The First Two Godfather Movies...

are still outstanding. I mean, among the best motion pictures ever made. Sometime in February I'll watch The Godfather Epic that HBO put out, which is these movies in chronological order. I'll get into what that's all about once I watch it on HBO Now; that'll be sometime in February. For now, I wanted to mention that's what I've watched the past few nights. I've seen those two films plenty of times in the past and reviewed them on this site.

Swamp Thing

Swamp Thing (1982)

Runtime: 91 minutes

Directed by: Wes Craven

Starring: Louis Jourdan, Adrienne Barbeau, Ray Wise, Dick Durock, David Hess

From: The greatly named Swampfilms

Here is yet another movie I saw as a kid but the last viewing was many years ago; thus, I couldn't turn down the chance to see it when it was shown on the El Rey Network last night. Well, it's only an average film but at least there are certain elements that are hysterical, although unintentionally so. My Letterboxd review is below:

This is yet another one of those movies that I saw as a kid but the last viewing was many years ago. Certainly, when I saw it I did not know who Ray Wise was, so I was surprised to see that he was Alec before he became the title creature. I did not remember the Jude character, that is for sure. I am not sure about the acting but everything about that kid role is so goofy (such as how he managed to conveniently pop up more than once) I just have to laugh. Although it wasn't the biggest unintentional laugh I had while watching this; I'll get to that later. I noticed this was on the El Rey Network last night so I had to check it out.

The plot is set in the swamps of Georgia (although it was filmed in nearby South Carolina) and deals with a scientist in the woods who creates a wacky liquid that combines animal and plant DNA. This is done to try and feed all the people of the world; I laughed because I was reminded of Godzilla vs. Biollante and it makes that crazed movie even crazier in my eyes knowing they were also likely inspired by Swamp Thing. Anyhow, a villain known as Arcane whose backstory isn't really explained in the film (I guess you had to be familiar with the comics, which I never was) wants that research; an accident happens and Alec becomes Swamp Thing. He falls for Adrienne Barbeau-understandable, in my eyes-and thankfully she's helped by that wacky child known as Jude.

I can say that the direction from Wes Craven is fine. The score from Harry Manfrendini is serviceable. The setting is nice and the swampy area does set the appropriate mood. The late Louis Jourdan gave an appropriate as the bad guy in this cheesy picture. I did have a number of questions as I watched this, from wondering why Jude was in a middle of nowhere ga station by himself to who those people were that Dr. Arcane was having that dinner with at his place. Then, there's such things as all the scenes where Swampy tosses people (that's pretty much his main offensive maneuver) and various issues I had with the plot and things making logical sense.

At least I was amused by how you often get scene transitions that were like you advancing to the next panel in a comic book; that was definitely appropriate. As for the costume of the titular Swamp Thing, I imagine it would have looked OK in a 50's creature feature. In the early 80's, I am not so sure. Then again, it looks great compared to another monster that we get to see in the film's final act. That looked so silly I just about howled with laughter. It looks to be some sort of hybrid creature but it's hard to tell; I know that it's a goofy looking piece of crap where the eyes appear to be glued on, as they certainly don't move at all, let alone blink. It doesn't deliver any sort of frights or terror, that is for sure.

While the movie is not great, at least it is average and it is watchable. It just should have been better, even with a low budget.

He Walked By Night

He Walked By Night (1948)

Runtime: 79 minutes

Directed by: Alfred L. Werker/Anthony Mann

Starring: Richard Basehart, Scott Brady, Roy Roberts, Whit Bissell, Jack Webb

From: Eagle-Lion Films

Here is another film noir that I saw, and this one happened to be the reason why we ended up getting Dragnet. Read about that and how this is a movie worth seeing by reading my Letterboxd review below:

I decided to watch another noir last night and I picked this one out in part because it was the inspiration for Dragnet. Jack Webb had a supporting role here and he was inspired enough to create the radio show that became the famed TV show in the 60's, which I actually did see some episodes of WAY back when I was a young kid; I mean, that had to be more than 25 years ago. The plot sounded interesting to me so I checked it out, and I am glad I did.

The semi-documentary style is used to tell a story of an intelligent burglar who ends up murdering a cop, and the entire film is only devoted to the case of the Los Angeles police working the investigation to catch Roy Morgan, the killer. They interview suspects (pretty much literally rounding them up based on profiling... not that the LAPD would do such things now...) and use the 1940's version of forensic science. Roy commits other crimes, and this riles up the police department even more, especially when they have trouble catching him, as Morgan is wise and uses his skills for evil. Finally... it's a memorable event involving the storm drains of LA.

I am a nerd so I was interested in seeing how they cracked the case, and how they go through all the steps. They even do a slide based version of creating a composite sketch of the perpetrator. It was all intriguing to me, and the fact that this was a well-made film (co-directed by Anthony Mann) with nice cinematography from John Alton-who did plenty of work in the genre and won an Oscar for An American in Paris-is a bonus. There's some musical score but a lot of it is in silence, which was the right move when there are some very tense scenes. Heck, there's even a scene where the killer performs surgery on himself and that has been done by heroes and villains in movies many times since then. At this time, it's disturbing.

Oh, and this was somewhat based on a real life case. I won't get into the details here but look up Erwin Walker on Google and there's a nice Wikipedia article about why he turned into a life of crime, which involved regret from a horrific event in World War II. It is a sad tale in a way, although definitely engrossing. In the movie, we just know that the heel is a wise but twisted individual whose only companion is a small dog.

I have enjoyed watching more noir since the fall of '14, as I have enjoyed watching pretty much all of them, and some are real gems, such as this one that should be seen whether or not you are a Dragnet fan.

Supergirl

Supergirl (1984)

Runtime: I saw the version that was 124 minutes long

Directed by: The impossible to pronounce Jeannot Szwarc

Starring: Helen Slater, Faye Dunaway, Hart Bochner, Brenda Vaccaro, Peter O'Toole

From: Several British companies

This is another movie I hadn't watched in a long time. I did not like it as a kid and as an adult I remembered its badness correctly. Yet, it's a great movie to laugh at, as what a gonzo plot it has. My Letterboxd review is below, trying to explain this madness:

Sometime in 2016 I do plan on watching the original four Superman movies; I know I've mentioned in the past that I rarely even pay any attention to the modern superhero films as they just don't have much interest to me at all (and that goes for both DC and Marvel) but as a kid I saw all four. In reviewing the original I'll also mention the famed Salkind International Extended Cut that I found (nevermind how), and I'll also see both versions of Superman II.

In addition, I saw Supergirl as a young boy. IIRC, it was one time on VHS and the other time was on network TV. No, it was not the long version that fit in a 3 hour timeslot. I remember it being shorter than that. Even with those two being different cuts (more on that in a moment), I wasn't a big fan of the film; I hadn't seen it in more than 20 years so the memories are hazy but what I do recall, it was weird and made absolute zero sense. I figured it was finally the time to see this infamous picture as an adult. As there are plenty of different cuts of the movie floating about, I have to clarify which one I actually saw. There have been different TV edits, more than one VHS version, a 137 minute “Director's Cut” that may have been the aforementioned version that was once shown on ABC, etc. It was the 124 minute “International Cut” that I watched last night.

