, Moviegoers
The jokes do write themselves sometimes. Yesterday I was reminded that it was the day Elvis passed away in 1977. Thus, I figured I should see another one of his films and I went with one in my collection. I decided to go with the one that sounded pretty wacky. When I saw that Elvis would be playing a (to quote the IMDb plot description) a “half-breed”, that got my attention.
The plot of this: Joe Lightcloud (Elvis; like the Cher song he's half white and half Native American) returns to his home at the Navajo Indian Reservation. OK, his abode where his full-blooded dad Charlie and half-Indian half-Mexican stepmother Annie lives is more of a shack, but Charlie is still given an offer to raise some cattle by the US Government and if he succeeds they will help the entire reservation. But really, the story is a bunch of bull. Most of it is random crap and a lot of that is inane shouting and yelling and general buffoonery.
It should be noted that Charlie is played by noted Native American actor... Burgess Meredith. It's one thing for Elvis either to have some bronzer on his face or be sporting a hell of a tan in order to play an ethnic role. Meredith does the full brownface act (as does most of the cast; there's few if any actual Native Americans to be seen) and at best it's awkward; at worst it's offensive, and it doesn't help that in this film full of stereotypes, the Navajo are portrayed as party animals who love drinking alcohol-including Pabst Blue Ribbon-making light of a still serious issue with Native Americans.
But even if you don't have that, you still have a film which too often thinks that “loud and boisterous” automatically equals “funny”, when that was rarely the case here. There isn't much of a plot so you get to see random things happen instead, and characters doing a 180 and acting completely different just because the script says so. There's at least some chuckles and a few moments of both visual and physical humor that were OK but this is the sort of film where there's a final act fight and it's full of cartoon sound effects.
As for the songs, there's only a few of them; the real highlight (or maybe lowlight) is the tune Dominic, where Elvis sings about a lazy old bull that he wishes would wake up and start mating. Honest. Aside from the guffaws I got from that and the pretty scenery of the Arizona setting, most people should stay away and there definitely are more tolerable Elvis flicks out there.
Sunday, August 16, 2015
Endangered Species
Endangered Species (1982)
Runtime: 97 minutes
Directed by: Alan Rudolph
Starring: Robert Urich, JoBeth Williams, Paul Dooley, Hoyt Axton, Marin Kanter
From: MGM
If you missed it, I posted a review earlier today and it's directly below this entry.
Here is an obscure film I only just first heard about via Letterboxd a few days ago. It's not hard to find online (either legally or illegally) and yet even now most people don't know or forgot it exists. It's not a must-see but I still say it's fine. The Letterboxd review is below:
I'll be honest here and say that it wasn't until I saw a follower like a review for this movie a few days ago on this site that I even knew the movie existed. While it's not hard to find online today, it's still rather obscure, something that has fallen through the cracks with the passage of time. It's not a great movie or a must-see but I still think it's fine.
The plot revolves around a controversial topic at the time and one rife with conspiracy theories: cattle mutilations. I am surprised there apparently have only been a few movies about this topic, considering the mystery surrounding it and how hot an issue it used to be. The director is Alan Rudolph, a surprise to me because of what I know of his filmography. The cast had plenty of names I knew: Robert Urich, JoBeth Williams, Hoyt Axton, Peter Coyote (who in this film looks like Sonny Bono!), Harry Carey Jr., Dan Hedaya-is it really a spoiler to say he plays a villain?-and to me I was amused to see Gailard Sartain not in an Ernest film.
As for the movie, it is uneven and for it to follow the theory they went with for the cattle mutilations, it doesn't always make sense. I won't spoil the angle they went with, although the opening seconds of the film is a block of text which all but spoils it; I don't know why they did that, as it ruins the mystery, but alas... still, I can say that this is fine. It is an interesting tale, it is well-filmed, there are quality suspense (and some graphic) moments and the music is great; more on that later. It's about Urich, a loose cannon ex-cop who has issues with alcohol and he has a 16 year old teenaged daughter and they don't get along due to his issues. It has to be noted that the lead isn't always a guy you like. He has flaws but he is a real lout and an A-hole at times. He goes on vacation with his daughter and he ends up in a rural Colorado town where those CM happen and the newly elected sheriff is a woman (Williams) and of course she has to deal with sexism and a little hamlet full of colorful characters.
The score is from Gary Wright. Yes, the Dream Weaver and Love is Alive guy. Now, a few times you hear his standard pop rock stuff, and at one moment a bit character sings the chorus to Dream Weaver. But, the score would really be considered in vogue now, as it's 80's synth goodness. In fact, I think it's great; it's weird, creepy, and fits the images you see rather well. Between hundreds of artists making songs in the Synthwave field the past several years and all those horror films or otherwise having someone create a modern version of an 80's synth score, it's almost starting to become played out but to me it hasn't reached that point... yet If you're like me and enjoy such things then there's a good chance you'll love what Gary Wright did here.
