Sunday, February 26, 2017
An Update
Right now I am halfway paying attention to the Oscars, with the sound on mute. It's about what I expected so far. Last night I saw House of 1,000 Corpses for the first time in a long while. I have reviewed it here back in the early days of this site. I still think the movie is fine so I have no further words to say now.
Saturday, February 25, 2017
Never Say Never Again
Never Say Never Again (1983)
Runtime: 134 minutes
Directed by: Irwin Kershner
Starring: Sean Connery, Kim Basinger, Klaus Maria Brandauer, Barbara Carrera, Bernie Casey
From: Several different companies
I've been busy the past few days, but I was able to squeeze this in last night; I hadn't seen it in years, and if I am lucky I won't see this again for many more, if ever. I explain why below:
Talk about “never saying never again”, I had seen this movie before-years ago-and was not a fan. But, I figured this was the time for me to officially review it here and put it on my Bond list here, even though of course it's non-canon and to be honest, it sort of constantly craps on the entire 007 mythos. Everyone by now should know how there was a decades long legal battle between Kevin McClory and Eon Studios, and to make a long story short, as McClory only had the rights to the movie Thunderball (which he was a writer of)-although also the rights to SPECTRE and those characters-that is how he was able to remake the film here. Thunderball has never been one of my favorites but that is definitely better than this.
I imagine most know the plot to Thunderball so I won't go into detail on this film's story, aside from there being some changes. SPECTRE stole a pair of nuclear warheads and are holding the world at ransom; Bond has to go to the Bahamas to deal with Largo and stop this plot. Now, there are talented people involved ahead and behind the camera, from the director (Irvin Kershner; he did The Empire Strikes Back, for crying out loud) to the writer (Lorenzo Semple, Jr.) to several of the crew that worked on Raiders of the Lost Ark... and the cast including Max Von Sydow, Klaus Maria Brandauer, and some others I'll mention later. It sounds like that this would be a success then. Well, while it wasn't a box office bomb, it did gross less than Octopussy, the actual Bond movie which was released about 6 months prior.
The movie, like I said before it seems to crap on Bond quite often. Sure, Sean Connery was a middle-aged man at the time when he returned to the role, but it's no fun seeing MI6 constantly bash the Double-0 program and everything about it. The story doesn't have enough of Bond being the awesome suave badass secret agent; instead, he comes across as an old man who's lost at least a few steps and gets his ass saved by others a few times.
Then there's the arcade game element... talk about dating this movie rather badly. I am going to make an assumption here but for some reason I don't think there was ever a time where arcade machines were on any casino floor along with the slot machines and gaming tables, let alone what I presume is the fanciest casino in Nice, France on the French Riviera. Even more absurd than seeing Connery and Kim Basinger have a conversation by an Atari Gravitar machine was the big duel between Bond and Largo... over a fictitious arcade game where people in their finest clothes eagerly watch. It's silly and I imagine hard to take seriously then; now, it's a laugh riot. Let's not even talk about the poor score here or how not being able to use the trademark 007 songs really hurt the movie.
It's a shame as it's not all bad. The cast does try their hardest with what they're given. I wouldn't have minded it if Kim Basinger and Barbara Carrera would have been actual Bond Girls or if Bernie Casey could have been an actual Felix Leiter. There are some decent action moments and a pretty cool bike chase. Indeed there are worse in-canon Bond movies that have been made. All that said, never say never but I probably will never see this in full again.
Runtime: 134 minutes
Directed by: Irwin Kershner
Starring: Sean Connery, Kim Basinger, Klaus Maria Brandauer, Barbara Carrera, Bernie Casey
From: Several different companies
I've been busy the past few days, but I was able to squeeze this in last night; I hadn't seen it in years, and if I am lucky I won't see this again for many more, if ever. I explain why below:
Talk about “never saying never again”, I had seen this movie before-years ago-and was not a fan. But, I figured this was the time for me to officially review it here and put it on my Bond list here, even though of course it's non-canon and to be honest, it sort of constantly craps on the entire 007 mythos. Everyone by now should know how there was a decades long legal battle between Kevin McClory and Eon Studios, and to make a long story short, as McClory only had the rights to the movie Thunderball (which he was a writer of)-although also the rights to SPECTRE and those characters-that is how he was able to remake the film here. Thunderball has never been one of my favorites but that is definitely better than this.
