Saturday, October 29, 2016
The Evil Dead...
is still awesome. Tomorrow I'll remark if the Evil Dead remake is any better in unrated form. That is all.
Friday, October 28, 2016
The China Syndrome
The China Syndrome (1979)
Runtime: 122 minutes
Directed by: James Bridges
Starring: Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon, Michael Douglas, Scott Bridges, James Hampton
From: Columbia
Believe it or not, this was a first time watch for me. I checked it out on Turner Classic Movies last night. Yep, I dug it. I talk all about it below:
Here is a famous movie I have known about for many years and yet it wasn't until last night on TCM that I was able to check it out. I am glad I finally gave it a shot.
In short, it's about a TV news crew who was at a nuclear power plant in California when they witness a near accident happen at the plant, and Michael Douglas is a cameraman who surreptitiously filmed the incident-even though he wasn't supposed to-so it becomes a classic 70's paranoid conspiracy thriller where the crew wants to air the story but the station refuses and you see that some want the plant back operational no matter what and no matter how dangerous it may be to do so too early. Jack Lemmon and Wilford Brimley are among those that work at the plant and they are among the ones who wish for more caution, although the characters aren't as stereotypical or one-note as I am making them out to be.
Everyone in the cast does a nice job, from average reporter Jane Fonda to loose cannon Douglas (also the producer of this film) but it was Lemmon who was a standout. He was the supervisor when the accident happened. He at first thought that things would be OK, but as he learned more he realized the possible dangers, so he tried to do the right thing, only to face off against the sort of shadowy mysterious forces we commonly got in 70's paranoid thrillers. He was definitely more than just a funny actor who appeared in some classic comedies.
The movie was well-made. A noteworthy thing is that the film does not have a soundtrack. You hear some songs naturally from characters listening to the radio or what have you (including the opening credits song Somewhere in Between by Stephen Bishop, which was perfect for the California setting as it sounded like the perfect late 70's light rock from California tune) but otherwise you hear no music. It really isn't needed anyhow; there are long stretches of silence and it's perfect for the movie as it's during very tense moments.
I won't get into how overblown this movie might or might not be; I'll just note that the Three Mile Island disaster happened when this was still playing theatrically, and there were some eerie parallels. I also won't go into my opinions on alternative energy sources and how nuclear power ranks among them. It is obvious how disaster could happen if things go catastrophically wrong, as Chernobyl later proved. If you forget all that, this is still a thrilling tale with big stakes and a chilling finale.
Runtime: 122 minutes
Directed by: James Bridges
Starring: Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon, Michael Douglas, Scott Bridges, James Hampton
From: Columbia
Believe it or not, this was a first time watch for me. I checked it out on Turner Classic Movies last night. Yep, I dug it. I talk all about it below:
Here is a famous movie I have known about for many years and yet it wasn't until last night on TCM that I was able to check it out. I am glad I finally gave it a shot.
In short, it's about a TV news crew who was at a nuclear power plant in California when they witness a near accident happen at the plant, and Michael Douglas is a cameraman who surreptitiously filmed the incident-even though he wasn't supposed to-so it becomes a classic 70's paranoid conspiracy thriller where the crew wants to air the story but the station refuses and you see that some want the plant back operational no matter what and no matter how dangerous it may be to do so too early. Jack Lemmon and Wilford Brimley are among those that work at the plant and they are among the ones who wish for more caution, although the characters aren't as stereotypical or one-note as I am making them out to be.
Everyone in the cast does a nice job, from average reporter Jane Fonda to loose cannon Douglas (also the producer of this film) but it was Lemmon who was a standout. He was the supervisor when the accident happened. He at first thought that things would be OK, but as he learned more he realized the possible dangers, so he tried to do the right thing, only to face off against the sort of shadowy mysterious forces we commonly got in 70's paranoid thrillers. He was definitely more than just a funny actor who appeared in some classic comedies.
The movie was well-made. A noteworthy thing is that the film does not have a soundtrack. You hear some songs naturally from characters listening to the radio or what have you (including the opening credits song Somewhere in Between by Stephen Bishop, which was perfect for the California setting as it sounded like the perfect late 70's light rock from California tune) but otherwise you hear no music. It really isn't needed anyhow; there are long stretches of silence and it's perfect for the movie as it's during very tense moments.
I won't get into how overblown this movie might or might not be; I'll just note that the Three Mile Island disaster happened when this was still playing theatrically, and there were some eerie parallels. I also won't go into my opinions on alternative energy sources and how nuclear power ranks among them. It is obvious how disaster could happen if things go catastrophically wrong, as Chernobyl later proved. If you forget all that, this is still a thrilling tale with big stakes and a chilling finale.
Thursday, October 27, 2016
Dracula A.D. 1972
Dracula A.D. 1972 (yep, 1972)
Runtime: 96 minutes
Directed by: Alan Gibson
Starring: Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, Stephanie Beacham, Christopher Neame, Michael Coles
From: Hammer
Whoops; I got wrapped up in other things last night so it wasn't until today that I finished this review. As is, I did not see anything last night so I won't be back until tomorrow night. Now, onto my opinions of this:
So yeah, I got wrapped up in other things last night so it wasn't until now that I completed this review. While this was not quite the movie I was expecting-or hoping for, really-I can still say that this is fine, although Peter Cushing and his strong role went a long way. If it wasn't for him, I'd probably label this a disappointment.
The movie starts off with Dracula and Van Helsing (Lawrence, to be specific) fighting on top of a moving carriage. There is no word on how the Count came back after the end of Scars of Dracula and the series timeline is also screwed up, but anyhow... both die. The rest of the movie is 1972 London. We follow a group of young adults who are what Hammer thought hippies were. Turns out, it was not too different from what Hollywood thought of hippies at the time... meaning, it's not an accurate portrayal. It's charmingly goofy.
The de facto leader is a guy who acts like he just saw A Clockwork Orange and he loves Alex so he decides to act like Alex. His name is actually Johnny... Alucard. Yes, they borrowed that from the 40's film Son of Dracula. With such a name, of course he'd love to do a Black Mass ritual to try and bring Dracula back. Yes, it is hippies who are doing this; see what I mean about “squares” not understanding that subculture? Luckily, Lawrence's grandson Lorrimer (also Cushing) is around and as he's studied this stuff for decades, he think he'll be able to stop this threat. Unfortunately, Lorrimer's granddaughter Jessica is one of the hippies...
This does not always go full hog and all the way with this idea. We should have seen the wackiness of Dracula walking around the swingin' city of early 1970's London. Could you imagine him in Trafalgar Square or Piccadilly Circus? Instead, he never leaves an old abandoned church. Most of the hippies are goofballs and for me it was hard to take whiny pissant Johnny Alucard seriously. Still, I can say that this is fine. I did laugh at those goofball hippies and both Cushing's presence and his strong role were a big help here; he added a lot of class and his acting skills made you invested in this silly story. If not for him, then I'd have to settle for laughing at such things as Jessica Van Helsing's guy pal driving an ugly green/yellow Citroen Dyane (a version of the famed 2CV) that had a loud purple/gold pattern on the sides and back for some reason... or enjoy seeing Caroline Munro in a supporting role. Lorrimer and his rock-steady solid presence even made the low violence/gore quotient palpable.
I have heard only dire things about The Satanic Rites of Dracula; it'll be a long while before I see that and plus, I've had enough of vampire movies in general for a decent amount of time.
Oh, and I know he's a veteran British cinematographer, but I couldn't help myself... I laughed when I saw that the Director of Photography for this movie was named “Dick Bush”. That is all.
Runtime: 96 minutes
Directed by: Alan Gibson
Starring: Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, Stephanie Beacham, Christopher Neame, Michael Coles
From: Hammer
Whoops; I got wrapped up in other things last night so it wasn't until today that I finished this review. As is, I did not see anything last night so I won't be back until tomorrow night. Now, onto my opinions of this:
So yeah, I got wrapped up in other things last night so it wasn't until now that I completed this review. While this was not quite the movie I was expecting-or hoping for, really-I can still say that this is fine, although Peter Cushing and his strong role went a long way. If it wasn't for him, I'd probably label this a disappointment.
The movie starts off with Dracula and Van Helsing (Lawrence, to be specific) fighting on top of a moving carriage. There is no word on how the Count came back after the end of Scars of Dracula and the series timeline is also screwed up, but anyhow... both die. The rest of the movie is 1972 London. We follow a group of young adults who are what Hammer thought hippies were. Turns out, it was not too different from what Hollywood thought of hippies at the time... meaning, it's not an accurate portrayal. It's charmingly goofy.
The de facto leader is a guy who acts like he just saw A Clockwork Orange and he loves Alex so he decides to act like Alex. His name is actually Johnny... Alucard. Yes, they borrowed that from the 40's film Son of Dracula. With such a name, of course he'd love to do a Black Mass ritual to try and bring Dracula back. Yes, it is hippies who are doing this; see what I mean about “squares” not understanding that subculture? Luckily, Lawrence's grandson Lorrimer (also Cushing) is around and as he's studied this stuff for decades, he think he'll be able to stop this threat. Unfortunately, Lorrimer's granddaughter Jessica is one of the hippies...
This does not always go full hog and all the way with this idea. We should have seen the wackiness of Dracula walking around the swingin' city of early 1970's London. Could you imagine him in Trafalgar Square or Piccadilly Circus? Instead, he never leaves an old abandoned church. Most of the hippies are goofballs and for me it was hard to take whiny pissant Johnny Alucard seriously. Still, I can say that this is fine. I did laugh at those goofball hippies and both Cushing's presence and his strong role were a big help here; he added a lot of class and his acting skills made you invested in this silly story. If not for him, then I'd have to settle for laughing at such things as Jessica Van Helsing's guy pal driving an ugly green/yellow Citroen Dyane (a version of the famed 2CV) that had a loud purple/gold pattern on the sides and back for some reason... or enjoy seeing Caroline Munro in a supporting role. Lorrimer and his rock-steady solid presence even made the low violence/gore quotient palpable.
I have heard only dire things about The Satanic Rites of Dracula; it'll be a long while before I see that and plus, I've had enough of vampire movies in general for a decent amount of time.
Oh, and I know he's a veteran British cinematographer, but I couldn't help myself... I laughed when I saw that the Director of Photography for this movie was named “Dick Bush”. That is all.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Scars Of Dracula
Scars of Dracula (1970)
Runtime: 96 minutes
Directed by: Roy Ward Baker
Starring: Christopher Lee, Dennis Waterman, Jenny Hanley, Christopher Matthews, Patrick Troughton
From: Hammer
This isn't a great movie by any means but at least it has its merits, both legitimate and hilarious. I explain it all below:
This is the last movie I watched in TCM's marathon of Christopher Lee Dracula movies they had on Monday night; I have Dracula A.D. 1972 on DVD so I was able to watch that last night and that review is coming up tonight.