Like I said the movie is uneven yet it's still fine and if you enjoy the paranoid conspiracy thriller, you may want to check this out.
Runtime: 97 minutes
Directed by: Alan Rudolph
Starring: Robert Urich, JoBeth Williams, Paul Dooley, Hoyt Axton, Marin Kanter
From: MGM
If you missed it, I posted a review earlier today and it's directly below this entry.
Here is an obscure film I only just first heard about via Letterboxd a few days ago. It's not hard to find online (either legally or illegally) and yet even now most people don't know or forgot it exists. It's not a must-see but I still say it's fine. The Letterboxd review is below:
I'll be honest here and say that it wasn't until I saw a follower like a review for this movie a few days ago on this site that I even knew the movie existed. While it's not hard to find online today, it's still rather obscure, something that has fallen through the cracks with the passage of time. It's not a great movie or a must-see but I still think it's fine.
The plot revolves around a controversial topic at the time and one rife with conspiracy theories: cattle mutilations. I am surprised there apparently have only been a few movies about this topic, considering the mystery surrounding it and how hot an issue it used to be. The director is Alan Rudolph, a surprise to me because of what I know of his filmography. The cast had plenty of names I knew: Robert Urich, JoBeth Williams, Hoyt Axton, Peter Coyote (who in this film looks like Sonny Bono!), Harry Carey Jr., Dan Hedaya-is it really a spoiler to say he plays a villain?-and to me I was amused to see Gailard Sartain not in an Ernest film.
As for the movie, it is uneven and for it to follow the theory they went with for the cattle mutilations, it doesn't always make sense. I won't spoil the angle they went with, although the opening seconds of the film is a block of text which all but spoils it; I don't know why they did that, as it ruins the mystery, but alas... still, I can say that this is fine. It is an interesting tale, it is well-filmed, there are quality suspense (and some graphic) moments and the music is great; more on that later. It's about Urich, a loose cannon ex-cop who has issues with alcohol and he has a 16 year old teenaged daughter and they don't get along due to his issues. It has to be noted that the lead isn't always a guy you like. He has flaws but he is a real lout and an A-hole at times. He goes on vacation with his daughter and he ends up in a rural Colorado town where those CM happen and the newly elected sheriff is a woman (Williams) and of course she has to deal with sexism and a little hamlet full of colorful characters.
The score is from Gary Wright. Yes, the Dream Weaver and Love is Alive guy. Now, a few times you hear his standard pop rock stuff, and at one moment a bit character sings the chorus to Dream Weaver. But, the score would really be considered in vogue now, as it's 80's synth goodness. In fact, I think it's great; it's weird, creepy, and fits the images you see rather well. Between hundreds of artists making songs in the Synthwave field the past several years and all those horror films or otherwise having someone create a modern version of an 80's synth score, it's almost starting to become played out but to me it hasn't reached that point... yet If you're like me and enjoy such things then there's a good chance you'll love what Gary Wright did here.
Like I said the movie is uneven yet it's still fine and if you enjoy the paranoid conspiracy thriller, you may want to check this out.
War
War (2007)
Runtime: 103 minutes
Directed by: Philip G. Atwell
Starring: Jason Statham, Jet Li, John Lone, Devon Aoki, Mathew St. Patrick
From: Lionsgate
War... what is it good for? (Almost) absolutely nothing, in this movie's case.
For a long while now whenever I saw people on messageboards or otherwise discuss this film I'd say that it wasn't that bad until the ending, which I always said was a big failure. That one time I saw this movie was like 7 years ago so I actually did not remember too much about it in 2015; when I saw it was on Netflix Instant, I figured I needed to give it another spin.
Turns out, this movie is as not good throughout as everyone said it was, and the ending is still pretty rancid. The tale is about a pair of FBI agents and one of them is murdered by a mysterious assassin named Rogue, which was going to be this movie's title but then the Australian killer crocodile movie came out around the same time so they changed it to War. Three years later, we see Crawford (Ol' Stubblehead Statham) is in the FBI's Asian Crime Task Force, centered in San Francisco. From there, we get... a whole lot of nonsense, basically. There's a feud between the Triads and the Yakuza over a pair of golden horse statutes. Yes, there's meaning to them but when spelled out like that, sounds rather silly. But that's not the worst of this movie's sins, not in the least bit.
The movie is filled with tired eye-rolling cliches (the incompetent cops that deal with the Asian Crime Task Force are SO stupid) and things that just made me sigh out loud. There are familiar faces between Statham and Li (Luiz Guzman, John Lone, Sung Kang, Kane Kosugi, Saul Rubinek) but it doesn't really matter with this bad story. Devon Aoki... no offense to that lady but it's probably a good thing she hasn't acted in years, as she isn't that good at it.