I imagine most know the plot to Thunderball so I won't go into detail on this film's story, aside from there being some changes. SPECTRE stole a pair of nuclear warheads and are holding the world at ransom; Bond has to go to the Bahamas to deal with Largo and stop this plot. Now, there are talented people involved ahead and behind the camera, from the director (Irvin Kershner; he did The Empire Strikes Back, for crying out loud) to the writer (Lorenzo Semple, Jr.) to several of the crew that worked on Raiders of the Lost Ark... and the cast including Max Von Sydow, Klaus Maria Brandauer, and some others I'll mention later. It sounds like that this would be a success then. Well, while it wasn't a box office bomb, it did gross less than Octopussy, the actual Bond movie which was released about 6 months prior.
The movie, like I said before it seems to crap on Bond quite often. Sure, Sean Connery was a middle-aged man at the time when he returned to the role, but it's no fun seeing MI6 constantly bash the Double-0 program and everything about it. The story doesn't have enough of Bond being the awesome suave badass secret agent; instead, he comes across as an old man who's lost at least a few steps and gets his ass saved by others a few times.
Then there's the arcade game element... talk about dating this movie rather badly. I am going to make an assumption here but for some reason I don't think there was ever a time where arcade machines were on any casino floor along with the slot machines and gaming tables, let alone what I presume is the fanciest casino in Nice, France on the French Riviera. Even more absurd than seeing Connery and Kim Basinger have a conversation by an Atari Gravitar machine was the big duel between Bond and Largo... over a fictitious arcade game where people in their finest clothes eagerly watch. It's silly and I imagine hard to take seriously then; now, it's a laugh riot. Let's not even talk about the poor score here or how not being able to use the trademark 007 songs really hurt the movie.
It's a shame as it's not all bad. The cast does try their hardest with what they're given. I wouldn't have minded it if Kim Basinger and Barbara Carrera would have been actual Bond Girls or if Bernie Casey could have been an actual Felix Leiter. There are some decent action moments and a pretty cool bike chase. Indeed there are worse in-canon Bond movies that have been made. All that said, never say never but I probably will never see this in full again.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
The Yin And The Yang Of Mr. Go
The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go (1970)
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Burgess Meredith (!)
Starring: James Mason, Jack MacGowran, Irene Tsu, Meredith, Jeff Bridges (!!)
From: Ross Film Productions
Last night I saw two movies. It was this obscurity and a rewatch of an average at best giallo known as Five Dolls for an August Moon; my opinion on that hasn't changed. As for this movie... what an oddity it is. I give basic details about it below:
This was a movie I did not even know about until last night, when I stumbled upon it and once I read the details, it was something I had to see as soon as I could, so that is what I did.
The plot: it's nonsense in Hong Kong (it was filmed there and in Toronto) where the villain is named Yin Yang Go; if that isn't preposterous enough, it's a “half-Mexican, half-Chinese” man played by... James Mason! Even more silly, Burgess Meredith plays The Dolphin, his Chinese doctor/acupuncturist, who of course uses alternative medicine. There are other familiar faces, like Broderick Crawford, Irene Tsu and Jack MacGowran, but would you believe that a famous face made his theatrical feature film debut here playing a character named NERO FINNEGAN, a James Joyce loving wannabe author? It is true... the role was played by none other than JEFF BRIDGES, no lie.
Personally, I wouldn't expect anything too weird from a movie directed and written by Meredith (again, no lie)* yet we get such things as Buddha narrating the film, a stereotypical lesbian, an old gay man-so unfortunately, a few homophobic slurs are uttered-blackmail, a “super mace”, a large Chinese man, a speargun, a wacky yet important weapon that's the MacGuffin of the plot, and more. It's all daffy and the soundtrack sounds like it should be for a promotional film for Hong Kong circa 1970's; you know, it's flower power and cheery and upbeat... that only adds to the surreal nature.
At first things are goofy yet I can still say it's watchable and fine. Then, things take an odd turn and things become real confused until the final few minutes. The entire movie is baffling overall but much of the second half, you don't want to scrutinize the plot too hard, that's all I am saying. I give it points for originality but I can still only say it's about average overall. Allegedly it's public domain so it's not difficult to find on YouTube, if you so dare.