As for this film, it starts off in a goofy way: literally the opening scene is from the location where Taste the Blood of Dracula ends; a fake-looking bat flies in and it must have rabies or something, as blood spurts out of its mouth and that is how the monarch of the dark returns. From what I understand, American distribution of Hammer movies drying up really did a number on their budgets. Still, they tried their best and as others have said, if a movie has limitations put on it, it spurs creativity as they try to work around it. Those bats did not look great and yet we get to see them often. I guess at least they were responsible for some pretty bloody moments.
Anywho, this ends up being about a young couple and they look for the guy's brother, who is missing in the general area of Dracula's Castle. That brother ends up getting into a lot of trouble when it comes to hanging out (and other things) w/ the opposite sex. Excuse my language here, but this brother (Paul; yeah, this series needed a better variety when it came to names) ends up trying to bed one of Dracula's brides; Drac shows up and Paul immediately tries to choke The Count... presumably for cockblocking him! To be honest here, Hammer is known for having attractive women in their horror films and that can be said for all the Dracula movies I have seen. There were some pretty girls, from that bride to-especially-the lead girl, played by Jenny Hanley.
At this point late last night I was feeling fatigue from watching all these films during the span of one night. I suddenly understood why a few times, Lee proclaimed that he wouldn't do this role anymore, only to be convinced to do so, probably with a nice paycheck. At least in this movie, Dracula had more to do than typical for the series. He shows off an S&M side and a highlight was the character of Klove, who was basically Renfield in the novel but with a different name. He was a server and his giant eyebrows and unibrow was not the only reason he was memorable.
As a whole it is not spectacular but at least I was entertained, I enjoyed the strong Gothic atmosphere and it does have a handful of good moments and segments that made me laugh, if nothing else.
Runtime: 96 minutes
Directed by: Roy Ward Baker
Starring: Christopher Lee, Dennis Waterman, Jenny Hanley, Christopher Matthews, Patrick Troughton
From: Hammer
This isn't a great movie by any means but at least it has its merits, both legitimate and hilarious. I explain it all below:
This is the last movie I watched in TCM's marathon of Christopher Lee Dracula movies they had on Monday night; I have Dracula A.D. 1972 on DVD so I was able to watch that last night and that review is coming up tonight.
As for this film, it starts off in a goofy way: literally the opening scene is from the location where Taste the Blood of Dracula ends; a fake-looking bat flies in and it must have rabies or something, as blood spurts out of its mouth and that is how the monarch of the dark returns. From what I understand, American distribution of Hammer movies drying up really did a number on their budgets. Still, they tried their best and as others have said, if a movie has limitations put on it, it spurs creativity as they try to work around it. Those bats did not look great and yet we get to see them often. I guess at least they were responsible for some pretty bloody moments.
Anywho, this ends up being about a young couple and they look for the guy's brother, who is missing in the general area of Dracula's Castle. That brother ends up getting into a lot of trouble when it comes to hanging out (and other things) w/ the opposite sex. Excuse my language here, but this brother (Paul; yeah, this series needed a better variety when it came to names) ends up trying to bed one of Dracula's brides; Drac shows up and Paul immediately tries to choke The Count... presumably for cockblocking him! To be honest here, Hammer is known for having attractive women in their horror films and that can be said for all the Dracula movies I have seen. There were some pretty girls, from that bride to-especially-the lead girl, played by Jenny Hanley.
At this point late last night I was feeling fatigue from watching all these films during the span of one night. I suddenly understood why a few times, Lee proclaimed that he wouldn't do this role anymore, only to be convinced to do so, probably with a nice paycheck. At least in this movie, Dracula had more to do than typical for the series. He shows off an S&M side and a highlight was the character of Klove, who was basically Renfield in the novel but with a different name. He was a server and his giant eyebrows and unibrow was not the only reason he was memorable.
As a whole it is not spectacular but at least I was entertained, I enjoyed the strong Gothic atmosphere and it does have a handful of good moments and segments that made me laugh, if nothing else.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Taste The Blood Of Dracula
Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970)
Runtime: 91 minutes
Directed by: Peter Sasdy
Starring: Christopher Lee, Geoffrey Keen, Gwen Watford, Linda Hayden, Peter Sallis
From: Hammer
Yep, I watched this last night. It is wackily entertaining. I explain why below:
I continued watching the Christopher Lee as Dracula movies that TCM showed last night. This was one I hadn't seen but part of the plot description did make me chuckle so I was hoping I would dig this. I did know beforehand that Lee had to be strongly encouraged to make this movie and thus he only appears in a limited role.
There is a prologue where we see the aftermath of Dracula Has Risen from the Grave. Then, onto the crux of the story. We follow a family which is the parents and a teenaged daughter. Dad does not want daughter to be a “harlot” and acts downright Puritanical. Yet, he and his pals enjoy hanging out with prostitutes. Personally, I got a big laugh out of seeing the guy (Geoffrey Keen) I best know for being the Minister of Defence in a half dozen James Bond movies frolicing with tramps and watching a green/blue haired woman dancing around with a python on her shoulders.
While out and about, he and his pals meet a mysterious and ghoulish man known as Courtley. He decides to fool around with Dracula's remains and brings along this new friends because they're all dumbasses, and you can figure out what happens next. It should be no surprise that Keen's daughter Alice and her boyfriend Paul both become involved in this kerfuffle. Note that Keen and his friends are all upper class people and not common peasants.
It has to be said that I am not quite sure how TCM rated this at TV-PG. The movie is rated R by the MPAA and for good reason; there are topless women, along with all the violence and blood. Then again, I am not sure how Dracula Has Risen from the Grave was rated G by the MPAA, considering there was a saucy redhead along with all the violence and blood, and someone was impaled in the climax.
Anyhow, this movie is ridiculous and to me that's part of the charm. Dracula getting revenge on people is nothing new, but the reason why he's pissed at those people is certainly unique: upper class chaps fooling around with the occult. He hypnotizes Alice and she does his bidding; it's goofy yet pretty entertaining. While I am disappointed that one of the three bourgeois men was supposed to be VINCENT PRICE (but that was changed due to the lack of money), I was entertained enough to where Lee's small role wasn't too much of a detriment to me.
If only the ending would not have been so weird and flaccid. Still, by my tastes this was fine.
Runtime: 91 minutes
Directed by: Peter Sasdy
Starring: Christopher Lee, Geoffrey Keen, Gwen Watford, Linda Hayden, Peter Sallis
From: Hammer
Yep, I watched this last night. It is wackily entertaining. I explain why below:
I continued watching the Christopher Lee as Dracula movies that TCM showed last night. This was one I hadn't seen but part of the plot description did make me chuckle so I was hoping I would dig this. I did know beforehand that Lee had to be strongly encouraged to make this movie and thus he only appears in a limited role.
There is a prologue where we see the aftermath of Dracula Has Risen from the Grave. Then, onto the crux of the story. We follow a family which is the parents and a teenaged daughter. Dad does not want daughter to be a “harlot” and acts downright Puritanical. Yet, he and his pals enjoy hanging out with prostitutes. Personally, I got a big laugh out of seeing the guy (Geoffrey Keen) I best know for being the Minister of Defence in a half dozen James Bond movies frolicing with tramps and watching a green/blue haired woman dancing around with a python on her shoulders.
While out and about, he and his pals meet a mysterious and ghoulish man known as Courtley. He decides to fool around with Dracula's remains and brings along this new friends because they're all dumbasses, and you can figure out what happens next. It should be no surprise that Keen's daughter Alice and her boyfriend Paul both become involved in this kerfuffle. Note that Keen and his friends are all upper class people and not common peasants.
It has to be said that I am not quite sure how TCM rated this at TV-PG. The movie is rated R by the MPAA and for good reason; there are topless women, along with all the violence and blood. Then again, I am not sure how Dracula Has Risen from the Grave was rated G by the MPAA, considering there was a saucy redhead along with all the violence and blood, and someone was impaled in the climax.
Anyhow, this movie is ridiculous and to me that's part of the charm. Dracula getting revenge on people is nothing new, but the reason why he's pissed at those people is certainly unique: upper class chaps fooling around with the occult. He hypnotizes Alice and she does his bidding; it's goofy yet pretty entertaining. While I am disappointed that one of the three bourgeois men was supposed to be VINCENT PRICE (but that was changed due to the lack of money), I was entertained enough to where Lee's small role wasn't too much of a detriment to me.
If only the ending would not have been so weird and flaccid. Still, by my tastes this was fine.
Dracula: Prince Of Darkness
Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966)
Runtime: 90 minutes
Directed by: Terence Fisher
Starring: Christopher Lee, Barbara Shelley, Andrew Keir, Francis Matthews, Suzan Farmer
From: Hammer
This is one of three movies I watched on TCM last night. The second I will post a review of tonight and the third one will be tomorrow afternoon. The review of this average movie is below:
Last night via TCM I finally saw this film, which is usually hard to track down. I was hoping it'd be better than just average, but beggars can't be choosers. It brings back Dracula to the halls of Hammer, and it's done so in not as preposterous a way as I had feared; incidentally, one day I should watch the Peter Cushing Brides of Dracula, as I've heard good things about it.
The plot here revolves around two couples (both on the annoying side) who are on vacation in Eastern Europe and they happen to land in what is now Castle Dracula, which of course is different from the former Castle Dracula. The Count has a master and he is alright, but not the most interesting character. That is a problem with this movie, there aren't enough interesting characters. There's no cad like Paul from Dracula Has Risen from the Grave, let alone Van Helsing from Horror of Dracula; this movie was dying for someone awesome like Peter Cushing who could play an awesome character... technically he is in this movie, but only in archival footage at the beginning, where we see clips from Horror of Dracula. I mean, it can't just be Lee being Lee, i.e. being a badass as a forbidding and chilling vampire.
Still, this is at least watchable. As typical, mood and atmosphere are nailed. It is a nice setting that is decently brought to life. Characters like Father Sandor or Ludwig are at least fine and it is cool part of the film takes place at a monastery. In addition, I see why Barbara Shelley was known as a scream queen of the time and the score from James Bernard was pretty cool. The direction from Terence Fisher was nice.
Unfortunately, despite some cool moments, this does not rise above average for me. I also wonder what the exact reason was for Lee not having any dialogue at all; it was either that the script sucked and he hated his lines (Lee's take) or that he was never given any dialogue to begin with (the scriptwriter's take). Either way, at least Lee was still unforgettable in the role when the only noise he made was hissing a few times. As he does not have a huge role, however, I can only say this is an average picture.
Runtime: 90 minutes
Directed by: Terence Fisher
Starring: Christopher Lee, Barbara Shelley, Andrew Keir, Francis Matthews, Suzan Farmer
From: Hammer
This is one of three movies I watched on TCM last night. The second I will post a review of tonight and the third one will be tomorrow afternoon. The review of this average movie is below:
Last night via TCM I finally saw this film, which is usually hard to track down. I was hoping it'd be better than just average, but beggars can't be choosers. It brings back Dracula to the halls of Hammer, and it's done so in not as preposterous a way as I had feared; incidentally, one day I should watch the Peter Cushing Brides of Dracula, as I've heard good things about it.