Well, this movie... it was as weird as I remembered. The title girl lives in a wacky hippie commune of people who used to reside on Krypton (nothing is said about how they weren't killed when that planet was destroyed; were they gone when that happened?) and via wacky circumstances, a device known as the Omegahedron escapes and it just happens to land on Earth, and Kara (soon to be Supergirl) goes there to retrieve it, where she just happens to meet the younger sister of Lois Lane. “Just happens” could be used many times if I were to do a scene by scene breakdown of this, but I won't. The device ends up in the hands of a witch (Faye Dunaway hamming it up on purpose; she must have realized early on what a boondoggle this was, so why not be over the top? I am surprised she was able to say most of her dialogue with a straight face) and various things just happen.

It wasn't quite as nonsensical as I had remembered, although I was still left with a number of questions. A good one is, why was a distinguishing characteristic of Selena (the witch) that she was what is now known as a COUGAR? She pines after Ethan, who Supergirl also has a romantic attraction to. Another question would be, why did Selena and her possible lesbian lover/definite assistant Bianca live in an abandoned amusement park, and why did they have a bizarre 80's party there? Oh, and why exactly did Supergirl use her powers to disguise herself as “Linda Lee” and enroll in an all-girls school, where there are some juvenile pranks that also happen? “Killing time” isn't a great answer, even if that's probably the right one. Why was an important moment of the plot involve spiking a can of Schlitz malt liquor? I am not sure but I howled with laughter at such a thing.

The movie is pretty awful in terms of storytelling, logic, plot, character motivations, etc. Yet it's unintentionally hilarious, to the point that I wonder why it isn't more of a camp classic. I wasn't bored, that's for sure. There are some interesting ideas-such as that giant invisible monster-Helen Slater was good in the title role, the special effects were fine (aside from the whole wires thing) and I enjoyed the score from Jerry Goldsmith. I am glad it wasn't as painful as I was expecting it to be. I also laughed that one of the scenes I remember (her confrontation with a pair of predatory truckers), one of the truckers was Matt Frewer, wearing an A&W t-shirt. They and Popeyes Chicken obviously paid to be in this. Yet it is still a bad film and it isn't surprising to me that it wasn't until this fall that we got a Supergirl television show.

D.O.A.

D.O.A. (1950)

Runtime: 83 minutes

Directed by: Rudolph Mate

Starring: Edmond O'Brien, Pamela Britton, Luther Adler, Beverly Garland, Lynn Baggett

From: Cardinal Pictures

I got back to watching film noir, and I explain how I selected this one in my Letterboxd review below:

This is another movie that came up due to a messageboard conversation. Someone brought up a link to a page that mentioned 50 noir films (both famous and not so famous) that were on YouTube, where there are way more than 50 different genre movies to watch. I figured I should watch one of those, and I picked out one of the most famous noirs of them all, one that became popular not only due to its quality but also due to it being public domain and thus easy to track down.

The movie has an awesome concept and a great opening. Frank Bigelow enters a police station and announces that he's been murdered. From there until the final minute, it's a flashback to how an average accountant and notary from an average California town goes to San Francisco for a vacation, gets poisoned and there's no antidote and he'll drop dead sometime soon, he has to be on the run to try and find the person or persons responsible, and he ends up in Los Angeles.

Like I said this is a high quality movie where you get all the expected noir tropes, from the dark plot of someone trying to stop a nefarious plot involving a sale of iridium, to the hard-boiled dialogue, to there being some nasty bad guys (especially the typical “big bad henchman”, this time played by Neville Brand) to how morbid it is that the protagonist has to do all this while in the last days of his life.

The movie does have some goofiness, especially early on when several times you see Bigelow (played nicely by Edmond O'Brien) sees an attractive woman and his arousal level is made clear via a loud slide whistle; it just sticks out as cartoony in an otherwise serious picture. Despite all that, this is a classic noir for good reason. The cast performs admirably, there are some extraordinary scenes, the love story isn't a detriment, and the ending is quite memorable. I am glad I finally saw this, and I imagine in the future I'll watch the Dennis Quaid remake from the late 80's.

I Talk King Kong vs. Godzilla Again

I was finally able to see the original Toho version of that movie so I watched that tonight; last night I rewatched the American version, to compare the two. My Letterboxd review is below:

(Note: I am replacing a review I did last year with a new one, as this time I can talk about both the Americanized cut put out by Universal and the original Toho cut. The 3 ½ star rating applies to the original version and not the Universal version, which I'd rate as 3 stars)

It's been a long while since I had watched any Godzilla films, so I figured after “finding” the original version of the movie-which I had never seen before-I should watch them both so I can compare and contrast. The general plot definitely isn't complicated: Godzilla escapes the iceberg he was trapped in at the end of the last film he was in (Godzilla Raids Again) while King Kong is found on an island filled with many Japanese people unfortunately in blackface, where they are distracted by cigarettes and a portable radio; it isn't a highlight of the film in either version.

Anyhow, a pharmaceutical company is on the island as the owner (a MR. TAKO) wants a new mascot for his company and he hears about a giant creature on the island; really. I laugh as the “mascot” thing was used in the '76 King Kong remake, which I will watch again one of these days so I can review it here. Kong fights a giant octopus, he ends up going to Japan after being knocked out by wacky berry juice that is a narcotic known as Soma (no, not the drug that often gets abused in modern times) and the two titans end up fighting each other in an epic battle for the ages after they both tear through Japan's cities and countryside.

First, I will talk about the American version, which is what most in the West has seen. It ends up being pretty goofy with how Universal edited things and how there is “UN reporter” Eric Carter who occasionally appears, says a few things, and sometimes talks to a head of a museum to spout some nonsense about both creatures. There's also an English speaking Japanese man who is “part of the Tokyo branch” who further ties it together. The new dialogue includes such things as a character constantly complaining about the corns on his feet! Sadly, they took out most of the original score from Akira Ifukube and replaced it with random score from American movies so the soundtrack could be “more Western”. That is a shame as the OG score is pretty damn awesome, in my opinion. Still, with what you see between all those miniatures getting destroyed and the two kaiju brawling with each other, it's still a cheesy good time, if nothing else.

Now, the Japanese version. It's a few minutes longer, for starters. The American cut rearranged some things. The story is better and the OG score was great to hear in context with the picture instead of just listening to it on YouTube. Honestly, you have to hear the Godzilla Theme while watching Godzilla, there's no two ways around it. The American dialogue concerning all the talk of using a nuclear bomb, that isn't here. The special effects (especially the matte effects) looked better here; I have no idea how they could have looked clearly worse in the American version. Tako is still an annoying character in both cuts, in case you were wondering. If you can track down this, I say that you should as it is the better of the two.

Oh, and despite it being a popular rumor for decades (even in the late 90's; one day at school we talked for a few minutes about how in the original version of this movie, Godzilla wins), both versions of the film have the exact same ending. Between the original review and this new one, the stories about there being a Godzilla vs. King Kong in 2020 came out. In this day and age it's not certain with me that it'll actually happen. If it does, I hope that it's awesome. As I am a person who loved the Gareth Edwards Godzilla, that is why I would have high hopes for it.