But at least I can get down to brass tacks when it comes to THE main problem with this movie: it tries SO hard to be “hip” and “cool”. It's shot and directed in a flashy way but it's mainly distracting and I wished for those dumb flourishes to go away as this should have been a more simple meat and potatoes story; I would have been content with that. Then there's that ending... a few times the movie tries to be “clever” by fooling the audience and you find out there's been some misdirection that's going on. The biggest example happens during the ending.
Now, the advertising implied that you'd get a big showdown between Statham and Li. Even if that wouldn't have happened most people probably would have assumed that's what we'd get if they looked into what the film was about. The ending should have been "a big climatic duel for the ages." What we got what was pretty much a brief skirmish then an information dump and the realization that the movie played a big shell game with us. I won't go into details in case anyone still wants to see this, although I recommend that you don't. I mean, this is a game of three-card Monte not worth playing. The finale just frustrates you as it was not needed at all, you felt like you were conned and you wasted your time watching this nonsense.
I would like to apologize for those on the Internet that heard me say in the past that this movie wasn't THAT bad; you were right and I was wrong. At least I know never to be tricked by that motion picture again.
Runtime: 103 minutes
Directed by: Philip G. Atwell
Starring: Jason Statham, Jet Li, John Lone, Devon Aoki, Mathew St. Patrick
From: Lionsgate
This is one of two review for me today. I'll post the other one tonight. I first saw this movie in like '08 and I didn't think it was that bad until the terrible ending. I saw this again a few nights ago on Instant and well, it IS bad throughout with a terrible ending. I explain why I feel this way now in my Letterboxd review below:
For a long while now whenever I saw people on messageboards or otherwise discuss this film I'd say that it wasn't that bad until the ending, which I always said was a big failure. That one time I saw this movie was like 7 years ago so I actually did not remember too much about it in 2015; when I saw it was on Netflix Instant, I figured I needed to give it another spin.
Turns out, this movie is as not good throughout as everyone said it was, and the ending is still pretty rancid. The tale is about a pair of FBI agents and one of them is murdered by a mysterious assassin named Rogue, which was going to be this movie's title but then the Australian killer crocodile movie came out around the same time so they changed it to War. Three years later, we see Crawford (Ol' Stubblehead Statham) is in the FBI's Asian Crime Task Force, centered in San Francisco. From there, we get... a whole lot of nonsense, basically. There's a feud between the Triads and the Yakuza over a pair of golden horse statutes. Yes, there's meaning to them but when spelled out like that, sounds rather silly. But that's not the worst of this movie's sins, not in the least bit.
The movie is filled with tired eye-rolling cliches (the incompetent cops that deal with the Asian Crime Task Force are SO stupid) and things that just made me sigh out loud. There are familiar faces between Statham and Li (Luiz Guzman, John Lone, Sung Kang, Kane Kosugi, Saul Rubinek) but it doesn't really matter with this bad story. Devon Aoki... no offense to that lady but it's probably a good thing she hasn't acted in years, as she isn't that good at it.
But at least I can get down to brass tacks when it comes to THE main problem with this movie: it tries SO hard to be “hip” and “cool”. It's shot and directed in a flashy way but it's mainly distracting and I wished for those dumb flourishes to go away as this should have been a more simple meat and potatoes story; I would have been content with that. Then there's that ending... a few times the movie tries to be “clever” by fooling the audience and you find out there's been some misdirection that's going on. The biggest example happens during the ending.
Now, the advertising implied that you'd get a big showdown between Statham and Li. Even if that wouldn't have happened most people probably would have assumed that's what we'd get if they looked into what the film was about. The ending should have been "a big climatic duel for the ages." What we got what was pretty much a brief skirmish then an information dump and the realization that the movie played a big shell game with us. I won't go into details in case anyone still wants to see this, although I recommend that you don't. I mean, this is a game of three-card Monte not worth playing. The finale just frustrates you as it was not needed at all, you felt like you were conned and you wasted your time watching this nonsense.
I would like to apologize for those on the Internet that heard me say in the past that this movie wasn't THAT bad; you were right and I was wrong. At least I know never to be tricked by that motion picture again.
Friday, August 14, 2015
The World Is Not Enough
The World Is Not Enough (1999)
Runtime: 128 minutes
Directed by: Michael Apted
Starring: Pierce Brosnan, Sophie Marceau, Robert Carlyle, (unfortunately for the film) Denise Richards, Robbie Coltrane
From: United Artists
Yep, this movie... painfully average, or maybe it should be frustratingly average as it should have been better. I explain why in the Letterboxd review below:
I decided to watch one more Bond movie for now; I won't continue with that for... a few days, at least. This is another motion picture I haven't reviewed here before; to be honest, I had only watched it once before and after this second viewing, I realized there were large sections I had no memory of, and unfortunately for the film, the role of Christmas Jones was more substantial than I had remembered.