The plot here revolves around two couples (both on the annoying side) who are on vacation in Eastern Europe and they happen to land in what is now Castle Dracula, which of course is different from the former Castle Dracula. The Count has a master and he is alright, but not the most interesting character. That is a problem with this movie, there aren't enough interesting characters. There's no cad like Paul from Dracula Has Risen from the Grave, let alone Van Helsing from Horror of Dracula; this movie was dying for someone awesome like Peter Cushing who could play an awesome character... technically he is in this movie, but only in archival footage at the beginning, where we see clips from Horror of Dracula. I mean, it can't just be Lee being Lee, i.e. being a badass as a forbidding and chilling vampire.
Still, this is at least watchable. As typical, mood and atmosphere are nailed. It is a nice setting that is decently brought to life. Characters like Father Sandor or Ludwig are at least fine and it is cool part of the film takes place at a monastery. In addition, I see why Barbara Shelley was known as a scream queen of the time and the score from James Bernard was pretty cool. The direction from Terence Fisher was nice.
Unfortunately, despite some cool moments, this does not rise above average for me. I also wonder what the exact reason was for Lee not having any dialogue at all; it was either that the script sucked and he hated his lines (Lee's take) or that he was never given any dialogue to begin with (the scriptwriter's take). Either way, at least Lee was still unforgettable in the role when the only noise he made was hissing a few times. As he does not have a huge role, however, I can only say this is an average picture.
Monday, October 24, 2016
It Happened One Night
It Happened One Night (1934)
Runtime: 105 minutes
Directed by: Frank Capra
Starring: Clark Gable, Claudette Colbert, Walter Connolly, Roscoe Karnes, Jameson Thomas
From: Columbia
It was about time I saw this movie again and gave it a review here; it is a great film. I talk all about it below:
This is a classic comedy I have seen before, albeit that viewing was years ago, so it was time for a revisit. Comedy is definitely subjective but I much rather experience the humor offered by these movies of old rather than all the vulgarity and filth that seems to permeate throughout comedy in these modern times.
The plot may have been already cliché in 1934: a rich girl who is tired of daddy's way overbearing presence escapes his grasp so she can elope with a hotshot pilot, only to meet up with a straight-shootin' newspaper reporter while on the journey from Miami to New York City, and at first they don't get along, but eventually... like I said, not inventing the wheel. Yet, when it's so gosh darn entertaining...
It's a fun story where-among other things-you get to see what it was like to ride on the bus & stay in random hotels in the middle of nowhere in the 1930's. Yet it is the endless charm of both Gable and Colbert that go a long way to making this so memorable. It's standard stuff where he teacher her not to be such a spoiled brat and she teaches him not to be such a sardonic wiseass; like I said, it's their charm that helps. Besides the main characters being so memorable and amusing, there's also various supporting characters; my favorite was the incredibly annoying Shapeley; the way that he was dealt with: incredibly uproarious. As this was right before the Hays Code took place, we got some moments that would soon go away for many years... the most memorable being the likely still effective way that Colbert gets a male driver to stop while hitchhiking.
One of the rare movies to win The Big Five Oscars, I will likely always be captivated by this; that is even with the basic plot and an odd coda where we don't actually see the two leads. For my tastes it will always be effective as a humorous picture with a heart of gold.
Runtime: 105 minutes
Directed by: Frank Capra
Starring: Clark Gable, Claudette Colbert, Walter Connolly, Roscoe Karnes, Jameson Thomas
From: Columbia
It was about time I saw this movie again and gave it a review here; it is a great film. I talk all about it below:
This is a classic comedy I have seen before, albeit that viewing was years ago, so it was time for a revisit. Comedy is definitely subjective but I much rather experience the humor offered by these movies of old rather than all the vulgarity and filth that seems to permeate throughout comedy in these modern times.
The plot may have been already cliché in 1934: a rich girl who is tired of daddy's way overbearing presence escapes his grasp so she can elope with a hotshot pilot, only to meet up with a straight-shootin' newspaper reporter while on the journey from Miami to New York City, and at first they don't get along, but eventually... like I said, not inventing the wheel. Yet, when it's so gosh darn entertaining...
It's a fun story where-among other things-you get to see what it was like to ride on the bus & stay in random hotels in the middle of nowhere in the 1930's. Yet it is the endless charm of both Gable and Colbert that go a long way to making this so memorable. It's standard stuff where he teacher her not to be such a spoiled brat and she teaches him not to be such a sardonic wiseass; like I said, it's their charm that helps. Besides the main characters being so memorable and amusing, there's also various supporting characters; my favorite was the incredibly annoying Shapeley; the way that he was dealt with: incredibly uproarious. As this was right before the Hays Code took place, we got some moments that would soon go away for many years... the most memorable being the likely still effective way that Colbert gets a male driver to stop while hitchhiking.
One of the rare movies to win The Big Five Oscars, I will likely always be captivated by this; that is even with the basic plot and an odd coda where we don't actually see the two leads. For my tastes it will always be effective as a humorous picture with a heart of gold.
Saturday, October 22, 2016
All Quiet On The Western Front
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
Runtime: 133 minutes
Directed by: Lewis Milestone
Starring: Lew Ayres, Louis Wolheim, Ben Alexander, Scott Kolk, John Wray
From: Universal
This is a first time watch for me and now I regret not seeing this much sooner, as it's an excellent motion picture. I explain why below:
I decided I needed a change of pace so I went with a classic that somehow I had never seen before. Considering my rating, I now wish I would have given this a spin much sooner. I've never read the novel by Erich Maria Remarque either, but it made for a hell of a movie.
The plot isn't too complicated: we follow a group of young German soldiers from the time they decide to enlist after hearing a rousing and idealistic speech to the dying days of World War I. As I am sure most are aware, this is still famous as an anti-war piece and while this does not demonize war, it certainly presents the rigors and difficulty of combat. Those soldiers go in all happy and inspired to serve the Fatherland; they quickly learn right from boot camp how arduous things will be; they have to see friends die, deal with brutal trench warfare, hear bombs and gunshots go off constantly when they try to sleep in a bunker, try to get healthy in an overwhelmed hospital, and even when they are on leave, people at home have no idea as to what the war is really like. It's a harsh uncompromising look at life in combat, yet you see that you can make new friends with your fellow soldiers. It's bound to happen when you are bivouaced in perilous situations for weeks and months at a time.
The movie is on the bleak side and because this is Pre-Code there are some rather harsh moments you see (the most unforgettable involves a pair of severed hands), yet I always loved watching this and was enwrapped throughout. The young men are all interesting but it's the older soldiers you see who are unforgettable... the wacky Tjaden, the gruff Westhus and especially the mentor figure Katczinsky; Kat is pretty awesome. In addition, the movie is directed quite well by director Lewis Milestone. There's plenty of action and all of it seen clearly and the camera pans around quite a bit as you see dozens of people killed; the action scenes are not dated or out of place in modern times. It was very nice for a 1930 picture, that is for sure.
This won the Academy Award for Best Picture that year; while I haven't seen the other films nominated (I hadn't even heard of some of them), I will guess that this was the right film to win. Even 86 years later its message is presented perfectly. To me this a must-see.
Runtime: 133 minutes
Directed by: Lewis Milestone
Starring: Lew Ayres, Louis Wolheim, Ben Alexander, Scott Kolk, John Wray
From: Universal
This is a first time watch for me and now I regret not seeing this much sooner, as it's an excellent motion picture. I explain why below:
I decided I needed a change of pace so I went with a classic that somehow I had never seen before. Considering my rating, I now wish I would have given this a spin much sooner. I've never read the novel by Erich Maria Remarque either, but it made for a hell of a movie.
The plot isn't too complicated: we follow a group of young German soldiers from the time they decide to enlist after hearing a rousing and idealistic speech to the dying days of World War I. As I am sure most are aware, this is still famous as an anti-war piece and while this does not demonize war, it certainly presents the rigors and difficulty of combat. Those soldiers go in all happy and inspired to serve the Fatherland; they quickly learn right from boot camp how arduous things will be; they have to see friends die, deal with brutal trench warfare, hear bombs and gunshots go off constantly when they try to sleep in a bunker, try to get healthy in an overwhelmed hospital, and even when they are on leave, people at home have no idea as to what the war is really like. It's a harsh uncompromising look at life in combat, yet you see that you can make new friends with your fellow soldiers. It's bound to happen when you are bivouaced in perilous situations for weeks and months at a time.
The movie is on the bleak side and because this is Pre-Code there are some rather harsh moments you see (the most unforgettable involves a pair of severed hands), yet I always loved watching this and was enwrapped throughout. The young men are all interesting but it's the older soldiers you see who are unforgettable... the wacky Tjaden, the gruff Westhus and especially the mentor figure Katczinsky; Kat is pretty awesome. In addition, the movie is directed quite well by director Lewis Milestone. There's plenty of action and all of it seen clearly and the camera pans around quite a bit as you see dozens of people killed; the action scenes are not dated or out of place in modern times. It was very nice for a 1930 picture, that is for sure.
This won the Academy Award for Best Picture that year; while I haven't seen the other films nominated (I hadn't even heard of some of them), I will guess that this was the right film to win. Even 86 years later its message is presented perfectly. To me this a must-see.
Friday, October 21, 2016
An Update
The past two nights I have rewatched movies. The first one was Exorcist II: The Heretic; yes, that is still hilariously bad. The other one was Dracula Rises from the Grave, which is a good Hammer horror. For the next few days it should be reviews that I have never posted here before.
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
The Exorcist
The Exorcist (1973)
Runtime: I saw the Extended Director's Cut, which is 132 minutes long
Directed by: William Friedkin
Starring: Ellen Burstyn, Jason Miller, Linda Blair, Lee J. Cobb, Max Von Sydow
From: Warner Bros.
I am glad I finally saw this again; it's been way too long. It is as great as most people say it is. I talk all about it below:
NOTE: I am reviewing the Extended Director's Cut that is found on the movie's Blu-ray. I was lucky enough to see this movie on the big screen last night and that was the version I saw.
This is a film I have watched a few times before in my life and yet the last viewing was years ago. I can't quite explain why, because I always thought the movie was deserving of the excellent praise it's gotten over the years, as it is excellent. After watching it theatrically, my opinion hasn't changed. I can't say for certainty if this is the scariest film of all time; I can say it's one of the best horror films of all time.
I can now fully appreciate how great the movie is. There definitely have been plenty of possession movies over the years; no matter your religious affiliation or even if you believe in God or not, the idea of a foreign entity possessing you is downright terrifying. Yet, a lot of those films are “meh” at best and only a few are worthwhile. Here, we get to know the main characters and it does help as you feel awful for actress mom Chris when her daughter Regan has the worst possible thing happen to her and mom is distraught she can't fix this problem herself. Besides that main story, there's other compelling plotlines, such as a priest suffering a crises of faith, an older priest confronting a demonic old enemy, and a detective investigating a homicide.