* This is only second-hand information but apparently, in Meredith's autobiography he mentioned that the producers meddled with the movie and among other things, added the Buddha stuff and Broderick Crawford, who does only appear in footage not related to anything else in the movie. So they are partly to blame for how odd this is.
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Burgess Meredith (!)
Starring: James Mason, Jack MacGowran, Irene Tsu, Meredith, Jeff Bridges (!!)
From: Ross Film Productions
Last night I saw two movies. It was this obscurity and a rewatch of an average at best giallo known as Five Dolls for an August Moon; my opinion on that hasn't changed. As for this movie... what an oddity it is. I give basic details about it below:
This was a movie I did not even know about until last night, when I stumbled upon it and once I read the details, it was something I had to see as soon as I could, so that is what I did.
The plot: it's nonsense in Hong Kong (it was filmed there and in Toronto) where the villain is named Yin Yang Go; if that isn't preposterous enough, it's a “half-Mexican, half-Chinese” man played by... James Mason! Even more silly, Burgess Meredith plays The Dolphin, his Chinese doctor/acupuncturist, who of course uses alternative medicine. There are other familiar faces, like Broderick Crawford, Irene Tsu and Jack MacGowran, but would you believe that a famous face made his theatrical feature film debut here playing a character named NERO FINNEGAN, a James Joyce loving wannabe author? It is true... the role was played by none other than JEFF BRIDGES, no lie.
Personally, I wouldn't expect anything too weird from a movie directed and written by Meredith (again, no lie)* yet we get such things as Buddha narrating the film, a stereotypical lesbian, an old gay man-so unfortunately, a few homophobic slurs are uttered-blackmail, a “super mace”, a large Chinese man, a speargun, a wacky yet important weapon that's the MacGuffin of the plot, and more. It's all daffy and the soundtrack sounds like it should be for a promotional film for Hong Kong circa 1970's; you know, it's flower power and cheery and upbeat... that only adds to the surreal nature.
At first things are goofy yet I can still say it's watchable and fine. Then, things take an odd turn and things become real confused until the final few minutes. The entire movie is baffling overall but much of the second half, you don't want to scrutinize the plot too hard, that's all I am saying. I give it points for originality but I can still only say it's about average overall. Allegedly it's public domain so it's not difficult to find on YouTube, if you so dare.
* This is only second-hand information but apparently, in Meredith's autobiography he mentioned that the producers meddled with the movie and among other things, added the Buddha stuff and Broderick Crawford, who does only appear in footage not related to anything else in the movie. So they are partly to blame for how odd this is.
Monday, February 20, 2017
La La Land
La La Land (2016)
93% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 331 reviews)
Runtime: 128 minutes
Directed by: Damien Chazelle
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, John Legend, Rosemarie DeWitt, Finn Wittrock
From: Summit Entertainment
Most people love this movie, I know that for certain. I can only say I liked it, as it is charming and it looks real nice. Unfortunately, the plot... I explain it below:
It wasn't until Saturday night that I finally saw this heavily-hyped movie, which most have fallen in love with and because it's the Oscars and they are usually easy to predict, this probably will win Best Picture this upcoming Sunday. I wish I could say that I love this too, but... hopefully I don't sound like a gigantic grinch or a Lee Chandler come to life; this is honestly how I feel.
Everyone knows how this is a musical about the ill-fated love story between Sebastian and Mia, and how they deal with being a musician/hopeful jazz nightclub owner and actress, respectively. The movie certainly looks pretty with plenty of memorable moments and scenes (even though there is a LOT of navel-gazing going on), a pleasant-enough score and song and dance numbers where it's not as great as it was “back in the day” but it was still acceptable for my tastes.
Unfortunately, aside from it making me wish I'd watch or rewatch various old musicals where the leads do the song and dance better and feature choreography that will blow you away, it is more than a slight problem when the big relationship between the two leads, I did not really care about. It's difficult to conceptualize into words, but it did not enrapture me. I thought the leads were dopey, sometimes pretty annoying and did a lot of dumb things. For the movie's sake, I hope that the reason why the story sometimes is really dumb or makes no sense is because the director decided to slavishly follow the cornball and silly plots that plenty of those old genre pictures had too.