The plot tries to be different in several ways, and the general idea of it all seems fine to me. It's just the execution where it falls flat. It being about a murdered oil tycoon and his previously kidnapped daughter is targeted again so Bond has to protect her... only for things to not be as they seem (and when a woman is named Elektra King, you should probably be cautious anyhow), I can't complain about the concept. It's how they presented the story that I can carp about. A bad guy (Renard, played by Robert Carlyle) who via contrived reasons can feel no pain and yet you're mainly told this and it really plays no factor into anything, including the expected showdown with Bond? Just one of the litany of problems with this.
As others have noted, Michael Apted is not exactly an action director so it was an odd choice. Vic Armstrong returned as the second unit director. I don't know who is to blame for how many of the action scenes are not clear when it comes to such things as geography or how its laid out, or why some special effects not only look bad but there's an almost literal “we can see the wires” moments during the warehouse scene that's incredibly blatant and for a movie that cost almost 200 million dollars adjusted for inflation... how could such a thing happen? Then again, there are several story moments here which just make no sense and to me it's not adequately explained just how 007 gets out of more than one jam. And if you want comedy, look at the goofs section of the film's IMDb page; there are many mistakes and factual inaccuracies.
Also, the fact that Christmas Jones wasn't a minor character as I had misremembered and you see her quite a bit in the second half... I will never say that an attractive young lady couldn't be a PhD nuclear physicist, even someone who dresses like Lara Croft in one scene. However, to state the obvious Denise Richards isn't a master thespian so you don't believe that the character is real. Goofy and lewd puns about her name certainly can't hide it.
Still... I can at least rate the movie as average. I can't complain about Sophie Marceau or how she did with her role. It's not hard for me to understand why Bond would be rather randy at the sight of her. The long pre-credits scene was quite exciting and the action there was better filmed. The settings you see in the film are cool to me (Spain, the UK, Scotland, then Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan (although they didn't actually film there) then Istanbul. Robbie Coltrane and bringing back the minor character he played in GoldenEye was surprising but I can't complain about him. And the title song from Garbage is fine and at least is a more “hip”-at the time-choice for an artist.
Plus, while it wasn't planned as such it was a nice write-off for Desmond Llewelyn and the Q character. It's just a shame that they squandered what could have been a fun 007 movie with some nice twists and them going against type at times.
Runtime: 128 minutes
Directed by: Michael Apted
Starring: Pierce Brosnan, Sophie Marceau, Robert Carlyle, (unfortunately for the film) Denise Richards, Robbie Coltrane
From: United Artists
Yep, this movie... painfully average, or maybe it should be frustratingly average as it should have been better. I explain why in the Letterboxd review below:
I decided to watch one more Bond movie for now; I won't continue with that for... a few days, at least. This is another motion picture I haven't reviewed here before; to be honest, I had only watched it once before and after this second viewing, I realized there were large sections I had no memory of, and unfortunately for the film, the role of Christmas Jones was more substantial than I had remembered.
The plot tries to be different in several ways, and the general idea of it all seems fine to me. It's just the execution where it falls flat. It being about a murdered oil tycoon and his previously kidnapped daughter is targeted again so Bond has to protect her... only for things to not be as they seem (and when a woman is named Elektra King, you should probably be cautious anyhow), I can't complain about the concept. It's how they presented the story that I can carp about. A bad guy (Renard, played by Robert Carlyle) who via contrived reasons can feel no pain and yet you're mainly told this and it really plays no factor into anything, including the expected showdown with Bond? Just one of the litany of problems with this.
As others have noted, Michael Apted is not exactly an action director so it was an odd choice. Vic Armstrong returned as the second unit director. I don't know who is to blame for how many of the action scenes are not clear when it comes to such things as geography or how its laid out, or why some special effects not only look bad but there's an almost literal “we can see the wires” moments during the warehouse scene that's incredibly blatant and for a movie that cost almost 200 million dollars adjusted for inflation... how could such a thing happen? Then again, there are several story moments here which just make no sense and to me it's not adequately explained just how 007 gets out of more than one jam. And if you want comedy, look at the goofs section of the film's IMDb page; there are many mistakes and factual inaccuracies.
Also, the fact that Christmas Jones wasn't a minor character as I had misremembered and you see her quite a bit in the second half... I will never say that an attractive young lady couldn't be a PhD nuclear physicist, even someone who dresses like Lara Croft in one scene. However, to state the obvious Denise Richards isn't a master thespian so you don't believe that the character is real. Goofy and lewd puns about her name certainly can't hide it.
Still... I can at least rate the movie as average. I can't complain about Sophie Marceau or how she did with her role. It's not hard for me to understand why Bond would be rather randy at the sight of her. The long pre-credits scene was quite exciting and the action there was better filmed. The settings you see in the film are cool to me (Spain, the UK, Scotland, then Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan (although they didn't actually film there) then Istanbul. Robbie Coltrane and bringing back the minor character he played in GoldenEye was surprising but I can't complain about him. And the title song from Garbage is fine and at least is a more “hip”-at the time-choice for an artist.