There are quality performances all around, and some of them are quite excellent. Ellen Burstyn as the poor mom, Linda Blair in an incredibly difficult role, and Jason Miller as Father Damien Karras. You feel awful when you see Regan deteriorate and become worse and worse, and you hope Father Karras will be able to deal with the death of his elderly mother and help rid the demon Pazuzu from Regan's body. The movie takes its time telling its story and yet it's never boring. While I certainly don't agree with some of the methods that William Friedkin did to get the performances he wanted (unwittingly injuring both Burstyn and Blair... never a good thing), it was a greatly directed movie.
As an aside, I wonder which real life director or directors combined into a composite was the character of European director Burke Dennings, a haughty person who turned into a loudmouthed fool once drunk; he had to have been based off of at least one actual European director.
Anyhow, this spawned sequels of varying quality and now a TV show that just made its debut-and apparently isn't a pile of crap like I expected it to be-and yet it's pretty much impossible to match the original, a masterpiece.
Runtime: I saw the Extended Director's Cut, which is 132 minutes long
Directed by: William Friedkin
Starring: Ellen Burstyn, Jason Miller, Linda Blair, Lee J. Cobb, Max Von Sydow
From: Warner Bros.
I am glad I finally saw this again; it's been way too long. It is as great as most people say it is. I talk all about it below:
NOTE: I am reviewing the Extended Director's Cut that is found on the movie's Blu-ray. I was lucky enough to see this movie on the big screen last night and that was the version I saw.
This is a film I have watched a few times before in my life and yet the last viewing was years ago. I can't quite explain why, because I always thought the movie was deserving of the excellent praise it's gotten over the years, as it is excellent. After watching it theatrically, my opinion hasn't changed. I can't say for certainty if this is the scariest film of all time; I can say it's one of the best horror films of all time.
I can now fully appreciate how great the movie is. There definitely have been plenty of possession movies over the years; no matter your religious affiliation or even if you believe in God or not, the idea of a foreign entity possessing you is downright terrifying. Yet, a lot of those films are “meh” at best and only a few are worthwhile. Here, we get to know the main characters and it does help as you feel awful for actress mom Chris when her daughter Regan has the worst possible thing happen to her and mom is distraught she can't fix this problem herself. Besides that main story, there's other compelling plotlines, such as a priest suffering a crises of faith, an older priest confronting a demonic old enemy, and a detective investigating a homicide.
There are quality performances all around, and some of them are quite excellent. Ellen Burstyn as the poor mom, Linda Blair in an incredibly difficult role, and Jason Miller as Father Damien Karras. You feel awful when you see Regan deteriorate and become worse and worse, and you hope Father Karras will be able to deal with the death of his elderly mother and help rid the demon Pazuzu from Regan's body. The movie takes its time telling its story and yet it's never boring. While I certainly don't agree with some of the methods that William Friedkin did to get the performances he wanted (unwittingly injuring both Burstyn and Blair... never a good thing), it was a greatly directed movie.
As an aside, I wonder which real life director or directors combined into a composite was the character of European director Burke Dennings, a haughty person who turned into a loudmouthed fool once drunk; he had to have been based off of at least one actual European director.
Anyhow, this spawned sequels of varying quality and now a TV show that just made its debut-and apparently isn't a pile of crap like I expected it to be-and yet it's pretty much impossible to match the original, a masterpiece.
The Invitation
The Invitation (2015)
Runtime: 100 minutes
Directed by: Karyn Kusama
Starring: Logan Marshall-Green, Tammy Blanchard, Michiel Huisman, Emayatza Corinealdi, Lindsay Burdge
From: Drafthouse Films
Here is a movie I saw that has gotten quite a bit of hype since it came out last year. As happens sometimes with modern films, I did not understand the hype and in fact did not even think the movie was good. I tried to explain why on Letterboxd, which I copied and pasted below:
I'll be honest here, I am seeing this movie now as I have been putting off posting a Top 10 of 2015 list for WAY too long. I will watch a few candidates then no matter what I'll post the list soon. As this is on Netflix Instant, it was an easy way to see something that a lot of people seem to like.
Although, one reason I still haven't completed a Top 10 list is that I saw a few 2015 films (including yes, Fury Road) which most people loved but left me cold. Sadly, this was another one of those movies. Thankfully I went into this pretty cold, not knowing much besides the general plot description of a guy and his girlfriend getting an invite to a party at his ex-wife's house, then things go wrong... the general idea of the plot was not what I had a problem with; it was the execution... and also, me wanting to execute most of the party-goers! I went in cold, and the movie just left me cold instead of enthralled, excited, or any kind of positive emotion, really.
I don't know about y'all, but I couldn't stand most of the people in the movie. They were just tremendously off-putting and I did not want to spend more than an hour and a half with them, even if that may have been the movie's intention. While the movie nailed the awkward aspect, otherwise this did not do much to excite me. The way the story plays out and is fleshed out, just ridiculous; and you have to go on this languid journey with a bunch of weirdo D-bags that act so inconsistent. I was hoping for more than just strange A-holes who went out of their way to be tools and make you feel uneasy, but I didn't get it.
Unfortunately, this movie also pretty much lulled me to sleep at times. There were some decent moments (after a bad opening act), the adding of some diversity was nice and audience surrogate Will (the guy who was invited to the party) was alright; otherwise, though, I was disappointed with this and how most seem to love it and I was just left feeling “meh” about the whole experience. It was not a journey I enjoyed taking, that is for sure. To use the proper analogy, it was like being at a party filled with vapid cretins-you know, like the ones featured in this film-and you want to leave but whether because of a friend wanting to stay or what have you, you are stuck there... so you end up in a corner finishing a beer, feeling like you are watching grass grow as you'd rather be anywhere else than there.
Runtime: 100 minutes
Directed by: Karyn Kusama
Starring: Logan Marshall-Green, Tammy Blanchard, Michiel Huisman, Emayatza Corinealdi, Lindsay Burdge
From: Drafthouse Films
Here is a movie I saw that has gotten quite a bit of hype since it came out last year. As happens sometimes with modern films, I did not understand the hype and in fact did not even think the movie was good. I tried to explain why on Letterboxd, which I copied and pasted below:
I'll be honest here, I am seeing this movie now as I have been putting off posting a Top 10 of 2015 list for WAY too long. I will watch a few candidates then no matter what I'll post the list soon. As this is on Netflix Instant, it was an easy way to see something that a lot of people seem to like.
Although, one reason I still haven't completed a Top 10 list is that I saw a few 2015 films (including yes, Fury Road) which most people loved but left me cold. Sadly, this was another one of those movies. Thankfully I went into this pretty cold, not knowing much besides the general plot description of a guy and his girlfriend getting an invite to a party at his ex-wife's house, then things go wrong... the general idea of the plot was not what I had a problem with; it was the execution... and also, me wanting to execute most of the party-goers! I went in cold, and the movie just left me cold instead of enthralled, excited, or any kind of positive emotion, really.
I don't know about y'all, but I couldn't stand most of the people in the movie. They were just tremendously off-putting and I did not want to spend more than an hour and a half with them, even if that may have been the movie's intention. While the movie nailed the awkward aspect, otherwise this did not do much to excite me. The way the story plays out and is fleshed out, just ridiculous; and you have to go on this languid journey with a bunch of weirdo D-bags that act so inconsistent. I was hoping for more than just strange A-holes who went out of their way to be tools and make you feel uneasy, but I didn't get it.
Unfortunately, this movie also pretty much lulled me to sleep at times. There were some decent moments (after a bad opening act), the adding of some diversity was nice and audience surrogate Will (the guy who was invited to the party) was alright; otherwise, though, I was disappointed with this and how most seem to love it and I was just left feeling “meh” about the whole experience. It was not a journey I enjoyed taking, that is for sure. To use the proper analogy, it was like being at a party filled with vapid cretins-you know, like the ones featured in this film-and you want to leave but whether because of a friend wanting to stay or what have you, you are stuck there... so you end up in a corner finishing a beer, feeling like you are watching grass grow as you'd rather be anywhere else than there.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Dolemite
Dolemite (1975)
Runtime: 90 minutes
Directed by: D'Urville Martin
Starring: Rudy Ray Moore, D'Urville Martin, Jerry Jones, Lady Reed, All of Dolemite's Girls
From: Dimension Pictures
Yep, I saw this cult classic late Saturday night. I have seen it a few times before, and while I always laugh at how inept it is and how often you see the boom mic, it's still quite charming, at least to me... as long as you ignore the obvious misogyny, that is. I give my thoughts below:
Runtime: 90 minutes
Directed by: D'Urville Martin
Starring: Rudy Ray Moore, D'Urville Martin, Jerry Jones, Lady Reed, All of Dolemite's Girls
From: Dimension Pictures
Yep, I saw this cult classic late Saturday night. I have seen it a few times before, and while I always laugh at how inept it is and how often you see the boom mic, it's still quite charming, at least to me... as long as you ignore the obvious misogyny, that is. I give my thoughts below:
It was about time I reviewed this cult classic for Letterboxd. I had seen it a few times in my life but the last viewing was a long while ago. Thus, when TCM Underground showed it last night, I had to check it out.
Now, I understand why there are those that hate this. If you can't stand Rudy Ray Moore and his persona (or his not so great acting ability) then this will be a slog for you. This definitely is real low budget and in terms of filmmaking, it's terrible. The boom mic is visible an incredible number of times. The acting and performances... sometimes quite bad, although not as bad as the “martial arts” that Dolemite displays. Blows miss by a country mile yet they don't try to mask it with camera placement; oh no, it's as clear as day. No wonder that one of the biggest inspirations for Black Dynamite was this, including the intentional mistakes that Dynamite made.
All that said, this is so hilarious at the same time. The vibe, the funky soundtrack, the amazing 70's clothing, and most of all the incredible raps from Dolemite... tremendous. While the story certainly meanders (some time is spent seeing Moore doing his stand-up act), it's all entertaining to me. After all, how can you hate a movie with a character named HAMBURGER PIMP?
It's a simple tale where Dolemite tries to get revenge on the man who set him up and sent him to jail (Willie Green) and yet I do dig this movie for what it is. Moore did this with his own money after he couldn't get a movie with a traditional studio, thus this grungy low-budget effort which is charmingly inept. This is one of those films that is tough to rate as several ratings could apply. I guess I'll give it 3 stars and move on with my day.
Saturday, October 15, 2016
The Innocents
The Innocents (1961)
Runtime: 100 minutes
Directed by: Jack Clayton
Starring: Deborah Kerr, Peter Wyngarde, Megs Jenkins, Martin Stephens, Pamela Franklin
From: 20th Century Fox
This is a movie I watched tonight as I heard it was great. Well, this horror film is indeed pretty great. I explain why I feel this way below:
While this is a film I have heard about from various people on Letterboxd throughout my time here (I even had it in my Watchlist) my inspiration for seeing this now was a recent messageboard discussion and me seeing last night that this would be playing tonight on Turner Classic Movies.
This British Gothic tale stars Deborah Kerr and she becomes a governess for two kids who have a rich uncle but he's absentee; the kids, Kerr, and some housekeepers live in a classic (and appropriately spine-tingling) Victorian house, where plenty of weird things happen and the children just act flat-out odd on occasion. It'd be criminal to reveal much more but I will say that there is question of Kerr's sanity.