The Veil

The Veil (2016)

Runtime: 93 minutes

Directed by: Phil Joanou

Starring: Jessica Alba, Lily Rabe, Thomas Jane, Shannon Woodward, Reid Scott

From: Universal and the infamous Blumhouse

Here is my first 2016 movie, and it was something that appeared on Netflix Instant. It's one of the 500 or so movies that Blumhouse has made in company history. I talk about the backstory to this and how this ends up being an average movie in my Letterboxd review below:

Like many people, I am taken aback by just how many movies Blumhouse puts out in a given year, and the production has only ramped up. Just yesterday, I discovered via a horror website that they (or rather, Universal) dumped THREE movies onto Netflix Instant on the same day. Now, at least for me they weren't listed right away on Instant's Recently Added section-I had to do some scrolling before they appeared-which I thought was curious but I went with this movie rather than Curve or Visions.

I guess it was because I was curious about how this plot was “inspired” by Jonestown and I hoped this wasn't like The Sacrament, which was just a retelling of Jonestown and that was it and it felt so gross to me. Well, they used both that and the Heaven's Gate cult (this cult was Heaven's Veil and the leader was Jim Jacobs) and I am not quite sure if it's good or bad that those things were used and obviously alluded to for a goofy horror film with supernatural elements. Irregardless, it did not grossly offend me like The Sacrament did.

Despite this film being about a small documentary crew, it is NOT found footage, which I know will cause some to breathe a sigh of relief. A little girl manages to survive when the rest of the cult dies after consuming poison, and as an adult she's convinced by that crew (led by someone who also has a connection to the place) to return to their now abandoned compound to try and get answers. Yes, things go wrong.

There are some faces in the supporting cast that you may recognize but the most noteworthy people are the main cast of Jessica Alba (who as an actress is... an attractive lady; nothing's changed there), Lily Rabe and as Jim Jacobs, Thomas Jane. While watching it I thought “Jim Morrison” when it came to his appearance and how he acted; after the film I got on here and saw that a mutual saw this movie too and also thought the same thing, so you'll probably think the same thing. I don't want to say he “hammed it up” but that's what I'll go with; he devoured the scenery with that performance, and with those old-school shades and clothing he wore, it was definitely the most memorable part of this picture.

I am not sure how others will view this movie. I personally thought that the general plot was at least not the same old same old ideas that have been used too much in recent years and the general idea was fine. However, the execution wasn't always there. Eye-rolling dialogue was sometimes a thing, along with things that are overly explained and there are goofy moments too. Plus, there is still horror cliché after horror cliché. Although, while it's not “scary” there are still moments that I'll call “unsettling”.

That said, at least I can say this is average, when “terrible” was a distinct possibility before I started this. I am glad they tried a different idea and as it was directed by the guy who did U2's One video and the 1990 cult favorite State of Grace (Phil Joanou), so the movie is at least competently made. I am not sure what others will think of this but me, I say it's middle of the road.

Woody Allen

On Saturday I watched again Sleeper, a film I saw and reviewed here way back when. I won't review it again here but at the beginning of the review I posted on Letterboxd I said some things about how I plan on seeing more Woody Allen pictures. Here's what I said:

I have had this feeling for a long while now (as in, years) but I figured it was about time I finally started to watch more Woody Allen films, as I have only seen a few in my life. I'll rewatch those that I have already seen and I'll check out the many movies new to me; I don't plan on seeing all of his work, as he's still prolific even at the age of 80 and despite streaming options, showings on channels like TCM (which is how I saw this) and being able to buy at used or new stores and hopefully rent from local libraries, there are some that I'd have to see “not by legal means” and I'll only do that if I have to. Considering that the quality of his overall work is still at least good, it is a rabbit hole I am happy to dive into.

That is even with the rumors of his personal life... the whole Soon-Yi Previn thing is weird and all but I am referring to those allegations that came out around two years ago where Woody was accused of some horrific crimes. I have no idea if those claims are true or not; if they aren't then that's horrific also, to falsely have such comments made about you. All I can do is say “I don't know” and thus that is why I decided to start this journey through his filmography; that is subject to change if more evidence ever comes out.

Archivo 253

Archivo 253 (2015)

Runtime: 77 (long) minutes

Directed by: Abe Rosenberg

Starring: Anna Cetti, Michel Chauvet, Mario Escalante, Juan Luis Tovar

From: Movies Independent

Here is a random horror movie I saw earlier today on Netflix Instant. I hadn't watched a horror film in about 2 months and I recently discovered this Mexican found footage movie; I knew this beforehand but other countries can do a found footage movie just as bad as the Americans can. Read all about it in my Letterboxd review below:

It has been awhile since I had watched a horror movie and when I post in a horror thread on a messageboard I sometimes like to bring up filmsI had seen that others had not, so that is why I picked a random flick I recently discovered on Netflix Instant. There's a lot of garbage on that service and unfortunately, this is one of those. I've known this for a long while but other countries can do found footage movies as bad as American filmmakers can. Yes, found footage, something that automatically makes plenty of people cross it off the list. I am not like that myself but I am now wary of those movies, as most of them aren't worthwhile. This is from Mexico and really, watch or rewatch Grave Encounters instead.

I say that as this is a pretty bad version of the Canadian film. This time it's four paranormal investigators (I am going from the Netflix plot description; the film doesn't actually explain who these people are aside from being four random people who have recording equipment and standard ghost hunting devices; they are stereotypes, from “the idiot who provokes the paranormal” to “the voice of reason” to “the girl”) who break in an abandoned psychiatric hospital-which we never get much of a backstory to, aside from cliché moments happening there-things happen, the final scene stops abruptly, the end. You can guess most of the things that happen, I am certain of that.

The movie is only 77 minutes long, yet it should have had some more time so we could actually get to know these people or hell, explain their careers or how long they had been doing those investigations. Was this their first time? The Voice of Reason wasn't happy that The Idiot-who is also the leader-only mentioned minutes beforehand that they were illegally breaking into that place, yet he went along with it anyway. Although, this was a long 77 minutes so maybe it was best that they didn't spend more time on such things. Either way, it was a dull movie filled with cliches and it's not scary or even mildly terrifying. There's a CGI creation you see briefly, and while it doesn't look great it should have been seen glimpsed more often.

As I've made clear, there is no real good reason to check this out. There are plenty of actual horror gems to be found on Instant. Take my word for this, avoid this waste of time.

Things To Come

Things to Come (1936)

Runtime: 96 minutes

Directed by: William Cameron Menzies

Starring: Raymond Massey, Edward Chapman, Ralph Richardson, Margaretta Scott, Cedric Hardwicke

From: London Film Productions

This is a movie I've known about for awhile now and I finally saw it last night on TCM. My recap of this is in my Letterboxd review below: 

Even before Criterion put out this movie a few years ago I had known of this British sci-fi tale featuring tremendous sets and effects for the time. Finally, I saw that it was on Turner Classic Movies last night and I knew this was the time to check it out, despite the wide variety of opinions I've heard about it here. It's based on the H.G. Wells novel The Shape of Things to Come; I've heard differing opinions on just how much influence and impact Wells himself had on the film while they made it, but it can be agreed that he did not love everything about it, which is the opinion that most in general have of it.