Plus, while it wasn't planned as such it was a nice write-off for Desmond Llewelyn and the Q character. It's just a shame that they squandered what could have been a fun 007 movie with some nice twists and them going against type at times.
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Tomorrow Never Dies
Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
Runtime: 119 minutes
Directed by: Roger Spottiswoode
Starring: Pierce Brosnan, Jonathan Pryce, Michelle Yeoh, Teri Hatcher, Ricky Jay
From: United Artists
As of late I have rewatched a few older Bond films. Tuesday night I decided to see one I never reviewed here before. I can only say this is fine at best but it is better than the next two movies in the franchise after this one. My Letterboxd review is below:
I continued my Bond watching and this time I went to a film I never reviewed here before, as it's been awhile since I had seen it. While not great I always thought the movie was fine and another movie only reaffirmed that.
The bad guy here is outside the box thinking: basically, an evil Rupert Murdoch (or an even more evil Rupert Murdoch, depending on how you feel about him; I won't start talking about my feelings as I know better than to possibly stir the pot like that), a media mogul who wishes to start a war for ratings and newspaper sales-yep, this is dated-..and out of the deal he'll end up getting a lot of moolah. For a long while I have noticed the power of the media and how it delivers information... and too often, misinformation.
That seems a lot more true now than it did back then, with those garbage cable news networks (don't get me started on how awful they are to the core) and the 24/7 online news cycle where it's more important to report first than report right. Anyhow, Elliot Carver is not such a bad idea for a character; Jonathan Pryce does a quality job with what he was given but originally it was to be played by none other than Anthony Hopkins; he quit after a few days as production started with no script! That is the biggest problem with this, the rushed production.
It is a shame they planned so poorly and things were so rushed, as I know this would have been better and I'd rate it higher. As is I can enjoy all the action scenes (which there are many of), even if I am not sure if Roger Spottiswoode was the right choice for this. It just seemed odd considering his pedigree. The second unit director is Vic Armstrong and he has all sorts of experience doing odds and ends in the action world, but I have a feeling he was handcuffed by the shooting schedule. And what a thankless role they gave Teri Hatcher.
Complaints aside, at least this wasn't bad. The opening sequence is very good; it's a swell way to start things off. There are such characters as Stamper, the typical “tough huge European bodyguard” you often find in the franchise, and he looks like a cross between Dolph Lundgren and Billy Idol. 007 teaming up with Michelle Yeoh sounds awesome; it's not always effective but the idea is great. This globetrotting adventure goes to such places as Germany and Vietnam (actually Thailand; Vietnam dragged their feet so they couldn't shoot on location). There are some quality action beats, especially the remote control BMW 750 scene.
By the way, with Ricky Jay (as a “techno-terrorist”) and Vincent Schivaelli in the cast, I laugh to myself thinking what a Mamet, Milos Forman or a Paul Thomas Anderson Bond picture would have been like... I think it would have been better than having Sheryl Crow sing the title song; no offense but she isn't the type of singer to do such a tune. There's a k.d. lang closing credits song and while not a "hip popular" singer like Crow was at the time, that would have been a better choice to hear during the colorful title sequence.
To quote other people, this is like a lesser version of The Spy Who Loved Me, and when I do a new review of that later in the year, I'll talk about how that really is the case. And to think things got worse for the Bond franchise in the next two movies.
Runtime: 119 minutes
Directed by: Roger Spottiswoode
Starring: Pierce Brosnan, Jonathan Pryce, Michelle Yeoh, Teri Hatcher, Ricky Jay
From: United Artists
As of late I have rewatched a few older Bond films. Tuesday night I decided to see one I never reviewed here before. I can only say this is fine at best but it is better than the next two movies in the franchise after this one. My Letterboxd review is below:
I continued my Bond watching and this time I went to a film I never reviewed here before, as it's been awhile since I had seen it. While not great I always thought the movie was fine and another movie only reaffirmed that.
The bad guy here is outside the box thinking: basically, an evil Rupert Murdoch (or an even more evil Rupert Murdoch, depending on how you feel about him; I won't start talking about my feelings as I know better than to possibly stir the pot like that), a media mogul who wishes to start a war for ratings and newspaper sales-yep, this is dated-..and out of the deal he'll end up getting a lot of moolah. For a long while I have noticed the power of the media and how it delivers information... and too often, misinformation.
That seems a lot more true now than it did back then, with those garbage cable news networks (don't get me started on how awful they are to the core) and the 24/7 online news cycle where it's more important to report first than report right. Anyhow, Elliot Carver is not such a bad idea for a character; Jonathan Pryce does a quality job with what he was given but originally it was to be played by none other than Anthony Hopkins; he quit after a few days as production started with no script! That is the biggest problem with this, the rushed production.