I mean, at times I wondered why a cell phone wasn't used... while it has plenty of pandering to old movies/a retro aesthetic, it is still set in modern times and smartphones are seen being used by the leads. I can't explain why Mia is unfamiliar with the concept of musicians going on tour. Not to mention, I was begging for more music during the second act, as I thought it would have been better than watching some hoary dramatics taking place. Aside from the problem with our protagonists, John Legend is in a supporting role and everything about his character is confused; his music is commercial but it's not an abomination as the film seems to suggest. Others have noted this, and it's odd, really.
I wish I could have loved this like everyone else does. It certainly is charming overall and has great visuals throughout. It just did not blow me away or work its magic on me like it has for the movie-going public in general. While I don't regularly watch old musicals I certainly appreciated the idea of bringing them back, and jazz music is pretty cool... even if it's a white hipster singing its praises. The final number, it was greatly and at times brutally effective and it did make me feel melancholy as I was reminded of certain things that happened in my life. Even then, I can only say this was “fine” when I look at the film as a whole. At least that dark blue fridge at the end and the KEYTAR were cool, admittedly....
93% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 331 reviews)
Runtime: 128 minutes
Directed by: Damien Chazelle
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, John Legend, Rosemarie DeWitt, Finn Wittrock
From: Summit Entertainment
Most people love this movie, I know that for certain. I can only say I liked it, as it is charming and it looks real nice. Unfortunately, the plot... I explain it below:
It wasn't until Saturday night that I finally saw this heavily-hyped movie, which most have fallen in love with and because it's the Oscars and they are usually easy to predict, this probably will win Best Picture this upcoming Sunday. I wish I could say that I love this too, but... hopefully I don't sound like a gigantic grinch or a Lee Chandler come to life; this is honestly how I feel.
Everyone knows how this is a musical about the ill-fated love story between Sebastian and Mia, and how they deal with being a musician/hopeful jazz nightclub owner and actress, respectively. The movie certainly looks pretty with plenty of memorable moments and scenes (even though there is a LOT of navel-gazing going on), a pleasant-enough score and song and dance numbers where it's not as great as it was “back in the day” but it was still acceptable for my tastes.
Unfortunately, aside from it making me wish I'd watch or rewatch various old musicals where the leads do the song and dance better and feature choreography that will blow you away, it is more than a slight problem when the big relationship between the two leads, I did not really care about. It's difficult to conceptualize into words, but it did not enrapture me. I thought the leads were dopey, sometimes pretty annoying and did a lot of dumb things. For the movie's sake, I hope that the reason why the story sometimes is really dumb or makes no sense is because the director decided to slavishly follow the cornball and silly plots that plenty of those old genre pictures had too.
I mean, at times I wondered why a cell phone wasn't used... while it has plenty of pandering to old movies/a retro aesthetic, it is still set in modern times and smartphones are seen being used by the leads. I can't explain why Mia is unfamiliar with the concept of musicians going on tour. Not to mention, I was begging for more music during the second act, as I thought it would have been better than watching some hoary dramatics taking place. Aside from the problem with our protagonists, John Legend is in a supporting role and everything about his character is confused; his music is commercial but it's not an abomination as the film seems to suggest. Others have noted this, and it's odd, really.
I wish I could have loved this like everyone else does. It certainly is charming overall and has great visuals throughout. It just did not blow me away or work its magic on me like it has for the movie-going public in general. While I don't regularly watch old musicals I certainly appreciated the idea of bringing them back, and jazz music is pretty cool... even if it's a white hipster singing its praises. The final number, it was greatly and at times brutally effective and it did make me feel melancholy as I was reminded of certain things that happened in my life. Even then, I can only say this was “fine” when I look at the film as a whole. At least that dark blue fridge at the end and the KEYTAR were cool, admittedly....
Fences
Fences (2016)
93% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 194 reviews)
Runtime: 139 minutes
Directed by: Denzel Washington
Starring: Denzel, Viola Davis, Stephen McKinley Davis, Jovan Adepo, Russell Hornsby
From: Paramount
I saw this film on Saturday in a movie marathon on the big screen, which was nice. The big crowd I was with seemed to enjoy it, audibly reacting to some big moments. Despite it seeming like a long movie at times and some iffy moments-not to mention an ending best described as “curious”-overall I can say I enjoyed this melodrama movie set in 1950's Pittsburgh.