This story spans 100 years (1936 to 2036) and a fictional city in the UK. A war happens in 1940 (eerily close to when the country entered World War II) and it lasts for several decades, devastating the area and it eventually becomes essentially a setting from a few centuries ago, as if it was a small village in the 1800's. Things happen and we arrive in 2036, a spectacular futuristic world, but for various reasons people are still upset and fearful.

I understand those who did not really care for this motion picture due to its dry nature, the long stretches of dialogue and the characters being about as exciting and dynamic as pieces of chalk. All are valid claims to me. With the way they did the story the focus would always be on the effects and the overarching story of how things don't really change despite how different the setting might be, but I do wish that those things would have been improved.

That said, I found it to be a very intriguing tale with some rather harsh and rough moments; those are nice but the clear highlight is the stellar effects. From the chaos of the war years to the wonder of the future, the various tools they used to bring those worlds to life is still impressive 80 years later. In addition, while some predictions were definitely wrong, some things (not even counting the guess of World War II) were accurate. Some of the building designs are what come to mind. The cinematography, direction and score are all at least “pretty good”.

This could have been an all-time classic if it would not have been so aloof, wasn't so preachy and had more dynamic characters. That said, this is still an interesting curio, a big gamble at the time that failed at the box office... since then it has become more appreciated. Whether or not you like it is up to personal opinion; I say it is worth a shot.

District B13

District B13 (Banlieue 13) (2004)

Runtime: 84 minutes

Directed by: Pierre Morel

Starring: Cyril Raffaelli, David Belle, Tony D'Amario, Bibi Naceri, Dany Verissimo

From: Several different European countries

This watch came due to Netflix getting rid of this in a few hours. I figured it was finally the time to see a movie I have heard about for many years now. It's... a product of its time, that is for sure. Read my Letterboxd review below:

In a matter of hours this movie will be gone from Netflix Instant so I figured it was finally time to check out a film that I've known about for a long time now. I had a feeling it'd be the case beforehand but now having watched it, this picture is SUCH a movie of its time, along the same lines of the original The Fast & The Furious, XXX, Torque, the Indian film Dhoom, etc. It has a similar look, style, music, editing, and what have you.

I presume most are familiar with how it's set in the far-flung future of 2013 and how it's yet another movie inspired by Escape From New York (it'll likely be inspiring films for many years to come) in that it's a walled area full of the worst criminals, and how two masters of Parkour (but polar opposites aside from their discipline and their wanting to take down the bad guy) have to team up to try and take back a neutron bomb before it goes off.

First things first, this movie is absolutely ridiculous; I mean, I know it wasn't the case but it seems like it was written by a 14 year old boy addicted to Adderall and he wrote this while high on crystal meth for the first time. It's preposterous nonsense which gets sillier as it goes along as they pull out the goofiest crap out of their asses in order to advance the story along, and logic is thrown out the door as you have everything from someone literally eating a woman's panties and toilet tunnels to the typical “indestructible giant” trope and someone (not the giant, mind you) being shot with hundreds of bullets and not having any visible damage done to him. The way that the film's sole major female character gets treated is on the gross side too.

Yet, I can at least give this a 3 star rating. There's some entertaining dialogue but the main thing is THE reason why people would want to see this, which is the Parkour action, along with the martial arts that are used to fight people that are based off of it. It's all greatly exciting to watch, it's unique so it stands out even in 2016 and it's not shot terribly, i.e. shaky cam or quick editing... you can make out what's going on, which seems to be a rare concept when it comes to modern Hollywood movies.

In addition, that one character who dressed like a pimp, had the old Mercedes and had that amazing hairstyle... he was awesome.

Apparently not so awesome is the American remake-Brick Mansions-yet I imagine that I'll see it one of these days. I'll also watch District 13: Ultimatum. This movie is a definite product of its era and even with its negatives I can still say that it's fine and I don't regret finally giving this a viewing.

United Passions

United Passions (2014)

Runtime: 110 agonizing minutes

Directed by: Frederic Auburtin

Starring: A bunch of people who I hope got paid well

From: Several companies, including the noxious entity known as FIFA

I am pressed for time so I'll just say it... this movie does indeed suck. Find out why in my Letterboxd review below:

Yes, I actually saw this infamous film; hey, it was on Netflix Instant. I realize that there are literally hundreds of films I have in mind to watch that are actually worth watching, but I wanted to see this in a car crash sort of way. Also, as people from all across the world are my mutuals and who knows who else will stumble across this review, let me explain: I am not being a Dumb American when I say this but whether you call it association football, football, or soccer, I am not the biggest fan of it.

It is not solely due to how dirty and corrupt it is, as the American sports are pretty dishonest themselves, in different ways. The flopping and drama queen theatrics that ruin soccer for me... well, similar things happen in such things as basketball or football. It's the degree of drama queen theatrics and corruption that sour me on soccer; I rarely watch it and it is unfortunate as if it wasn't for those things it's likely something I'd actually enjoy, following such things as promotion and relegation in the Premier League, or what have you. But anyway, my opinions of the sport have nothing to do with my rating of this; the movie is very bad no matter what. Since they tried to give it a decent release last year-ironically when the floodgates opened and people saw how rotten they really were-everyone gave this movie crap for it being a FIFA financed movie about FIFA, making it look like FIFA propaganda. Well, I can tell you that it IS FIFA propaganda and there's no real reason to see this.

In a span of 110 minutes, they cover 100 years of history in FIFA, so it's not an in-depth look at things and honestly, I am not sure why they thought this was a good idea, aside from the obvious of lionizing some controversial figures in their history. I am a nerd so a book or a multi-part documentary-created by an unbiased source-would be of interest to me. This movie, though, you don't care about any of these yelling or rude A-holes as they haphazardly skip through time chronologically so it's the opposite of exciting. Even with the disclaimer at the beginning, the amount of lies in this that I've heard about makes this useless as an informative thing. I am talking about more than the amazingly bold falsehood about how SEPP BLATTER is strongly anti-corruption. It was easy to see that it was also anti-English, anti-media (fancy that) and strangely, anti-Uruguayan.

The movie allegedly cost almost 30 million bucks and the vast majority of the budget came from FIFA; heaven knows the location of that money before it ended up in their coffers. The periods that the movie takes place in likely was part of it, and so was having a main cast of familiar faces, like Gerard Depardieu, Sam Neill, Tim Roth (looking like he's constipated more often than not), Fisher Stevens and Thomas Kretschmann. They are in a production where the main figures are shown to be facing charges of scandal... only for it not to be explained and instead blown off, usually pretty quickly. But I guess that'd get in the way of their lionization now, wouldn't it?

This movie isn't even worth much in the realm of unintentional hilarity. Sure, Neill as a Brazilian is absurd but otherwise, this is just pretty boring and considering its propaganda nature, there's no real reason ever to see it. The best thing about it is that it gave the cast and crew a paycheck, something that helped pay for two of Roth's children to attend college; honest, that was admitted by him recently and while he has not watched the final film he realizes it's a pile of crap and Blatter-who he played, after all-is a deplorable human being. The expensive nature of American colleges & universities is worthy of a book or a multi-part documentary of its own, but those that don't live here, you'd be shocked.