It has to be said that Kerr delivers a marvelous performance but the entire cast does a nice job. Those two kids... “child actor” is a thing that can easily go wrong. They sometimes act poorly or just not right for the role. Martin Stephens and Pamela Franklin are tremendous as Miles and Flora, respectively. They are cute kids but they nail the aspect of being off-kilter at times, always creepy and precocious but the precociousness was right for the role and it wasn't eye-rolling.
Then, there's how this was shot. I won't list all the technical things that were done or all the various tricks that were used by cinematographer Freddie Frances, but deep focus is used often and it was definitely appropriate for this story. In addition, the natural lighting and all the contrasts between light and darkness, it was aces. It is simply seeped in the rich and chilling Gothic tradition.
Then, there's the story... it definitely gives you a spooky feeling throughout as you try to figure out what's going on among all the weird things that happen. I discovered that The Conjuring wasn't the first movie to have either a very chilling hide and seek scene or an eerie moment involving a music box. Truman Capote did a swell job of adapting the story A Turn of the Screw and including some psychosexual elements and obvious allusions to “the dirty deed”.
Things are left ambiguous so you are left to figure out just what exactly happened, and as the screw tightens, the story becomes more suffocating and no matter how you interpret what really took place, it is a great horror picture I recommend to anyone who loves the genre.
Runtime: 100 minutes
Directed by: Jack Clayton
Starring: Deborah Kerr, Peter Wyngarde, Megs Jenkins, Martin Stephens, Pamela Franklin
From: 20th Century Fox
This is a movie I watched tonight as I heard it was great. Well, this horror film is indeed pretty great. I explain why I feel this way below:
While this is a film I have heard about from various people on Letterboxd throughout my time here (I even had it in my Watchlist) my inspiration for seeing this now was a recent messageboard discussion and me seeing last night that this would be playing tonight on Turner Classic Movies.
This British Gothic tale stars Deborah Kerr and she becomes a governess for two kids who have a rich uncle but he's absentee; the kids, Kerr, and some housekeepers live in a classic (and appropriately spine-tingling) Victorian house, where plenty of weird things happen and the children just act flat-out odd on occasion. It'd be criminal to reveal much more but I will say that there is question of Kerr's sanity.
It has to be said that Kerr delivers a marvelous performance but the entire cast does a nice job. Those two kids... “child actor” is a thing that can easily go wrong. They sometimes act poorly or just not right for the role. Martin Stephens and Pamela Franklin are tremendous as Miles and Flora, respectively. They are cute kids but they nail the aspect of being off-kilter at times, always creepy and precocious but the precociousness was right for the role and it wasn't eye-rolling.
Then, there's how this was shot. I won't list all the technical things that were done or all the various tricks that were used by cinematographer Freddie Frances, but deep focus is used often and it was definitely appropriate for this story. In addition, the natural lighting and all the contrasts between light and darkness, it was aces. It is simply seeped in the rich and chilling Gothic tradition.
Then, there's the story... it definitely gives you a spooky feeling throughout as you try to figure out what's going on among all the weird things that happen. I discovered that The Conjuring wasn't the first movie to have either a very chilling hide and seek scene or an eerie moment involving a music box. Truman Capote did a swell job of adapting the story A Turn of the Screw and including some psychosexual elements and obvious allusions to “the dirty deed”.
Things are left ambiguous so you are left to figure out just what exactly happened, and as the screw tightens, the story becomes more suffocating and no matter how you interpret what really took place, it is a great horror picture I recommend to anyone who loves the genre.
Friday, October 14, 2016
Raw Deal (Not The Arnold Movie)
Raw Deal (1948)
Runtime: 79 minutes
Directed by: Anthony Mann
Starring: Dennis O'Keefe, Claire Trevor, Marsha Hunt, Raymond Burr, John Ireland
From: Eagle-Lion Films
This is a short review for a film noir that actually is worth seeing, despite my brevity. That review (taken from Letterboxd, as always) is below:
No, this isn't the 1986 movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger; rather, it's the famous late 40's noir directed by Anthony Mann. It was on Turner Classic Movies last night and I decided to give it a whirl.
The plot is that Dennis O'Keefe takes the fall for the crazed Raymond Burr and is in jail. He escapes the pokey due to help from his moll, Claire Trevor. He also drags social worker Marsha Hunt into the mess. Yep, a love triangle. They have to deal with the likes of Burr (he wants to off O'Keefe to save some cash, basically) and John Ireland. As you'd expect from a film noir, it's a hard boiled story filled with tough dialogue and occasional narration. There's nice usage of light/shadow and there's a pretty gritty feel throughout. The cinematography is quite good.
Of course, the two women don't get along and of course there's a role of a vicious henchman; in this case it was played by Ireland. Then again Burr is pretty fiery himself, doing some rather shocking things. This was nicely directed by Mann and has its share of twists & turns, leading to a very memorable last 5 to 10 minutes. There are plenty of worthwhile noir to watch and while this isn't at the top of the list, it is still something to check out. I mean, there are two important female roles, and neither are the typical femme fatale characters.
Runtime: 79 minutes
Directed by: Anthony Mann
Starring: Dennis O'Keefe, Claire Trevor, Marsha Hunt, Raymond Burr, John Ireland
From: Eagle-Lion Films
This is a short review for a film noir that actually is worth seeing, despite my brevity. That review (taken from Letterboxd, as always) is below:
No, this isn't the 1986 movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger; rather, it's the famous late 40's noir directed by Anthony Mann. It was on Turner Classic Movies last night and I decided to give it a whirl.
The plot is that Dennis O'Keefe takes the fall for the crazed Raymond Burr and is in jail. He escapes the pokey due to help from his moll, Claire Trevor. He also drags social worker Marsha Hunt into the mess. Yep, a love triangle. They have to deal with the likes of Burr (he wants to off O'Keefe to save some cash, basically) and John Ireland. As you'd expect from a film noir, it's a hard boiled story filled with tough dialogue and occasional narration. There's nice usage of light/shadow and there's a pretty gritty feel throughout. The cinematography is quite good.
Of course, the two women don't get along and of course there's a role of a vicious henchman; in this case it was played by Ireland. Then again Burr is pretty fiery himself, doing some rather shocking things. This was nicely directed by Mann and has its share of twists & turns, leading to a very memorable last 5 to 10 minutes. There are plenty of worthwhile noir to watch and while this isn't at the top of the list, it is still something to check out. I mean, there are two important female roles, and neither are the typical femme fatale characters.
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Phantasm
Phantasm (1979)
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: Don Coscarelli
Starring: A. Michael Baldwin, Bill Thornbury, Reggie Bannister, Angus Scrimm (RIP)
From: New Breed Productions Inc.
Here's another film I haven't watched in years yet this was an opportune time for me to check it out. All the details are below via my Letterboxd review:
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: Don Coscarelli
Starring: A. Michael Baldwin, Bill Thornbury, Reggie Bannister, Angus Scrimm (RIP)
From: New Breed Productions Inc.
Here's another film I haven't watched in years yet this was an opportune time for me to check it out. All the details are below via my Letterboxd review:
This is yet another case where I am watching a movie for the first time in years. In this case, I had to wait patiently to check this out via streaming (I was inspired to after hearing all the talk about the new and polarizing Phantasm: Ravager) and finally it recently was added, and it's the new Remastered version to boot. Even streaming the print sounds and looks real good. To think that a Star Wars director loves the movie so much he not only was behind the 4K scan and new release, but now a character in the Star Wars canon (Captain Phasma) was named after this franchise.
I will presume that everyone knows the basics of this franchise so I won't dwell on that. I can say that while “dream logic” movies aren't usually for me because I am a logical guy in general, I can still enjoy this flick. The story is far out but it's still fun. It helps that you enjoy following these wacky characters... from a 12 year old boy to his cool older brother and my favorite (due to absurdities and otherwise), a balding middle age ice cream man who I hear becomes an “action hero” in the sequels. You're always interested in trying to figure out this bizarre tale and all the odd things you see throughout.
I understand those who don't care for this. It is low budget filmmaking and they filmed off and on for about a year. It explains how it definitely has an uneven feel. I can't quite explain why some of the performances are pretty bad... actually, I can. It was a low budget thing and they had to take whatever they could get... either that, or it was friends of Don Coscarelli. I am able to look past that and have fun with this hair-raising tale that was nicely filmed by Coscarelli and has several iconic aspects:
*The Sphere. Enough said right there
*The awesome score, especially the memorable theme song that is always part of the score
*Angus Scrimm (RIP). He was made to look like a scary-looking & menacing dude; he was perfect as The Tall Man
*The awesome score, especially the memorable theme song that is always part of the score
*Angus Scrimm (RIP). He was made to look like a scary-looking & menacing dude; he was perfect as The Tall Man
It's not hard for me to understand why something this different for the time ended up becoming a cult hit with its share of famous fans and 4 sequels... and maybe more, despite Scrimm passing away in January. For me, this is a movie that either works aside from or because of its low budget filmmaking flaws.
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Shin Godzilla
Shin Godzilla (Or... Godzilla: Resurgence... or Shin Gojira) (2016)
78% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 18 reviews)
Runtime: 112 minutes
Directed by: Hideaki Anno/Shinji Higuchi
Starring: Hiroki Hasegawa, Yutaka Takenouchi, Satomi Ishihara, Ren Ohsugi, Akira Emoto
From: Toho
Yep, I saw this movie last night. I know there's a segment of fans which won't like it; me, I loved it. I talk all about it below, but hopefully in a non spoiler sort of fashion:
Those that have followed me for awhile know that I have seen various Godzilla films in my life, and I have reviewed some of them here. I love the 2014 Godzilla but I know that is incredibly polarizing. Considering how this movie is done, I know this will also be polarizing. A Big G movie centered on politics won't be for everyone, especially those who only like it when Gojira tears s--- up.
With new movies there's always the fear on my part of either revealing not enough or revealing too much. Hopefully I will remain vague enough for anyone who wishes to see this in its limited one week engagement in the United States. This is a reboot in that none of the other Godzilla films are canon to the timeline, and if you've seen 1984's The Return of Godzilla (and I am not referring to the cornball Godzilla 1985; at least after its Blu release here last month, The Return of Godzilla is a lot easier for people to see) and remember that part of its plot was a focus on politics and how Gojira would ruin the economy... well, this movie does that, only to a higher degree. In fact, there are other allusions to the 1984 film.
It seems like dozens and dozens of characters are introduced (all but the extras are ID'ed by name and rank) so I imagine some could feel inundated; it wasn't to me, though. I thought it balanced all those things out to where it wasn't disorienting. The focus ends up being on certain characters anyhow. Considering that the original Gojira focused on the nuclear bombs and Japan's guilt over World War II, it should be no surprise that such things as the Fukushima disaster and the earthquake and then tsunami that happened in 2011 are part of its DNA. As for the effects, it's practical and CGI. Aside from me having a legit reason to use the phrase “googly eyes”, I can't complain too hard even if at times it's obvious the difference between the different effects. It was at least shot nicely; all the stuff behind the camera was done pretty well, including the bitchin' musical score, where there's some classic Akira Ifukube tracks and a nice main score from Shiro Sagisu.