It is a shame they planned so poorly and things were so rushed, as I know this would have been better and I'd rate it higher. As is I can enjoy all the action scenes (which there are many of), even if I am not sure if Roger Spottiswoode was the right choice for this. It just seemed odd considering his pedigree. The second unit director is Vic Armstrong and he has all sorts of experience doing odds and ends in the action world, but I have a feeling he was handcuffed by the shooting schedule. And what a thankless role they gave Teri Hatcher.
Complaints aside, at least this wasn't bad. The opening sequence is very good; it's a swell way to start things off. There are such characters as Stamper, the typical “tough huge European bodyguard” you often find in the franchise, and he looks like a cross between Dolph Lundgren and Billy Idol. 007 teaming up with Michelle Yeoh sounds awesome; it's not always effective but the idea is great. This globetrotting adventure goes to such places as Germany and Vietnam (actually Thailand; Vietnam dragged their feet so they couldn't shoot on location). There are some quality action beats, especially the remote control BMW 750 scene.
By the way, with Ricky Jay (as a “techno-terrorist”) and Vincent Schivaelli in the cast, I laugh to myself thinking what a Mamet, Milos Forman or a Paul Thomas Anderson Bond picture would have been like... I think it would have been better than having Sheryl Crow sing the title song; no offense but she isn't the type of singer to do such a tune. There's a k.d. lang closing credits song and while not a "hip popular" singer like Crow was at the time, that would have been a better choice to hear during the colorful title sequence.
To quote other people, this is like a lesser version of The Spy Who Loved Me, and when I do a new review of that later in the year, I'll talk about how that really is the case. And to think things got worse for the Bond franchise in the next two movies.
Saturday, August 8, 2015
Hellbound: Hellraiser II
Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Tony Randel
Starring: Ashley Laurence, Clare Higgins, Doug Bradley, Kenneth Cranham, Imogen Boorman
From: New World Pictures/Film Futures
A long while ago I talked about the first Hellraiser, a movie that I do enjoy. I figured it was about time I saw its first sequel, which I heard some strong things about. I realize that all NINE movies in the franchise can be watched on Netflix Instant but I know not to go down that rabbit hole as most of the sequels aren't any good. The Letterboxd review of this sequel is below:
Two nights ago I watched again the first Hellraiser, which I think is a 4 star film. Last night on Instant I saw this movie for the first time. I'll explain why I thought this was a 3 star affair.
The plot follows up on the original, and now Kirsty is in a psych ward and it's one of those places that are corruptly run and the head doctor has been interested in years in the Lament Configuration, which he has a few of. But of course. From there things get pretty weird and include such things as a long look at the world of the Cenobites, the return of stepmother Julia and a mute girl who is an expert at... solving puzzles.
The plot is rather ridiculous and doesn't always make sense and there are moments both of “Well, THAT escalated quickly” and “Well, wait a minute...”. Yet, I can still say that this was fine. I was at least entertained by the imaginative story, brought to life by nice practical effects. It was also nice to see the Cenobites and their backstory expanded upon. This is grosser, weirder, and wackier than the first movie, for sure.
What doesn't help its case is that a few times, I was reminded of A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors, and not just with the setting and how you have a young blonde lady playing a key part in the plot. When out of nowhere one of the villains starts spouting out puns at an even faster rate than Freddy Krueger... I do realize that such “inspirations” happen often in the genre so that's fine. I just think that Dream Warriors is a better film. At least like I said this is still a fine movie.
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Tony Randel
Starring: Ashley Laurence, Clare Higgins, Doug Bradley, Kenneth Cranham, Imogen Boorman
From: New World Pictures/Film Futures
A long while ago I talked about the first Hellraiser, a movie that I do enjoy. I figured it was about time I saw its first sequel, which I heard some strong things about. I realize that all NINE movies in the franchise can be watched on Netflix Instant but I know not to go down that rabbit hole as most of the sequels aren't any good. The Letterboxd review of this sequel is below:
Two nights ago I watched again the first Hellraiser, which I think is a 4 star film. Last night on Instant I saw this movie for the first time. I'll explain why I thought this was a 3 star affair.
The plot follows up on the original, and now Kirsty is in a psych ward and it's one of those places that are corruptly run and the head doctor has been interested in years in the Lament Configuration, which he has a few of. But of course. From there things get pretty weird and include such things as a long look at the world of the Cenobites, the return of stepmother Julia and a mute girl who is an expert at... solving puzzles.
The plot is rather ridiculous and doesn't always make sense and there are moments both of “Well, THAT escalated quickly” and “Well, wait a minute...”. Yet, I can still say that this was fine. I was at least entertained by the imaginative story, brought to life by nice practical effects. It was also nice to see the Cenobites and their backstory expanded upon. This is grosser, weirder, and wackier than the first movie, for sure.
What doesn't help its case is that a few times, I was reminded of A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors, and not just with the setting and how you have a young blonde lady playing a key part in the plot. When out of nowhere one of the villains starts spouting out puns at an even faster rate than Freddy Krueger... I do realize that such “inspirations” happen often in the genre so that's fine. I just think that Dream Warriors is a better film. At least like I said this is still a fine movie.