Point is, this piss-poor attempt at making the scummiest of groups appear to be the paragons of virtue and pure goodness is not something that should ever be watched. Watch the good movies that the stars have done, or if you love football, check out a match instead as that'll be a much better usage of your 2 hours.

A Story Of Floating Weeds

A Story of Floating Weeds (Ukikusa Monogatari) (1934)

Runtime: 86 minutes

Directed by: Yasujiro Ozu

Starring: Takeshi Sakamoto, Choko Iida, Koji Mitsui, Rieko Yagumo, Yoshiko Tsubouchi

From: Shochiku Company

This is a review of a "serious" movie for me, as Ozu is a legendary director and this is the first picture I had ever seen from him. It is a quality motion picture. I explain it all in my Letterboxd review below:

On this site and others I have heard plenty of praise for the work of the late Yasujiro Ozu, yet this is the first film of his that I've seen. I have no real excuse as many of his films (including this one) were released in the United States by the Criterion Collection and I used to have Hulu Plus, where a good amount of their catalog was available for streaming. This was on Turner Classic Movies last night and I figured it was the right time to see it.

The plot concerns a traveling kabuki act who ends up in a town where the boss has an old mistress and an illegitimate son; the son believes that man is an unofficial uncle, having no idea of the truth. The current mistress finds out and after an argument she devises quite the cruel bit of revenge. I don't want to reveal more than those specifics. In general, it was definitely an interesting movie where the life of a low-level performer in that act was shown to be pretty difficult, where you didn't know how long you'd last in a town and a few days of rain-which causes problems as they perform outdoors-can cause a lot of havoc. It doesn't excuse some of the boss's actions but it does explain his general grumpy mood.

I won't get all nerdy and talk about the technical aspects of the movie, except that it's really well-done by Ozu and just from one silent I can see why he has so many fans. The fact that it's not “a talkie” is fine, as sometimes watching the facial expressions or how someone acted said more than hearing dialogue or seeing the intertitles. It's a compelling story, and also a melancholy at best one, as difficult decisions have to be made and the story is more complex than it sounds and the characters that are focused on, they are all pretty rich and interesting. Despite it not being a cheery picture, it certainly was persuasive and while it takes its time, it is never boring. You do feel bad for the characters and the predicament they are in, but at least for some of them there may be light at the end of the tunnel.

Sometime in the future I'll watch Ozu's remake of this, 1959's Floating Weeds. I should also check out some of his other work considering it is so highly regarded.

Straight Time

Straight Time (1978)

Runtime: 114 minutes

Directed by: Ulu Grosbard; Dustin Hoffman originally began as director, then he changed his mind

Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Theresa Russell, Gary Busey, Harry Dean Stanton,  M. Emmet Walsh

From: First Artists/Sweetwall

Here is an obscure film I may have heard of before but I was inspired to watch it a few days ago; yes, it was a messageboard recommendation. Turns out, this is a great motion picture. I explain why in my Letterboxd review below:

Here's a random movie being reviewed by me; I say that as while I believe I did hear of it before, that info went out of my mind. It was yet another messageboard recommendation. Someone who loves it saw it would be on Turner Classic Movies late last night and considering that it starred such people as a mustached Dustin Hoffman, Theresa Russell (no relation), Gary Busey, Harry Dean Stanton, M. Emmet Walsh and Kathy Bates, I figured it was worth a watch, and it was.

The plot is that the tremendously named Max Dembo (Hoffman) is a burglar who just got released from prison. He is happy by such things as being able to purchase a hot dog. Well, he runs into issues with M. Emmet Walsh, who is his parole officer. Should it be a surprise that a character played by M. Emmet Walsh is not a good human being? Anyhow, he hangs out with pal Willy (Busey) who drives a crappy old station wagon. His son in the movie was played by real life son Jake. Well, Willy has his own problems. Max finds a job at a canning company and the lady at the unemployment office who helped him get the job, Jenny (Russell), well, he even gets to go out with her. Yet ultimately...

The movie is a serious look at someone who is trying to do the right thing yet due to prejudices and other people, seems to have a black cloud under him. The movie is almost 2 hours long and that is fine as it takes it time to tell its story and it is not rushed; getting to know these characters is an important thing. You end up feeling pretty bad for Max's downfall (despite some of the things that he does), not to mention those that he brings down with him. One reason for that is the fantastic performance from Hoffman; it was nice to be reminded what a great actor he is and while his being selective does make me wish he would act more often so everyone to see him perform, it does make his appearances in quality movies (and I don't mean such things as The Cobbler or Sphere) all the more special. It was nice to see some people that became famous later, like Busey, Russell, and Bates; the latter two, this was among their first movies.

One of the movie's writers was Edward Bunker, who at that time wrote and acted in movies but for a long time before that was in a life of crime, doing such things as robbing banks, extorting people and running a drug ring. He wrote the novel No Beast So Fierce, which this movie was based upon. He thankfully found something to do besides breaking the law and he was pretty good at his new career. He appeared in such movies as Reservoir Dogs and Miracle Mile & wrote the screenplay for cult favorite Runaway Train. Anyhow, I am sure that is why the portrayal of a recently released felon seems authentic.

Ultimately, this is a movie about making choices, and many of the characters you see don't make the right ones. Yet, you always hope for the best for these characters, and not just because most of them wear some amazing colorful late 70's shirts. I say that you should make the right choice and track down this movie however you can. It's a great movie that for whatever reason has been mostly forgotten through the passage of time.

Viva Las Vegas

Viva Las Vegas (1964)

Runtime: 85 minutes

Directed by: George Sidney

Starring: Elvis, Ann-Margaret, Cesare Danova, William Demarest, Nicky Blair

From: MGM

As today is the 81st birthday of Elvis, of course I had to watch this last night so I could talk about it today. I picked out one of his most famous movies. My Letterboxd review is below:

One thing this movie taught me: if a romantic interest/lover/spouse/whatever is mad at you, gift them a tree. Somehow, it will cause them to swoon and make them fall in love with you all over again!

As today was the day that Elvis was born on back in 1935, it was appropriate to watch one of his films last night so I could post the review today. Talking about the wacky more obscure entries has been interesting to me (if no one else) but I figured it was about time to see one of his more famous and more highly regarded movies, and as I have this in my collection...

The plot is rather flimsy: Elvis is auto racer Lucky Jackson, who is in town for the upcoming Grand Prix. He gets to know a Eurodocuhe competitor known as Count Elmo Mancini, who of course becomes a rival. Lucky unluckily loses a large sum of cash and besides being unable to pay the bill at the hotel, he needs an engine for his racecar; along the way, those two fight over Rusty Martin, a lovely breathy dame.

The story is nonsense, yet it is still a memorable Elvis movie and I do understand why there are plenty that rate this real highly. The songs and musical numbers are more memorable than what you see in a Presley picture; the title song is cool, his version of What'd I Say is rad, and so are the duets he has with Ann-Margaret. Oh, what a memorable role for Ms. Ann. Besides being a lovely lady who you can understand why men fall for her, she delivered a spicy performance where she was able to act, dance and sing and not be overshadowed by Elvis and all his natural charisma and instead be able to keep up with him; that and their chemistry are a big asset here.