While I understand those who don't like this due to how it was done and how it's the atypical Godzilla picture, it worked for me like gangbusters. Hideaki Anno and Shinji Higuchi did a marvelous job with this. I enjoyed the story that was told and besides it being inspiring for the Japanese people (there are potshots against the United States; considering how things are here now... I can't disagree with any bashing of the U.S.) it was very compelling and fast paced so I wasn't bored in the slightest, and it is always nice seeing different people coming together to try and solve a difficult task. I am glad this is the first Toho Godzilla I got to see on the big screen.
78% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 18 reviews)
Runtime: 112 minutes
Directed by: Hideaki Anno/Shinji Higuchi
Starring: Hiroki Hasegawa, Yutaka Takenouchi, Satomi Ishihara, Ren Ohsugi, Akira Emoto
From: Toho
Yep, I saw this movie last night. I know there's a segment of fans which won't like it; me, I loved it. I talk all about it below, but hopefully in a non spoiler sort of fashion:
Those that have followed me for awhile know that I have seen various Godzilla films in my life, and I have reviewed some of them here. I love the 2014 Godzilla but I know that is incredibly polarizing. Considering how this movie is done, I know this will also be polarizing. A Big G movie centered on politics won't be for everyone, especially those who only like it when Gojira tears s--- up.
With new movies there's always the fear on my part of either revealing not enough or revealing too much. Hopefully I will remain vague enough for anyone who wishes to see this in its limited one week engagement in the United States. This is a reboot in that none of the other Godzilla films are canon to the timeline, and if you've seen 1984's The Return of Godzilla (and I am not referring to the cornball Godzilla 1985; at least after its Blu release here last month, The Return of Godzilla is a lot easier for people to see) and remember that part of its plot was a focus on politics and how Gojira would ruin the economy... well, this movie does that, only to a higher degree. In fact, there are other allusions to the 1984 film.
It seems like dozens and dozens of characters are introduced (all but the extras are ID'ed by name and rank) so I imagine some could feel inundated; it wasn't to me, though. I thought it balanced all those things out to where it wasn't disorienting. The focus ends up being on certain characters anyhow. Considering that the original Gojira focused on the nuclear bombs and Japan's guilt over World War II, it should be no surprise that such things as the Fukushima disaster and the earthquake and then tsunami that happened in 2011 are part of its DNA. As for the effects, it's practical and CGI. Aside from me having a legit reason to use the phrase “googly eyes”, I can't complain too hard even if at times it's obvious the difference between the different effects. It was at least shot nicely; all the stuff behind the camera was done pretty well, including the bitchin' musical score, where there's some classic Akira Ifukube tracks and a nice main score from Shiro Sagisu.
While I understand those who don't like this due to how it was done and how it's the atypical Godzilla picture, it worked for me like gangbusters. Hideaki Anno and Shinji Higuchi did a marvelous job with this. I enjoyed the story that was told and besides it being inspiring for the Japanese people (there are potshots against the United States; considering how things are here now... I can't disagree with any bashing of the U.S.) it was very compelling and fast paced so I wasn't bored in the slightest, and it is always nice seeing different people coming together to try and solve a difficult task. I am glad this is the first Toho Godzilla I got to see on the big screen.
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
At Midnight I'll Take Your Soul
At Midnight I'll Take Your Soul (A Meia-Noite Levarei Sua Alma) (1964)
Runtime: 84 minutes
Directed by: Jose Mojica Marins
Starring: Jose Mojica Marins, Magda Mei, Nivaldo Lima, Valeria Vasquez, Ilidio Martins Simoes
From: Industria Cinematogrifica Apolo
I am glad that the hype I heard about the character Coffin Joe was well-warranted. I talk all about it below:
Of course I have heard of Coffin Joe (i.e. Ze Do Caixao) before and how the character's been in a variety of Brazilian films over the decades and how his debut was the first ever Brazilian horror movie; yet, it wasn't until last night that I finally saw a Coffin Joe movie. As his debut can easily be found online, I figured that is what I should go with.
Until watching the movie I did not know too much about the character. Now I know that small Brazilian town undertaker Joe is obsessed with finding a woman to sire a son with. His wife can't conceive so you can guess how he deals with that. He then is on the prowl for the right woman to copulate with. You find out that besides always being dressed in black and typically wearing a black tophat, he is against religion, superstition, and people who don't want to pay when they lose at gambling. He doesn't like it when fathers abuse their kids... but don't think of him as a good guy; murder and maiming people isn't the only ghastly crime he commits.
Coffin Joe definitely is a fascinating character even if he is a terror of a human being. He is confident and loves who he is... someone who is different and he loves the fear of panic that his presence causes; pretty much the entire town is petrified of him. He even dares the spirits to come after him. The movie starts off on the right creepy note as a witch (who you later find out is a supporting character) tells the crowd that they can leave if they want to, so terrifying this town is. Oh, those old parlor tricks, you just don't get them anymore. From there this is definitely a macabre ghoulish tale filled with moments that are quite rough and bloody for a 1964 film. At times it's over the top, but in the best ways.
I definitely understand why Coffin Joe is a cult favorite; this was a lot of fun to watch, and star Jose Mojica Marins also did a nice job as the director. In the future you can rest assured I will see more Ze Do Caixao movies.
Runtime: 84 minutes
Directed by: Jose Mojica Marins
Starring: Jose Mojica Marins, Magda Mei, Nivaldo Lima, Valeria Vasquez, Ilidio Martins Simoes
From: Industria Cinematogrifica Apolo
I am glad that the hype I heard about the character Coffin Joe was well-warranted. I talk all about it below:
Of course I have heard of Coffin Joe (i.e. Ze Do Caixao) before and how the character's been in a variety of Brazilian films over the decades and how his debut was the first ever Brazilian horror movie; yet, it wasn't until last night that I finally saw a Coffin Joe movie. As his debut can easily be found online, I figured that is what I should go with.
Until watching the movie I did not know too much about the character. Now I know that small Brazilian town undertaker Joe is obsessed with finding a woman to sire a son with. His wife can't conceive so you can guess how he deals with that. He then is on the prowl for the right woman to copulate with. You find out that besides always being dressed in black and typically wearing a black tophat, he is against religion, superstition, and people who don't want to pay when they lose at gambling. He doesn't like it when fathers abuse their kids... but don't think of him as a good guy; murder and maiming people isn't the only ghastly crime he commits.
Coffin Joe definitely is a fascinating character even if he is a terror of a human being. He is confident and loves who he is... someone who is different and he loves the fear of panic that his presence causes; pretty much the entire town is petrified of him. He even dares the spirits to come after him. The movie starts off on the right creepy note as a witch (who you later find out is a supporting character) tells the crowd that they can leave if they want to, so terrifying this town is. Oh, those old parlor tricks, you just don't get them anymore. From there this is definitely a macabre ghoulish tale filled with moments that are quite rough and bloody for a 1964 film. At times it's over the top, but in the best ways.
I definitely understand why Coffin Joe is a cult favorite; this was a lot of fun to watch, and star Jose Mojica Marins also did a nice job as the director. In the future you can rest assured I will see more Ze Do Caixao movies.
Honeyspider
Honeyspider (2014)
Runtime: 76 minutes
Directed by: Josh Hasty
Starring: Mariah Brown, Frank J. Aard, Joan Schuermeyer, Rachel Jeffreys, Ethan Dunn
From: Paramount Scope
My apologies for not posting this sooner; I was preoccupied with other things and I did not even have time to watch anything on Sunday. But now things should be back to normal for me. As for this obscure movie, I say this North Carolina horror may be worth seeing. I talk all about it below in a Letterboxd review that was more apt a few days ago:
Yes, I have returned. I am thankful I live where I do, as unlike some parts of Florida, Hurricane Matthew only resulted in some strong gusts of wind, quite a bit of rain on Thursday night, and an average overcast day on Friday; that was it. The power did not even go out, which was my biggest fear.
I'll be honest and say that it was a mutual watching this movie last night and presenting a glowing review which piqued my interest. Looking it up, I see it was an ultra low-budget film made in North Carolina, which I'll mention in case anyone reading this is from the Tarheel State. Even after hearing it compared to a movie I haven't seen (The Lords of Salem) and something I unfortunately did see (unlike most, I thought The House of the Devil was bad; the cast and concept were all fine; it was the glacially slow story and the story itself which I did not enjoy at all) I still gave this a try. After all, it's only 76 minutes long.
Oh, and the lead character is a college-aged student named... JACKIE BLUE. Yes, like the song, which you don't hear in the film. Why she has that name, I cannot explain. This is set in the 80's but the character would have been born before the song was made. Seeing that Brain Damage Films released it on disc and the streaming service did not inspire confidence, as most of the films they put out is bottom of the barrel offal. This is worthy of a more highly regarded distribution arm. Nevertheless, when the movie begins with a S-L-O-W pan, I was hoping I did not make a mistake. Thankfully, it's the only time the movie operates in such a manner. Even if I hadn't read any comparisons, I would have thought “The House of the Devil” after the opening credits, where the lead walks on a college campus and you hear an electronic song. In this case, it was a fine synthwave tune.
Jackie Blue actually is a girl who lives a life from inside of her room. She is now 21 but is busy with school. Still, she accepts an invite to a Halloween party-so that she can live her life more in a free-form style-after she's done working at a cinema, which is showing “Sleepover Slaughter III”. But, mysterious things start happening... will she see the sunset but not see it rise? It has to be said that The House of the Dead is not the only obvious inspiration. Yep, the Halloween franchise is another one. I say that as you come across references that are obvious... or obvious to those familiar to the franchise. You know, you sometimes see names and you laugh about it because you get where they came from. Even Halloween III: Season of the Witch is part of its DNA. I won't spoil what other horror flicks from the past are brought up.
The movie isn't really about gore at all; rather, it's more about things like tension and atmosphere, and it is fine at that. Jackie Blue is a likable enough protagonist and I was never bored as we followed her night and the escalation of weird events. Unfortunately, the low budget is apparent as it does not always resemble its 1989 setting. Plus, the endgame, the final act, the point of all this... I say that the movie does not quite nail this, even if it's clear what they were going for and it is a creepy idea. I have no problem with not everything being spelled out; I am just not sure if it was done as well as it could have been. Plus, you find out why this film has such a unique title. Apparently, the filmmakers got it from an early Smashing Pumpkins song but as I am not a big Smashing Pumpkins fan... this was not previously known by me.
While this is not entirely successful, it's still a watchable picture, one which at least shows more ambition and creativity than the typical horror dreck that is crapped out on a weekly basis in the past few years (if not more). Plus, I actually did give it bonus points for the end credits, which feature nicely done animated figures that properly symbolize this Halloween season.