Friday, August 7, 2015
Where I've Been
A mix of helping out someone with a time-consuming task and watching again movies I've reviewed here before means that I haven't have the opportunity to write here. But, I should be back tomorrow night.
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Nausicaa Of The Valley Of The Wind
Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind (Kaze No Tani No Naushika) (1984)
Runtime: 117 minutes
Directed by: Hayao Miyazaki
Starring: The voices of such people as Sumi Shimamoto, Goro Naya, Yoji Matsuda, and Yoshiko Sakakibara
From: Several different companies
Here is something different from me, a review of an animated film, and an anime from Japan at that. I am trying to correct an embarrassing hole in my world of movie-watching. I explain it all below in my Letterboxd review:
While I have seen a wide variety of films in my lifetime and there's a cloud of knowledge I have when it comes to that form of entertainment, there are various holes, things I have little to no knowledge of, or just haven't had the opportunity to explore for a variety of reasons. Sad to say one of those holes was Hayao Miyazaki. That's just how things have worked out. I haven't watched much anime in general. Of course I've known of him and the outstanding quality of his work for years but when there's no easy legal streaming options for his movies in North America... but really I should just purchase the films on disc as I am quite confident I won't be disappointed with any of them.
I figured I should start this in order and thus I saw this movie, based on a manga Miyazaki did and this was technically before the much heralded Studio Ghibli began. The plot is a post-apocalyptic setting and Earth has gone to hell; it's one thousand years later and much of the Earth is covered in a jungle with toxic air and it's filled with many strange insects. The title character is a young princess of a land away from The Sea of Decay. She is awesome as a kick-ass heroine who has a special bond with nature and yet she is like the rest of the denizens of her village... they prefer to be pacifists. Yet, things change when warring factions enter the picture and they plan on using a special weapon to try and eradicate The Sea.
This is a highly compelling and just very good. The animation is high quality and so is the at times wacky and always cool musical score from Joe Hisaishi, which I did appreciate when it got 80's-riffic at times. But it's the story and characters which make me rate this highly. Nausicaa is a very interesting character who flies about on a glider and is a great leader for her people. Things aren't spelled out so throughout you were able to see her positive attributes. The fact that she isn't saddled with a stereotypical love story is refreshing.
The rest of the characters were interesting also and things are ambiguous, where things aren't always so clear-cut and you don't fully hate the other factions and you understand their actions. The tale is quite captivating and the messages about nature are clear yet thought-provoking.
While I've never seen it I do understand that New World Pictures released a cut version of this movie on the big screen and on VHS, cutting out about a half hour and making it stupider for us Dumb Americans as we possibly couldn't understand ambiguity as children... it's after this that Miyazaki made sure no foreign versions of his movies ever are cut like that again. I have a perverse desire to see how they ruined it but at least this original cut is not hard to find and English speakers can watch it subtitled, as I did.
As I know his movies only get better from here, I know I will love going through the catalog of Hayao Miyazaki.
Runtime: 117 minutes
Directed by: Hayao Miyazaki
Starring: The voices of such people as Sumi Shimamoto, Goro Naya, Yoji Matsuda, and Yoshiko Sakakibara
From: Several different companies
Here is something different from me, a review of an animated film, and an anime from Japan at that. I am trying to correct an embarrassing hole in my world of movie-watching. I explain it all below in my Letterboxd review:
While I have seen a wide variety of films in my lifetime and there's a cloud of knowledge I have when it comes to that form of entertainment, there are various holes, things I have little to no knowledge of, or just haven't had the opportunity to explore for a variety of reasons. Sad to say one of those holes was Hayao Miyazaki. That's just how things have worked out. I haven't watched much anime in general. Of course I've known of him and the outstanding quality of his work for years but when there's no easy legal streaming options for his movies in North America... but really I should just purchase the films on disc as I am quite confident I won't be disappointed with any of them.
I figured I should start this in order and thus I saw this movie, based on a manga Miyazaki did and this was technically before the much heralded Studio Ghibli began. The plot is a post-apocalyptic setting and Earth has gone to hell; it's one thousand years later and much of the Earth is covered in a jungle with toxic air and it's filled with many strange insects. The title character is a young princess of a land away from The Sea of Decay. She is awesome as a kick-ass heroine who has a special bond with nature and yet she is like the rest of the denizens of her village... they prefer to be pacifists. Yet, things change when warring factions enter the picture and they plan on using a special weapon to try and eradicate The Sea.
This is a highly compelling and just very good. The animation is high quality and so is the at times wacky and always cool musical score from Joe Hisaishi, which I did appreciate when it got 80's-riffic at times. But it's the story and characters which make me rate this highly. Nausicaa is a very interesting character who flies about on a glider and is a great leader for her people. Things aren't spelled out so throughout you were able to see her positive attributes. The fact that she isn't saddled with a stereotypical love story is refreshing.