Las Vegas is an awesome city I've been in before, but the last visit was years ago so I'd love to visit it again in the future. It's a loud city with a lot to do and it was cool seeing it back during this time period, between how all the neon looked, the nice weather, the stage shows, and all the rest. As for when I'll see my next Elvis movie, it may be awhile as I have plenty of other things I have the desire to see in the near future but this was a nice way to tip my cap to a legend that'd be 81 if they were alive today.

The Host

The Host (Gwoemul) (2006)

Runtime: 120 minutes

Directed by: Bong Joon-Ho

Starring: Song Kang-Ho, Park Hae-Il, Doona Bae, Ko Ah-Sung, Byun Hee-Bong

From: Many different companies, most of them Korean

Finally I saw another Korean film, and it was one I happened to have seen before, way back when it originally got released in the United States the Spring of '07. I was glad I watched this again. My Letterboxd review is below: 

Last year I reviewed a handful of movies from South Korea. It wasn't until in the past few years that I sought them out once in awhile, as the whole scene has plenty of fans on the Internet. Well, I figured I should try and watch them a little more often in 2016, and to start that off I went to a movie I actually saw on the big screen and enjoyed at a local arthouse theatre in Central Florida but hadn't watched since. Why not see a movie from the country that is more light-hearted than the typical brutally intense picture that people in the West associate with them? Besides, it's been too long since I had seen anything from Netflix Instant.

The general plot is as simple as you can get, which is that toxic chemicals are poured down the drain and it creates a deadly amphibious creature, which can also run on land. The movie is definitely more than about that, though. I don't understand all of the satire as my knowledge of Korean culture is not extensive but based off of context clues and what I've heard from elsewhere (including yes, Wikipedia), there's a reason why the person that ordered the dumping of all that formaldehyde was an American, and South Korea's own government gets dragged, along with several other entities that I won't spoil here.

I don't want to say that this is a unique beast as it sounds like a bad pun but, that's what I'll go with. It can fit in several different genres. The main thing to know is that the focus is on the Park family, who are rather dysfunctional and yet have to come together as the child of the family is taken and she managed to survive. They have to go through a lot of hardships and it's never easy for them. Considering that, the ending was satisfying as it felt like the characters grew and changed. It is an unconventional monster movie but once you know what it's really all about, it is satisfying to me and there are plenty of amusing and darkly humorous moments. I'll admit that seeing it a second time and remembering how unconventional it was, I do appreciate it more now.

The CGI doesn't always look so hot in 2016; still, it wasn't objectionable to me and it did not ruin the movie. At least it is a distinctive looking creature; I am not the first to make this point but the large monsters you get in recent years from Hollywood productions look uncomfortably alike; what great imagination from Hollywood... as typical, IMO. I understand those that wouldn't care for this as they may prefer a more traditional giant monster movie, or they may feel turned off by the abrupt shifts in tone. I am a rare person who did not care for Snowpiercer and I'd rather not revisit it as I have a feeling my opinion won't change there. At least I can say that this is a film I definitely enjoy from Bong Joon-Ho.

RoboCop 2

RoboCop 2 (1990)

Runtime: 117 minutes

Directed by: Irvin Kershner

Starring: Peter Weller, Nancy Allen, Belinda Bauer, Dan O'Herlihy, Tom Noonan

From: Orion

Two things have to be noted about this movie: it briefly features Alotta Fagina from the first Austin Powers movie, and it features the following (very) vulgar phrase from a young boy that was yelled to RoboCop, “Go fuck a refrigerator, peckerneck!” For the most part, though, I am not a big fan of this, something I hadn't watched in over 20 years. My Letterboxd review is below: 

This is yet another one of those movies that I saw in the past but the last viewing was at least 20 years ago. With this picture, I only saw it once as it was not something I liked at all; in fact, I remembered it as being an ugly movie and a really confused mess. I also remembered an extremely unique and vulgar insult which I won't repeat here (it's in the IMDb Quotes section for the film, anyhow) and somehow I had forgotten that it was actually a vulgar phrase, where a young boy told Robo to copulate with a household appliance, pretty much. It was so gonzo I had to laugh.

It wasn't until a few years ago that I discovered Frank Miller was a writer of this. In hindsight it did explain how the movie turned out, even if I hear that his original story was definitely different from what ended up on the screen. I've never been a comics reader so what he did there doesn't mean anything to me. Just from what I've heard about him in real life and what he's done in the movie world, I am not a fan.

Anyhow, the plot revolves around such thing as The Old Man (Dan O'Herlihy) who runs OCP is suddenly pure evil, a drug called Nuke that is sold by Tom Noonan and a major pusher is an 11 year old boy, the cops are on strike and it's part of the plan for Detroit to go bankrupt so that OCP can run it (unfortunately, in real life a few years ago Detroit actually DID file for bankruptcy; that was due to corruption and sheer incompetence), and sad to say, RoboCop himself is made to look bad; I mean, the beginning of the film he's a stalker who follows his former wife! It somehow gets worse from there.

The biggest problem with the movie is its tone; it is SO ugly and mean-spirited. I mean, an opening scene has a shootout in a drug lab and an infant is present only so that a bad guy could threaten to kill it. The whole thing with the 11 year old kid is just unpleasant, something done only to be “shocking” and “edgy”. A Little League baseball team robs an electronics store, for crying out loud. With all that, the satire that is mostly ham-fisted, humor that usually doesn't work, and how the story is an absolute mess that was poorly put together, I did not enjoy watching most of this. It wasn't as confusing as I had remembered, but I still did not enjoy watching most of this.

Really, the only reasons why I am giving this 2 stars is that it still has some amusing moments and the stop-motion animation is pretty cool; the battle between RoboCop and the new RoboCop 2 (it being controlled by a lunatic... what could go wrong there?) is nice and all although the sequence is a little overlong. I know that this has its fans and there is plenty of bloody violence; however, this is too cruel and unpleasant (not to mention sloppy and messy) for my tastes.

Rope

Rope (1948)

Runtime: 80 minutes

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Starring: John Dall, Farley Granger, James Stewart, Edith Evanson, Joan Chandler

From: Transatlantic Pictures

As it's been too long since I had last watched any Hitchcock, I figured it was time to see one; this is a movie I had last watched over 10 years ago, so this was a good one to see. My Letterboxd review is below: 

Somehow, for pretty much the past 365 days I had only seen two Hitchcock films, one of them being a movie I have watched quite a few times in my life (Psycho); I can't explain it either. I'll try to be more active on that front in the future. So, that's why I decided to watch one of his films last night, and I picked this one as I had only seen it once and that was like 13 years ago or so.

I know that everyone is familiar with the plot of how two young men murder an “inferior” pal as they're rich intellectuals and they wanted to commit “the perfect murder” and they hold a party with the body hidden in a wooden chest and they think that none of the guests (even their old headmaster at their prep school, Rupert) will figure it out. It sounds crazy... except that the general idea of the plot actually happened-in 1924 two University of Chicago students named Leopold and Loeb murdered a 14 year old as they thought they were intellectually superior and thus they thought they didn't have to be punished for the crime... they were wrong. Several other movies were made about the case but I haven't watched any of them.