Runtime: 76 minutes
Directed by: Josh Hasty
Starring: Mariah Brown, Frank J. Aard, Joan Schuermeyer, Rachel Jeffreys, Ethan Dunn
From: Paramount Scope
My apologies for not posting this sooner; I was preoccupied with other things and I did not even have time to watch anything on Sunday. But now things should be back to normal for me. As for this obscure movie, I say this North Carolina horror may be worth seeing. I talk all about it below in a Letterboxd review that was more apt a few days ago:
Yes, I have returned. I am thankful I live where I do, as unlike some parts of Florida, Hurricane Matthew only resulted in some strong gusts of wind, quite a bit of rain on Thursday night, and an average overcast day on Friday; that was it. The power did not even go out, which was my biggest fear.
I'll be honest and say that it was a mutual watching this movie last night and presenting a glowing review which piqued my interest. Looking it up, I see it was an ultra low-budget film made in North Carolina, which I'll mention in case anyone reading this is from the Tarheel State. Even after hearing it compared to a movie I haven't seen (The Lords of Salem) and something I unfortunately did see (unlike most, I thought The House of the Devil was bad; the cast and concept were all fine; it was the glacially slow story and the story itself which I did not enjoy at all) I still gave this a try. After all, it's only 76 minutes long.
Oh, and the lead character is a college-aged student named... JACKIE BLUE. Yes, like the song, which you don't hear in the film. Why she has that name, I cannot explain. This is set in the 80's but the character would have been born before the song was made. Seeing that Brain Damage Films released it on disc and the streaming service did not inspire confidence, as most of the films they put out is bottom of the barrel offal. This is worthy of a more highly regarded distribution arm. Nevertheless, when the movie begins with a S-L-O-W pan, I was hoping I did not make a mistake. Thankfully, it's the only time the movie operates in such a manner. Even if I hadn't read any comparisons, I would have thought “The House of the Devil” after the opening credits, where the lead walks on a college campus and you hear an electronic song. In this case, it was a fine synthwave tune.
Jackie Blue actually is a girl who lives a life from inside of her room. She is now 21 but is busy with school. Still, she accepts an invite to a Halloween party-so that she can live her life more in a free-form style-after she's done working at a cinema, which is showing “Sleepover Slaughter III”. But, mysterious things start happening... will she see the sunset but not see it rise? It has to be said that The House of the Dead is not the only obvious inspiration. Yep, the Halloween franchise is another one. I say that as you come across references that are obvious... or obvious to those familiar to the franchise. You know, you sometimes see names and you laugh about it because you get where they came from. Even Halloween III: Season of the Witch is part of its DNA. I won't spoil what other horror flicks from the past are brought up.
The movie isn't really about gore at all; rather, it's more about things like tension and atmosphere, and it is fine at that. Jackie Blue is a likable enough protagonist and I was never bored as we followed her night and the escalation of weird events. Unfortunately, the low budget is apparent as it does not always resemble its 1989 setting. Plus, the endgame, the final act, the point of all this... I say that the movie does not quite nail this, even if it's clear what they were going for and it is a creepy idea. I have no problem with not everything being spelled out; I am just not sure if it was done as well as it could have been. Plus, you find out why this film has such a unique title. Apparently, the filmmakers got it from an early Smashing Pumpkins song but as I am not a big Smashing Pumpkins fan... this was not previously known by me.
While this is not entirely successful, it's still a watchable picture, one which at least shows more ambition and creativity than the typical horror dreck that is crapped out on a weekly basis in the past few years (if not more). Plus, I actually did give it bonus points for the end credits, which feature nicely done animated figures that properly symbolize this Halloween season.
Sunday, October 9, 2016
The Old Dark House
The Old Dark House (1932)
Runtime: 72 minutes
Directed by: James Whale
Starring: Boris Karloff, Melvyn Douglas, Raymond Massey, Gloria Stuart, Charles Laughton
From: Universal
I have returned. I'll give some more details when I post another review tonight (this time to something pretty obscure) but the storm did not really do anything where I live. I'll be honest and say I watched this on YouTube last night. It is a pretty entertaining 30's horror, as I explain below:
To add more variety to my horror watching during this spooky (or maybe it should be “spoopy”; at least that's what people in some circles would call it) Halloween season, I decided to go pretty old school with this picture, which can be found rather easily online, if you catch my drift. The cast and the director (James Whale) certainly piqued my interest.
The story is straight to the point: a trio of people are driving in Wales during a very stormy night. They have to stop at the titular old dark house; a very odd family lives there. When a duo shows up later, things really heat up. Note that the characters you see include an accused pyromaniac, a very old man (actually played by a woman), a chorus girl and most memorably, a bearded Boris Karloff as a giant mute butler named Morgan who happens to love the old alcohol.
The story isn't the most complex or original; a lot of the thrill is seeing the strange shenanigans and wondering what will happen next. What helps make this memorable is the direction and the setting. The house works quite well in establishing a creepy-crawly feeling, especially when you can usually hear the storm in the background. Then there's how lights and shadows are done to perfection by Whale. You see plenty of shadows and even though this movie is light in tone (there is plenty of amusing dialogue; you shouldn't take this too seriously), it still has the right atmosphere to give you the horror feels too.
I know that William Castle remade this in 1963 but I understand it pales in comparison to this, so I am in no rush to check that out.
Runtime: 72 minutes
Directed by: James Whale
Starring: Boris Karloff, Melvyn Douglas, Raymond Massey, Gloria Stuart, Charles Laughton
From: Universal
I have returned. I'll give some more details when I post another review tonight (this time to something pretty obscure) but the storm did not really do anything where I live. I'll be honest and say I watched this on YouTube last night. It is a pretty entertaining 30's horror, as I explain below:
To add more variety to my horror watching during this spooky (or maybe it should be “spoopy”; at least that's what people in some circles would call it) Halloween season, I decided to go pretty old school with this picture, which can be found rather easily online, if you catch my drift. The cast and the director (James Whale) certainly piqued my interest.
The story is straight to the point: a trio of people are driving in Wales during a very stormy night. They have to stop at the titular old dark house; a very odd family lives there. When a duo shows up later, things really heat up. Note that the characters you see include an accused pyromaniac, a very old man (actually played by a woman), a chorus girl and most memorably, a bearded Boris Karloff as a giant mute butler named Morgan who happens to love the old alcohol.
The story isn't the most complex or original; a lot of the thrill is seeing the strange shenanigans and wondering what will happen next. What helps make this memorable is the direction and the setting. The house works quite well in establishing a creepy-crawly feeling, especially when you can usually hear the storm in the background. Then there's how lights and shadows are done to perfection by Whale. You see plenty of shadows and even though this movie is light in tone (there is plenty of amusing dialogue; you shouldn't take this too seriously), it still has the right atmosphere to give you the horror feels too.
I know that William Castle remade this in 1963 but I understand it pales in comparison to this, so I am in no rush to check that out.
Thursday, October 6, 2016
China Seas
China Seas (1935)
Runtime: 87 minutes
Directed by: Tay Garnett
Starring: Clark Gable, Jean Harlow, Wallace Beery, Rosalind Russell, Lewis Stone
From: MGM
First, an update. With the hurricane and other things, I did not mention before that on Tuesday night I rewatched the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre; it's still great. As for Hurricane Matthew, while I am not in its direct path, I'll still get plenty of wind and rain. Who knows when and if the power will go out, in other words. So, I probably won't worry about watching and reviewing any movies for a few days. Now, onto this review:
So yeah, in a matter of hours Hurricane Matthew will hit Florida. Praise the Lord I don't live on the Atlantic coast of the state, which is going to get slammed real hard. I live in the center, a little west of Orlando. Still, it's going to rain a few inches on Friday and winds could be as high as 60 miles per hour (almost 100 kilometers per hour) so in case the power goes out, it's a good idea if I don't worry about watching and reviewing any films for a few days. I am pretty certain I'll be fine so I am not one of the people in Florida people should be concerned about.
Anyhow, as I have more than one mutual who usually only watch movies from the 30's and 40's and they likely followed me because I sometimes watch films from that era... I better not forget to return to the Golden Age of Hollywood at least once in awhile, you know. I randomly picked this out for streaming via Amazon Instant. It reunites Clark Gable and Jean Harlow from Red Dust; indeed, it isn't too dissimilar from Red Dust. They are in an exotic location (this time, on a ship sailing from Hong Kong and there's the threat of “Malay pirates”) and Grant is in a love triangle, this time with the earthy Harlow and the aristocratic Rosalind Russell (no relation); what a difficult situation that a lot of people would want to have.
While you do see various Asian-American actors throughout, it is no surprise that there's still racism to deal with. The most memorable example is how Gable describes English rivers as being clean but Chinese rivers are “yellow, dirty and muddy”; it should be easy to figure out what they really are referring to. Also, Hattie McDaniel is present as Jean's maid and unfortunately, if you've seen Gone With the Wind... if you can get past that... while this is not as good as Red Dust, I still found this to be pretty good. There are various colorful characters, from a constant drunk to Wallace Beery as a guy who you should naturally be suspicious of because he's played by Wallace Beery, an older captain who signs onto the voyage when they're in a jam and he's looking for redemption for having previous been raided by pirates and yes, pirates do show up, what with riches being hidden on the ship. To me, Harlow was the stand-out with her performance where even she doesn't know who to trust and whose side she should be on.
The film is pretty entertaining for what it is. There's plenty of snappy dialogue, unexpected moments such as trap shooting off the deck of the ship (?!) and in what I actually did not know beforehand, the ship going through a typhoon. Talk about irony. Even without that surprise, this was still a quite enjoyable watch and I am glad I saw it when I did.
Runtime: 87 minutes
Directed by: Tay Garnett
Starring: Clark Gable, Jean Harlow, Wallace Beery, Rosalind Russell, Lewis Stone
From: MGM
First, an update. With the hurricane and other things, I did not mention before that on Tuesday night I rewatched the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre; it's still great. As for Hurricane Matthew, while I am not in its direct path, I'll still get plenty of wind and rain. Who knows when and if the power will go out, in other words. So, I probably won't worry about watching and reviewing any movies for a few days. Now, onto this review:
So yeah, in a matter of hours Hurricane Matthew will hit Florida. Praise the Lord I don't live on the Atlantic coast of the state, which is going to get slammed real hard. I live in the center, a little west of Orlando. Still, it's going to rain a few inches on Friday and winds could be as high as 60 miles per hour (almost 100 kilometers per hour) so in case the power goes out, it's a good idea if I don't worry about watching and reviewing any films for a few days. I am pretty certain I'll be fine so I am not one of the people in Florida people should be concerned about.
Anyhow, as I have more than one mutual who usually only watch movies from the 30's and 40's and they likely followed me because I sometimes watch films from that era... I better not forget to return to the Golden Age of Hollywood at least once in awhile, you know. I randomly picked this out for streaming via Amazon Instant. It reunites Clark Gable and Jean Harlow from Red Dust; indeed, it isn't too dissimilar from Red Dust. They are in an exotic location (this time, on a ship sailing from Hong Kong and there's the threat of “Malay pirates”) and Grant is in a love triangle, this time with the earthy Harlow and the aristocratic Rosalind Russell (no relation); what a difficult situation that a lot of people would want to have.