It centered on the African-American Maxson family, where the patriarch is Troy (Denzel Washington), a former ballplayer in the Negro Leagues who was too old by the time Major League Baseball allowed black players to play and thus he had to become a garbageman, the matriarch is Rose (Viola Davis) and there's 17 year old Cory (Jovan Adepo). Cory has an older half-brother named Lyons (Russell Hornsby) who occasionally drops by. There's also Gabriel, Troy's brother who happens to be mentally handicapped after a traumatic event; thankfully the character wasn't as “Simple Jack” as he could have been. Finally, Troy has his pal Bono (Stephen McKinley Henderson), who sometimes stops by to hang out.
1950's Pittsburgh looks both nice and authentic, although most of the action is focused on the inside and outside of the house. This is definitely a movie filled with dialogue and its stage origins are obvious. That was fine to me here as the story was compelling and there are some tremendous performances and some great scenes. I was not familiar with the play this was based on (written by the late August Wilson) but I know it was on Broadway previously, and both Washington and Davis played those roles on stage and won Tony Awards for their performances. They may both win Oscars for their performances captured here, and I wouldn't complain about either as both are aces in their roles as they played complex characters, especially on Denzel's part. At first Troy seems gregarious but as things progress... you see he is haunted by his past and is obsessed with both The Grim Reaper and baseball. I'll leave it at that.
The cast as a whole does a nice job overall. You only see a handful of people throughout, aside from little kids playing baseball in the street a few times to start off a scene. I hadn't seen Adepo before and in a difficult role he was successful. So was Henderson, who was also new to me and despite a role not as challenging he also knocked it out of the park. It was amusing seeing him in this film, as I had seen Manchester by the Sea right before this and in that film he only appears in a scene that lasts about 90 seconds long and that was it. Here his role was more substantial so I was able to see his talents.
I understand those who didn't care for the movie, as there are legitimate complaints to be made. Yet, I was glad I saw this as it worked for me overall.
93% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 194 reviews)
Runtime: 139 minutes
Directed by: Denzel Washington
Starring: Denzel, Viola Davis, Stephen McKinley Davis, Jovan Adepo, Russell Hornsby
From: Paramount
I saw this film on Saturday in a movie marathon on the big screen, which was nice. The big crowd I was with seemed to enjoy it, audibly reacting to some big moments. Despite it seeming like a long movie at times and some iffy moments-not to mention an ending best described as “curious”-overall I can say I enjoyed this melodrama movie set in 1950's Pittsburgh.
It centered on the African-American Maxson family, where the patriarch is Troy (Denzel Washington), a former ballplayer in the Negro Leagues who was too old by the time Major League Baseball allowed black players to play and thus he had to become a garbageman, the matriarch is Rose (Viola Davis) and there's 17 year old Cory (Jovan Adepo). Cory has an older half-brother named Lyons (Russell Hornsby) who occasionally drops by. There's also Gabriel, Troy's brother who happens to be mentally handicapped after a traumatic event; thankfully the character wasn't as “Simple Jack” as he could have been. Finally, Troy has his pal Bono (Stephen McKinley Henderson), who sometimes stops by to hang out.
1950's Pittsburgh looks both nice and authentic, although most of the action is focused on the inside and outside of the house. This is definitely a movie filled with dialogue and its stage origins are obvious. That was fine to me here as the story was compelling and there are some tremendous performances and some great scenes. I was not familiar with the play this was based on (written by the late August Wilson) but I know it was on Broadway previously, and both Washington and Davis played those roles on stage and won Tony Awards for their performances. They may both win Oscars for their performances captured here, and I wouldn't complain about either as both are aces in their roles as they played complex characters, especially on Denzel's part. At first Troy seems gregarious but as things progress... you see he is haunted by his past and is obsessed with both The Grim Reaper and baseball. I'll leave it at that.
The cast as a whole does a nice job overall. You only see a handful of people throughout, aside from little kids playing baseball in the street a few times to start off a scene. I hadn't seen Adepo before and in a difficult role he was successful. So was Henderson, who was also new to me and despite a role not as challenging he also knocked it out of the park. It was amusing seeing him in this film, as I had seen Manchester by the Sea right before this and in that film he only appears in a scene that lasts about 90 seconds long and that was it. Here his role was more substantial so I was able to see his talents.