The aspect that seems rather obvious now in 2016-likely it was more subtle when it was released was the homosexual subtext; Leopold and Loeb were two men, homosexual lovers, and there are plenty of hints dropped in the film that the two murderers (Brandon and Phillip) are a couple, some of them quite obvious if you're looking for it. The fact that the guy who played Brandon (John Dall) actually was a homosexual in real life had to be a reason why there were those overtones throughout. I am not quite sure what the subplot about “strangling chickens” on the farm was about as it sounded so random for characters of that social class, unless... you probably don't need to be Freud to understand what I am alluding to!

The other noteworthy thing about the movie is that it was filmed all in long takes, and it was all on one set and the 80 minute movie takes place in a 100 minute timespan. As this was based on a stage play by Patrick Hamilton, I was fine with how this ended up being a filmed stage play, but just referring to it as that seems to diminish how they built the set so it could be moved around and how the large camera of the time was not static at all so it is still interesting to watch when it comes to cinematography. Also, the background of New York City that changes color as the sun sets is pretty great.

While I could quibble about some things (which is why I don't rate it as high as, say, Rear Window), overall this is a very good movie and one that is better than I remembered it being. The supporting characters are fine but it's the leads of Brandon, Phillip and Rupert that are all dynamic and make this thrilling to me. I pretty much did not pay attention to any of the cuts as I was invested in the story and enjoyed how Phillip was a nervous wreck, Brandon was such a cocky little D-bag (but acted nervous around his headmaster, which makes you wonder if they had a relationship before), and Rupert was a wise scholar who noticed the obvious hints that Brandon dropped and Dall, Farley Granger and the legendary James Stewart all delivered quality performances; I heard that Stewart felt disappointed by the movie and his performance but respectfully I disagree. His monologue at the end at how it was delivered was outstanding.

There are so many quality Hitch movies so this may get lost in the shuffle among the most famous entries (at least among the Joe Q. Public moviegoer) but this is more than just a wacky gimmick that he was able to pull off; at least for me it was a very entertaining story that made the 80 minutes fly by in a flash.

Harum Scarum

Harum Scarum (1965)

Runtime: 85 minutes

Directed by: Gene Nelson

Starring: Elvis, Mary Ann Mobley, Fran Jeffries, Michael Ansara, Jay Novello

From: MGM

It's been too long since I've seen an Elvis movie; as his birthday is Friday (expect a review of a different Presley movie on that date) I figured it was time to do so. I picked out the silliest one I have in my collection. I explain all that in my Letterboxd review below: 

Off and on last year, I saw a few movies from Elvis Presley. I figured I should do so as I found a set w/ many films for a low price and I enjoy his music well-enough. Besides, most of his film work is ignored as in general they have the reputation as really corny yet genial things where there's a lot of goofiness and you get some music from him. Going through those movies, they've at least all been different and each has memorable aspects and at least some goofiness and strangeness. So, watching these hasn't been a chore, even if there maybe are all-time classic motion pictures I should be experiencing instead.

Well, as I hadn't done one in a few months and his birthday is in several days, this was the time. I picked out this one in particular as among the ones I have on disc it has the goofiest plot, where The King plays a movie star named Johnny Tyronne; he's touring in the Middle East where he suddenly gets kidnapped in a fictitious country, one that is “stuck 2,000 years in the past” due to isolationism; this is only done so that they could reuse the sets from DeMille's The King of Kings (no kidding). Tyronne has to kill the ruler of the country so that a mysterious person can take over-it's quite easy to figure out who's responsible. In addition, there's such things as orphans, a thieves guild, a group called The Assassins (no, don't think of this as a version of Assassin's Creed), some odious comic relief, along with the expected tropes of Elvis using his martial arts-which I'll call King-Fu-some average songs and no shortage of wacky moments.

It's outlandish and yet I can say that this is average due to said outlandishness and how it's silly. Elvis isn't the most engaged here but at least this is breezy entertainment. As it's the 60's, all the Arab parts are played by white people and there's plenty of stereotyping. Ramadan is brought up but I am not quite sure if the filmmakers quite understood what it was, so that's why it was glossed over. I don't want to go in-depth but one surprising part of the plot is that a prescient point was brought up in this zaniness: foreign companies and/or foreign countries meddling in the affairs of a state so that they can try and exploit their resources or the “right” people are in power for military/political reasons... that typically goes quite bad in due time; there are many examples of this, including involvements from the United States. I was not expecting such a thing to be brought up in a motion picture where Elvis is on a bunch of sets that are supposed to be the Middle East and he warbles songs like Shake That Tambourine.

Billy Barty's in the film and thankfully the role isn't too stereotypical and in fact he has some heroic moments... somehow, using a turkey leg as a weapon is one of them. But, THE true highlight is an incredible moment from the beginning, where we see a minute or two of a Tyronne movie. He beats up some bad guys then has to deal with a jaguar. Well, he JUDO CHOPS THE JAGUAR, knocking it out. That is a reason why I gave this hokum an average rating.

Heaven's Gate

Heaven's Gate (1980)

Runtime: 216 minutes

Directed by: Michael Cimino

Starring: Kris Kristofferson, Christopher Walken, Isabelle Huppert, Sam Waterston, John Hurt

From: United Artists

I have no idea how my epic length review of this epic movie did not get posted here sooner, but this was my last review of 2015, and I did it in a big way. If you look before this review you'll see my first one of 2016. For now, my long Letterboxd review is below: 

I don't know if everyone enjoys it the few times that I write an absolute novel for a review, but considering that this is a film of epic length and excess and even now the movie not only still has the reputation of being a disaster but it seems to be a big catalyst (that and Apocalypse Now, probably) of why Hollywood changed from director driven to studio driven and even now it's a system where studios have domineering power over directors... it ended up being an important movie in the history of Hollywood, not to mention how we still don't get too many big-budget Westerns and how United Artists got sold to MGM and it was a studio in name only... only for years later MGM itself changing into something that would be gone if it wasn't for James Bond... point is, a lot can still be said about it, 35 years later.

While on vacation in Kansas I got the chance to read a book I have had for a few years. It was Steven Bach's Final Cut: Art, Money and Ego in the Making of Heaven's Gate, the Film That Sank United Artists. Bach was a high ranking executive during the entire long protracted making of HG, so not only do you hear all about that but you also get details about other projects going on at the time and such personalities as Woody Allen, Francis Ford Coppola, and Barbra Streisand. It's a great read and very informative about the studio and its history.

While it's only one opinion, it does not paint a flattering picture of Michael Cimino. He sounded like such a diva, especially for someone who had only done two movies up to that point. He wanted total control and didn't seem to care that he spent what the book said was 44 million dollars, including publicity costs (back at that time an outrageous sum of money; now, there have been many movies which are more than $100 million, which is a whole nother story I won't get into here) by being an extreme perfectionist. Lord knows that there have been other directors that demanded dozens of takes or take an extraordinary amount of time to edit things. However, some of them (I am looking in Elaine May's direction) got punished for such behavior and when it comes to people like Kubrick... it's Stanley Kubrick! The classics he did speak for themselves. If he thought that he could have the freedom that Woody Allen did at UA, that is irrational as Allen never went over budget or over schedule and again his 70's works on their own speaks for itself. Going way over the 11.6 million dollar budget with no care that it's not his money... that is not proper behavior even if you want to make “the perfect vision” of a story you wrote years ago or “the epic Western”. Talk about hubris.