While you do see various Asian-American actors throughout, it is no surprise that there's still racism to deal with. The most memorable example is how Gable describes English rivers as being clean but Chinese rivers are “yellow, dirty and muddy”; it should be easy to figure out what they really are referring to. Also, Hattie McDaniel is present as Jean's maid and unfortunately, if you've seen Gone With the Wind... if you can get past that... while this is not as good as Red Dust, I still found this to be pretty good. There are various colorful characters, from a constant drunk to Wallace Beery as a guy who you should naturally be suspicious of because he's played by Wallace Beery, an older captain who signs onto the voyage when they're in a jam and he's looking for redemption for having previous been raided by pirates and yes, pirates do show up, what with riches being hidden on the ship. To me, Harlow was the stand-out with her performance where even she doesn't know who to trust and whose side she should be on.
The film is pretty entertaining for what it is. There's plenty of snappy dialogue, unexpected moments such as trap shooting off the deck of the ship (?!) and in what I actually did not know beforehand, the ship going through a typhoon. Talk about irony. Even without that surprise, this was still a quite enjoyable watch and I am glad I saw it when I did.
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Millennium
Millennium (1989)
Runtime: 105 minutes (the international version is a few minutes longer; the one on Netflix is the original version)
Directed by: Michael Anderson
Starring: Kris Kristofferson, Cheryl Ladd, Daniel J. Travanti, Robert Joy, Lloyd Bochner
From: 20th Century Fox
Here's the review I promised before; it's for a movie that isn't too good but the reason why I saw it: it was a first for me. Read all the details below:
There are many reasons for me to watch a movie; “because Netflix screwed up and they still haven't fixed it as of now” is a first for me. For some reason, late last month they were bragging that on the 1st this would be available for streaming. Now that it is... the title as listed is correct. However, the picture representing the film: it says the title is “Millenium”. How that hasn't been fixed yet is utterly embarrassing and disgraceful for such a major website and service like Netflix. Then again, maybe it's being run by the future aliens from this movie; after all, they were incredibly dopey and incompetent...
The movie has a promising plot, at least from the basic description. Kris Kristofferson leads the investigation of airline crashes. The current case he's on has some strange things, including a bizarre weapon. Turns out, it's from the future and Cheryl Ladd is back from the future trying to retrieve it. As others have noted, the first 25 minutes or so are good as the story begins and you try to figure out what's going on. After that... off the cliff it goes.
My big problem isn't how you barely get to look at how the world works in 2989 (or whenever future time is), as I understand this was low budget and they couldn't afford much aside from being stuck inside a run-down crappy building as it's a crappy future. Rather, I wonder how those idiots even managed to do time travel in the first place. They're always leaving items behind that cause “timequakes” because it creates a butterfly effect, and they're just dopey. That's not even including the logic of their endgoal and why they're in the past in the first place.
When the movie's not dopey, it's just plain dull. The general idea of looking at a series of events from one perspective then seeing it from another perspective later on is interesting as described. When it's a shoehorned-in and pointless romance, who cares? I did not, really. A lot of goofy things happen then it has a wacky ending, which I understand is even wackier in the international cut. To clarify, what's on Netflix is the original American cut from 20th Century Fox.
It's a shame this is not even good, as there is a kernel of a good idea that is always present in the film; it just did not work for me overall.
Runtime: 105 minutes (the international version is a few minutes longer; the one on Netflix is the original version)
Directed by: Michael Anderson
Starring: Kris Kristofferson, Cheryl Ladd, Daniel J. Travanti, Robert Joy, Lloyd Bochner
From: 20th Century Fox
Here's the review I promised before; it's for a movie that isn't too good but the reason why I saw it: it was a first for me. Read all the details below:
There are many reasons for me to watch a movie; “because Netflix screwed up and they still haven't fixed it as of now” is a first for me. For some reason, late last month they were bragging that on the 1st this would be available for streaming. Now that it is... the title as listed is correct. However, the picture representing the film: it says the title is “Millenium”. How that hasn't been fixed yet is utterly embarrassing and disgraceful for such a major website and service like Netflix. Then again, maybe it's being run by the future aliens from this movie; after all, they were incredibly dopey and incompetent...
The movie has a promising plot, at least from the basic description. Kris Kristofferson leads the investigation of airline crashes. The current case he's on has some strange things, including a bizarre weapon. Turns out, it's from the future and Cheryl Ladd is back from the future trying to retrieve it. As others have noted, the first 25 minutes or so are good as the story begins and you try to figure out what's going on. After that... off the cliff it goes.
My big problem isn't how you barely get to look at how the world works in 2989 (or whenever future time is), as I understand this was low budget and they couldn't afford much aside from being stuck inside a run-down crappy building as it's a crappy future. Rather, I wonder how those idiots even managed to do time travel in the first place. They're always leaving items behind that cause “timequakes” because it creates a butterfly effect, and they're just dopey. That's not even including the logic of their endgoal and why they're in the past in the first place.
When the movie's not dopey, it's just plain dull. The general idea of looking at a series of events from one perspective then seeing it from another perspective later on is interesting as described. When it's a shoehorned-in and pointless romance, who cares? I did not, really. A lot of goofy things happen then it has a wacky ending, which I understand is even wackier in the international cut. To clarify, what's on Netflix is the original American cut from 20th Century Fox.
It's a shame this is not even good, as there is a kernel of a good idea that is always present in the film; it just did not work for me overall.
So Yeah...
Remember when I said I would be posting a review here Monday night proper?
I lied.
I've actually become overwhelmed these first few days in October; thankfully things have died down now so I hope to return to a normal schedule. For sure I'll return Tuesday afternoon with a review, and I mean it.
I lied.
I've actually become overwhelmed these first few days in October; thankfully things have died down now so I hope to return to a normal schedule. For sure I'll return Tuesday afternoon with a review, and I mean it.
Monday, October 3, 2016
Firestorm
Firestorm (1998)
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Dean Semler
Starring: Howie Long, Scott Glenn, William Forsythe, Suzy Amis, Christianne Hirt
From: 20th Century Fox
Sorry for not posting here in a few days; I just haven't had the time to watch any films in the past few days due to other committments. I will post another review Monday night. For now, this silly late 90's action piece:
Yet again, this is a movie I was inspired to see after it was mentioned in a messageboard thread recently, although for a long while I have thought about seeing it. I figured it'd be a dopey late 90's action film going in, and I was not disappointed in that regard. The movie is only average yet I can say it's watchable.
As a worldwide audience reads this and not everyone is a sports fan, I'll talk about star Howie Long. Before the movie he was a famous and highly regarded National Football League player; that's American Football. After he retired he spent many years (and still does today) sitting behind a desk offering his comments along with other panelists during the pre and post game shows. He also tried his hand at acting and considering he was a large muscular man, I am not surprised someone tried to make him another action regular. It did not quite work out, though... he only did a few other movies in supporting roles. At least he had something else to fall back on; in addition, he has two sons who play in the NFL currently.
This movie in particular, it reminds me that there isn't enough coverage of firemen; there's plenty on the police, but not so much on the firemen. Considering how tough their job is, they deserve more. This focuses on smokejumpers, which is all the more rigorous as they have to jump into the most rugged of wilderness to fight forest fires. As for the plot of this schlock, let me quote the plot description Letterboxd has up:
"Firefighter Jesse Graves has to save ornithologist Jennifer and other people caught in a forest fire, which was set up by the lawyer of convicted killer Earl Shaye, who escaped from the prison with several of his inmates posing as firefighters to recover $37,000,000 in stashed loot."
Yep, pretty rote and cliche. This isn't bad yet I can't say it's good or better. Long is acceptable in his role and it helps that there are old pros like Scott Glenn, William Forsythe as the villain (he was no Richie Madano in Out for Justice, unfortunately) and Suzy Amis. Despite the nice scenery (both California and British Columbia play rural Wyoming) this does not rise about average; there are random direct to video low budget action films from the 90's that provide more heat and will light your kindling, so to speak. It lacks the spark to make it good.
Really, it's not worth going more in depth on the plot so let me mention one last thing: I was quite shocked to discover that Inglorious Basterds was not the first movie after Cat People to use Bowie's Cat People (Putting Out Fire); this movie actually beat it to the punch, 11 years beforehand. It's now known as being "on the nose"; I am not complaining, mind you; I think the song is the cat's pajamas.
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Dean Semler
Starring: Howie Long, Scott Glenn, William Forsythe, Suzy Amis, Christianne Hirt
From: 20th Century Fox
Sorry for not posting here in a few days; I just haven't had the time to watch any films in the past few days due to other committments. I will post another review Monday night. For now, this silly late 90's action piece:
Yet again, this is a movie I was inspired to see after it was mentioned in a messageboard thread recently, although for a long while I have thought about seeing it. I figured it'd be a dopey late 90's action film going in, and I was not disappointed in that regard. The movie is only average yet I can say it's watchable.
As a worldwide audience reads this and not everyone is a sports fan, I'll talk about star Howie Long. Before the movie he was a famous and highly regarded National Football League player; that's American Football. After he retired he spent many years (and still does today) sitting behind a desk offering his comments along with other panelists during the pre and post game shows. He also tried his hand at acting and considering he was a large muscular man, I am not surprised someone tried to make him another action regular. It did not quite work out, though... he only did a few other movies in supporting roles. At least he had something else to fall back on; in addition, he has two sons who play in the NFL currently.
This movie in particular, it reminds me that there isn't enough coverage of firemen; there's plenty on the police, but not so much on the firemen. Considering how tough their job is, they deserve more. This focuses on smokejumpers, which is all the more rigorous as they have to jump into the most rugged of wilderness to fight forest fires. As for the plot of this schlock, let me quote the plot description Letterboxd has up:
"Firefighter Jesse Graves has to save ornithologist Jennifer and other people caught in a forest fire, which was set up by the lawyer of convicted killer Earl Shaye, who escaped from the prison with several of his inmates posing as firefighters to recover $37,000,000 in stashed loot."
Yep, pretty rote and cliche. This isn't bad yet I can't say it's good or better. Long is acceptable in his role and it helps that there are old pros like Scott Glenn, William Forsythe as the villain (he was no Richie Madano in Out for Justice, unfortunately) and Suzy Amis. Despite the nice scenery (both California and British Columbia play rural Wyoming) this does not rise about average; there are random direct to video low budget action films from the 90's that provide more heat and will light your kindling, so to speak. It lacks the spark to make it good.
Really, it's not worth going more in depth on the plot so let me mention one last thing: I was quite shocked to discover that Inglorious Basterds was not the first movie after Cat People to use Bowie's Cat People (Putting Out Fire); this movie actually beat it to the punch, 11 years beforehand. It's now known as being "on the nose"; I am not complaining, mind you; I think the song is the cat's pajamas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)