I understand those who didn't care for the movie, as there are legitimate complaints to be made. Yet, I was glad I saw this as it worked for me overall.
Sunday, February 19, 2017
Manchester By The Sea
Manchester by the Sea (2016)
96% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 244 reviews)
Runtime: 137 minutes
Directed by: Kenneth Lonergan
Starring: Casey Affleck, Lucas Hedges, Michelle Williams, Kyle Chandler, Gretchen Mol
From: Roadside Attractions/Amazon Studios
I went and saw 4 movies today. One of them was Hell or High Water, which I saw last summer and I don't need to review it again. By tomorrow night I'll post the reviews of the two others. I wish I could have seen the quartet of movies with a better/less annoying crowd, but alas... I also wish I could have enjoyed this better. Eh, oh well. It wasn't the only disappointment of the day, as you'll find out tomorrow night. Why I didn't like this is explained below:
As I did in 2014 and 2016, I went and saw one of the two Best Picture Showcases that AMC Theatres presented. This is where at select locations AMC presents half of the Best Picture nominees in a marathon. At least where I go (Disney Springs on Walt Disney World grounds) it's held in a large auditorium of almost 350 seats and it always comes close to selling out; no wonder this is the 11th year AMC has held this event. Yesterday, I got to see this film, Fences, Hell or High Water, then La La Land. As I saw Hell or High Water this past summer, I won't be reviewing it again; I can say I still rate it highly after a second viewing. Tomorrow I'll review the other two films.
I realize that many people reading this are shocked I don't have this rated 5 stars, as most around these parts love the movie. To be honest, I haven't seen either of Lonergan's previous films before. I'll be honest here and say that if You Can Count on Me and Margaret are filled with nonstop awkwardness, A-hole characters, people usually yelling and screaming at each other, inappropriate humor, and constant dropping of the F-bomb... I honestly would rather not see them. It's a shame this movie did not win me over, as the general idea of a broken man trying to repair his life and dealing with suddenly have to raise his 16 year old nephew is a nice one.
Obviously most disagree but I thought most of the characters you see in this film are gigantic A-holes and people I did not want to spend time with. If it wasn't for some great scenes throughout the film and quality performances from Casey Affleck and Lucas Hedges as the leads (and Michelle Williams in her supporting role), I'd rate this even lower. Those moments help elevate this to technically a score I say is “fine” but watching such an unpleasant movie was not enjoyable for me even if I thought that the lead character's ultimate decision was an appropriate one considering the circumstances and how he was always an awkward human being and after that horrific event he was probably forever damaged.
I can also say that the movie did look nice & the Massachusetts setting was scenic. Last month a pair of people I knew (not Letterboxd members by any means) saw the film and didn't like it at all. I did not pry them for details. I at least can give some compliments; besides what I already mentioned, I was fine with how there were flashbacks throughout that progressively showed the audience why Lee Chandler acted the way he did. I did not know beforehand what awful event happened which explained why he wasn't a family man anymore like he was in the earlier flashbacks. I did not complain with how brutal that moment was; I just wish the score during that 10 minute segment wouldn't have been so loud and overbearing; I thought subtlety would have been better there. It's not my only complaint with how music was used, to be honest.
I am fine with other people loving this; me, it's far too abrasive for my tastes to ever want to watch this again.
96% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 244 reviews)
Runtime: 137 minutes
Directed by: Kenneth Lonergan
Starring: Casey Affleck, Lucas Hedges, Michelle Williams, Kyle Chandler, Gretchen Mol
From: Roadside Attractions/Amazon Studios
I went and saw 4 movies today. One of them was Hell or High Water, which I saw last summer and I don't need to review it again. By tomorrow night I'll post the reviews of the two others. I wish I could have seen the quartet of movies with a better/less annoying crowd, but alas... I also wish I could have enjoyed this better. Eh, oh well. It wasn't the only disappointment of the day, as you'll find out tomorrow night. Why I didn't like this is explained below:
As I did in 2014 and 2016, I went and saw one of the two Best Picture Showcases that AMC Theatres presented. This is where at select locations AMC presents half of the Best Picture nominees in a marathon. At least where I go (Disney Springs on Walt Disney World grounds) it's held in a large auditorium of almost 350 seats and it always comes close to selling out; no wonder this is the 11th year AMC has held this event. Yesterday, I got to see this film, Fences, Hell or High Water, then La La Land. As I saw Hell or High Water this past summer, I won't be reviewing it again; I can say I still rate it highly after a second viewing. Tomorrow I'll review the other two films.