To clarify, while I'd love to see this on the big screen, who knows if that'll ever happen. So, it was watched by me via the Blu Criterion put out a few years ago. Various tweaks were done to it by Cimino-including make it more Technicolor instead of the almost sepia tone it had-and it's 216 minutes in length. I am fine with movies of that length (I know that some aren't). I wish that the 2 ½ hour theatrical edit that made it to the big screen for a short amount of time would have also been on the Blu as it'd be nice for comparison's sake, but alas. Then again there are several other versions, such as the FIVE AND A HALF HOUR workprint that sounds so excessive, and then there's a “Radical Cut” that MGM put together in '05 that restored it by using quite a bit of alternate footage, that only screened in a few places and never made it to disc. Who knows if we'll ever get any of those. Also, I kept an open mind and my opinion wasn't tainted by all the bad press concerning the troubled production, which I know was a big reason why at the time there were many critics who ripped this to shreds.

With all that explained, let me talk about the movie, independent of anything outside of the motion picture itself. It's about the Johnson County War, a real life situation in the Wyoming of the 1890's. That period of time was more complicated but the movie simplifies it; it's not an accurate telling of what happened aside from some legit names... as it's Hollywood that is no surprise. It is painted as a situation where new immigrants are pouring into the area and besides taking up land, some of them steal cattle just so their families don't starve to death. Well, the Wyoming Stock Growers Association that is in charge does not like that and they'd love that land so with the support of the government they are about to kill 125 people they deem “anarchists” but are nothing of the sort. “Anti-immigrant fears”... well, the more things change... but I won't say anything more about the current climate as talking about politics could open a whole can of worms that shouldn't be opened in a place like this.

Anyhow, county marshal Jim Averill (Kris Kristofferson) has to deal with that and a romance with a madam he's known for a long time, Ella Watson (Isabelle Huppert; the book explains that UA really did not want to cast her; fears about her speaking English, that is understandable; but, harsh comments were made about her looks and that was cruel; at least Mr. Bach later in the book apologized and said that she was a highlight and they shouldn't have fought so hard against her casting), who is in a love triangle with Nate Champion (Christopher Walken), who works for the WSGA; it's awkward as Averill and Champion are pals.

With all the time and effort put into this, it should be no surprise with all the talent involved that there is a lot of skill present. The cast is full of famous faces in Kristofferson, Huppert, Walken, John Hurt, Jeff Bridges, Sam Waterston, Geoffrey Lewis, Terry O'Quinn, Tom Noonan, Joseph Cotten for a scene and even Mickey Rourke. Behind the camera, I'll note that the direction is real nice and with the attention to detail and making it look authentic to the time period, that and all the extras you see in many exterior scenes does make it seem authentic and you get enveloped into the setting. Many different native tongues were heard, demonstrating how the United States was a melting pot where many cultures were and are present. The cinematography from the legendary Vilmos Zsigmond is great, aided by many thrilling pan shots of what I found to be beautiful Montana and Idaho scenery. I enjoyed the warm score from David Mansfield, who appears in the movie as the youthful fiddle player.

To me, the highest compliment I can give this is that despite the protracted runtime, I usually did not feel like the film lasted as long as it did. I was fine with the movie taking its time telling its various stories and presenting several different themes. I guess I got wrapped up in a story I found to be quite interesting, with a love triangle that isn't as cliché as you might expect it to be.

I have said a lot already so I'll wrap things up. I enjoyed watching the movie for sure and considering that I thought it was an easy watch, I shouldn't have put it off for so long. Even with that it wasn't worth all the trouble it caused or the damage it did to American filmmaking, but Michael Cimino paid for all those sins he did when it comes to this motion picture and a promising career was ruined. I do not know if he thought it was worth it, this one epic film causing him many years of grief and derision. It sounds like I have to do a lot of apologizing for this by saying you should ignore all the bad press and when it comes to the charges of animal cruelty, I definitely can't defend that although at least since then such things are more closely monitored to try and prevent such abuse.

I can recommend the Final Cut book and I can also recommend Heaven's Gate; the movie is not for all tastes (it is not the cheeriest of tales, for sure) but if you never gave it a shot due to its history and the loud cries of ridicule, I believe that even if you need to slot out about 4 hours of time if you want to see it all at once, it is worth a shot as you may fall in love with Cimino's magnum opus.

RoboCop

RoboCop (1987)

Runtime: 103 minutes

Directed by: Paul Verhoeven

Starring: Peter Weller, Nancy Allen, Ronny Cox, Kurtwood Smith, Miguel Ferrer

From: Orion

Somehow, I had never reviewed this anywhere. I can't explain it either, as I have seen this plenty of times in my life and it's pretty great. Nevertheless, my Letterboxd review is below:

I decided to start 2016 off right by seeing a film I have watched plenty of times in my life but the last viewing was awhile ago so it's just now that I can give this a proper review on Letterboxd. This is the unrated version, one that I remember back in the late 90's (when it was difficult to track down) was mythical; I distinctly remember a conversation with a few people at the lunch table at high school discussing how RoboCop was pretty awesome in its R-rated form and wondering how it'd be unrated if Saving Private Ryan was the way it was. Of course in hindsight the director of Ryan being who he is was a reason why it got that rating but point is, the movie was popular among people my age and I did enjoy the ultraviolence once I finally saw it in its full form.

I presume everyone is familiar with the plot of the “near-future” Detroit (sadly, Detroit 2016 is doing rather poorly) where the police force is now owned by a corporation and there's a feud over how to clear out a terrible area to build a “new area” so evil Dick Jones is not happy that the title character cyborg is popular and cleaning up the streets, so I won't spend a lot of time on that. What I appreciate is that this is more than just a silly tale where a robot deals with an A-hole corporate douche and an evil drug lord.

In hindsight, Paul Verhoeven directing this was a perfect fit, as it's a hard look at the excesses of the 1980's, with plenty of violence and dark humor and satire of the worst of the Reagan era and fear of its ramifications for the future; the corporate types are almost as villainous as the group that deals drugs and commits robbery. The occasional news broadcasts and commercials not only have some laughs but also are nice info dumps that advance the plot. Even the Benny Hill-esque character known as Bixby Snyder (“I'd buy that for a dollar!”) show what the climate is in the film's setting. Also, it does show the dangers of creating a cyborg from someone that died in a horrific way and privatizing law enforcement is probably a bad idea.

Besides being great entertainment all around that is nicely directed by Verhoeven, there are memorable characters all around, from the good guys to the bad guys, and those that are more shades of gray. Even though they are deplorable people you end up enjoying watching such people as Dick Jones, Clarence Boddicker, and their henchmen, from Emil and his gross demise and Joe's amazing laugh.

RoboCop just looks cool (so it's not a surprise that it became a franchise; I've never seen the remake but all I've heard makes me not want to see it, and I hear that it takes potshots at how the original design looked; what a fantastic way to make series fans happy), you like Alex Murphy and feel sorry for how he unwittingly became the title character, and the 80's special effects still work (ignoring an infamous few seconds of a character's death and how he had very long arms; ED-209 still looks believable) but what's below the surface is what makes this a great film and a perfect snapshot of how attitudes and beliefs were at the time.