The rest of the characters were interesting also and things are ambiguous, where things aren't always so clear-cut and you don't fully hate the other factions and you understand their actions. The tale is quite captivating and the messages about nature are clear yet thought-provoking.
While I've never seen it I do understand that New World Pictures released a cut version of this movie on the big screen and on VHS, cutting out about a half hour and making it stupider for us Dumb Americans as we possibly couldn't understand ambiguity as children... it's after this that Miyazaki made sure no foreign versions of his movies ever are cut like that again. I have a perverse desire to see how they ruined it but at least this original cut is not hard to find and English speakers can watch it subtitled, as I did.
As I know his movies only get better from here, I know I will love going through the catalog of Hayao Miyazaki.
Monday, August 3, 2015
A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night
A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night (2014)
Somehow, it got 96% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 93 reviews)
Runtime: 100 very long minutes
Directed by: Ana Lily Amirpour
Starring: Sheila Vand, Arash Marandi, Marshall Manesh, Mozhan Marno, Dominic Rains
From: Several different companies, including (unfortunately) Vice Films; I have big issues with Vice as an entity, which I will not get into now
Last night I saw this, an indie darling from the previous year. It got a lot of strong praise and as I explain below in my Letterboxd review, even though it sounded rather strange I still hope I would enjoy it. Nope, nope I did not. I thought it was a pile of rubbish and pretentious twaddle. I could have really ranted about it but my thoughts below are rather brief... at least by my standards.
You know, these sorts of pretentious indie hipster-riffic movies just aren't for me. Those of you that have followed me for awhile probably have figured that out already, but I wanted to make that clear. If others on movie forums or sites like this love such things, great; it just does not work for me.
I've known of this movie for awhile so I've always known that the plot and just how it came together was rather wacky: an American movie set in California but with Persian-American actors and the language spoken is Persian and it's supposed to be set in an Iranian city known as BAD CITY. The name of the town alone should have been a warning sign of the pretentiousness I would experience here but I still went in with an open mind and hope I would be charmed by it.
The plot... IMO there really isn't one, aside from a young vampire lady entering Bad City and interacting with some denizens of the town, most of whom are awful people and I never gave a damn about them or the story, as the plot was about as exciting as watching paint dry and I have no idea what the point of this even was, aside from the director allegedly being “cool” for filming this in black & white and having such a daffy plot. Apparently this head up its ass indie movie is a success to many for being this way; me, I typically am not of the “style over substance” camp and as that's what this movie is all about, that's a problem.
Overall, while I won't bemoan giving this movie a shot as I did not fully know it'd be the sort of thing that is not to my tastes, I think I should still be more careful in what I watch so that I don't waste my time or be befuddled by its popularity. The cinematography is good and some musical cues are fine. Otherwise, this was a long and dull experience.
Somehow, it got 96% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 93 reviews)
Runtime: 100 very long minutes
Directed by: Ana Lily Amirpour
Starring: Sheila Vand, Arash Marandi, Marshall Manesh, Mozhan Marno, Dominic Rains
From: Several different companies, including (unfortunately) Vice Films; I have big issues with Vice as an entity, which I will not get into now
Last night I saw this, an indie darling from the previous year. It got a lot of strong praise and as I explain below in my Letterboxd review, even though it sounded rather strange I still hope I would enjoy it. Nope, nope I did not. I thought it was a pile of rubbish and pretentious twaddle. I could have really ranted about it but my thoughts below are rather brief... at least by my standards.
You know, these sorts of pretentious indie hipster-riffic movies just aren't for me. Those of you that have followed me for awhile probably have figured that out already, but I wanted to make that clear. If others on movie forums or sites like this love such things, great; it just does not work for me.
I've known of this movie for awhile so I've always known that the plot and just how it came together was rather wacky: an American movie set in California but with Persian-American actors and the language spoken is Persian and it's supposed to be set in an Iranian city known as BAD CITY. The name of the town alone should have been a warning sign of the pretentiousness I would experience here but I still went in with an open mind and hope I would be charmed by it.
The plot... IMO there really isn't one, aside from a young vampire lady entering Bad City and interacting with some denizens of the town, most of whom are awful people and I never gave a damn about them or the story, as the plot was about as exciting as watching paint dry and I have no idea what the point of this even was, aside from the director allegedly being “cool” for filming this in black & white and having such a daffy plot. Apparently this head up its ass indie movie is a success to many for being this way; me, I typically am not of the “style over substance” camp and as that's what this movie is all about, that's a problem.
Overall, while I won't bemoan giving this movie a shot as I did not fully know it'd be the sort of thing that is not to my tastes, I think I should still be more careful in what I watch so that I don't waste my time or be befuddled by its popularity. The cinematography is good and some musical cues are fine. Otherwise, this was a long and dull experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)