I realize that many people reading this are shocked I don't have this rated 5 stars, as most around these parts love the movie. To be honest, I haven't seen either of Lonergan's previous films before. I'll be honest here and say that if You Can Count on Me and Margaret are filled with nonstop awkwardness, A-hole characters, people usually yelling and screaming at each other, inappropriate humor, and constant dropping of the F-bomb... I honestly would rather not see them. It's a shame this movie did not win me over, as the general idea of a broken man trying to repair his life and dealing with suddenly have to raise his 16 year old nephew is a nice one.
Obviously most disagree but I thought most of the characters you see in this film are gigantic A-holes and people I did not want to spend time with. If it wasn't for some great scenes throughout the film and quality performances from Casey Affleck and Lucas Hedges as the leads (and Michelle Williams in her supporting role), I'd rate this even lower. Those moments help elevate this to technically a score I say is “fine” but watching such an unpleasant movie was not enjoyable for me even if I thought that the lead character's ultimate decision was an appropriate one considering the circumstances and how he was always an awkward human being and after that horrific event he was probably forever damaged.
I can also say that the movie did look nice & the Massachusetts setting was scenic. Last month a pair of people I knew (not Letterboxd members by any means) saw the film and didn't like it at all. I did not pry them for details. I at least can give some compliments; besides what I already mentioned, I was fine with how there were flashbacks throughout that progressively showed the audience why Lee Chandler acted the way he did. I did not know beforehand what awful event happened which explained why he wasn't a family man anymore like he was in the earlier flashbacks. I did not complain with how brutal that moment was; I just wish the score during that 10 minute segment wouldn't have been so loud and overbearing; I thought subtlety would have been better there. It's not my only complaint with how music was used, to be honest.
I am fine with other people loving this; me, it's far too abrasive for my tastes to ever want to watch this again.
Saturday, February 18, 2017
The Great Wall
The Great Wall (2016)
36% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 143 reviews)
Runtime: 103 minutes
Directed by: Yimou Zhang
Starring: Matt Damon, Tian Jing, Willem Dafoe, Andy Lau, Pedro Pascal
From: Universal... and some Chinese companies
I am posting this at this hour as I'll be seeing a movie marathon today, which I'll explain when I return tomorrow. Talk of this cheesy yet fun movie is below:
I've mentioned before how in recent years China and the Chinese film market has become intertwined with Hollywood and its film market, so we have had Chinese actors appear in American films, Chinese companies co-finance big budget productions, and now we have a Chinese movie with some American actors as a wide release in the United States. Considering I've heard stories in the past about how China isn't always willing to send over the box office earnings to the film studios-not to mention all the controversy surrounding China as a whole... human rights violations, Communism and the like-hopefully this decision to pursue a gigantic film market and the almighty dollar isn't something that has dire ramifications for Hollywood in the future.
Anyhow, the movie on its own caused controversy. A segment of the Internet got really angry when they first heard about this; of course this was just based on only the film's title and knowing it starred Matt Damon. They leapt to conclusions and automatically thought “whitewashing” without any knowledge of the plot or how it was a mostly Chinese production filled with a mostly Chinese crew and actors, but why let facts get in the way of outrage?
I saw this film last night knowing already that many did not enjoy it; it's a big hit in China so I know it won't be a money-loser no matter what. After seeing it for myself, it technically isn't good between the story, some of the performances (whatever accent Damon had, it changed often so it's not worth figuring out what it was supposed to be) and a large amount of the English dialogue. After saying all that, I can still say it's “fine.” Honestly, it's a B movie and a much lower budget less elaborate version with practical effects, I'd imagine Golan-Globus or Roger Corman making it in the 80's or late 70's; at least for me it reminded me of the halcyon days of yore.
I presume by now that everyone is familiar with the general plot. I mean, a mutual I follow here admitted he didn't when he saw the movie yesterday but at this time, I imagine everyone knows how this is about Matt Damon, who is “from Europe” and he is with an odious pal and they wish to take some gunpowder and bring it back home. What a hell of a roadtrip that is. It becomes worse when you discover that The Great Wall of China was built in order to prevent monsters from attacking. While they only do it every 60 years, it took over 1,000 years to build it, and technically it was great WALLS until they were later joined. Again, I'll bring up, why let facts get in the way of a good story... they do say in the beginning this was a “legend” so I guess it's alright... maybe...
But enough of my blatherings. There are plenty of entertaining action scenes that are shot so they can be comprehensible (usually a novel idea in Hollywood these days), the CG monsters look like something from a videogame but in a charming way... it looks and sounds great, but that shouldn't be a shocker considering the director was Yimou Zhang. There are wacky over the top moments and plenty of bright/colorful outfits. The musical score is pretty entertaining, as was this movie to me. I knew it wouldn't be high art and it worked as popcorn fluff which wasn't cringe-worthy to me. While there's the whole “white savior” element, it's not as bad as it could have been and the leader of the territory that does battle with these creatures is a badass young woman who is pretty rad. How can I hate a movie which has such elements?
36% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 143 reviews)
Runtime: 103 minutes
Directed by: Yimou Zhang
Starring: Matt Damon, Tian Jing, Willem Dafoe, Andy Lau, Pedro Pascal
From: Universal... and some Chinese companies
I am posting this at this hour as I'll be seeing a movie marathon today, which I'll explain when I return tomorrow. Talk of this cheesy yet fun movie is below:
I've mentioned before how in recent years China and the Chinese film market has become intertwined with Hollywood and its film market, so we have had Chinese actors appear in American films, Chinese companies co-finance big budget productions, and now we have a Chinese movie with some American actors as a wide release in the United States. Considering I've heard stories in the past about how China isn't always willing to send over the box office earnings to the film studios-not to mention all the controversy surrounding China as a whole... human rights violations, Communism and the like-hopefully this decision to pursue a gigantic film market and the almighty dollar isn't something that has dire ramifications for Hollywood in the future.
Anyhow, the movie on its own caused controversy. A segment of the Internet got really angry when they first heard about this; of course this was just based on only the film's title and knowing it starred Matt Damon. They leapt to conclusions and automatically thought “whitewashing” without any knowledge of the plot or how it was a mostly Chinese production filled with a mostly Chinese crew and actors, but why let facts get in the way of outrage?
I saw this film last night knowing already that many did not enjoy it; it's a big hit in China so I know it won't be a money-loser no matter what. After seeing it for myself, it technically isn't good between the story, some of the performances (whatever accent Damon had, it changed often so it's not worth figuring out what it was supposed to be) and a large amount of the English dialogue. After saying all that, I can still say it's “fine.” Honestly, it's a B movie and a much lower budget less elaborate version with practical effects, I'd imagine Golan-Globus or Roger Corman making it in the 80's or late 70's; at least for me it reminded me of the halcyon days of yore.
I presume by now that everyone is familiar with the general plot. I mean, a mutual I follow here admitted he didn't when he saw the movie yesterday but at this time, I imagine everyone knows how this is about Matt Damon, who is “from Europe” and he is with an odious pal and they wish to take some gunpowder and bring it back home. What a hell of a roadtrip that is. It becomes worse when you discover that The Great Wall of China was built in order to prevent monsters from attacking. While they only do it every 60 years, it took over 1,000 years to build it, and technically it was great WALLS until they were later joined. Again, I'll bring up, why let facts get in the way of a good story... they do say in the beginning this was a “legend” so I guess it's alright... maybe...
But enough of my blatherings. There are plenty of entertaining action scenes that are shot so they can be comprehensible (usually a novel idea in Hollywood these days), the CG monsters look like something from a videogame but in a charming way... it looks and sounds great, but that shouldn't be a shocker considering the director was Yimou Zhang. There are wacky over the top moments and plenty of bright/colorful outfits. The musical score is pretty entertaining, as was this movie to me. I knew it wouldn't be high art and it worked as popcorn fluff which wasn't cringe-worthy to me. While there's the whole “white savior” element, it's not as bad as it could have been and the leader of the territory that does battle with these creatures is a badass young woman who is pretty rad. How can I hate a movie which has such elements?
Thursday, February 16, 2017
Taken 3
Taken 3 (2014)
11% on Rotten Tomatoes, out of 105 reviews
Runtime: I saw the unrated version, which was 115 minutes
Directed by: The hack known as Olivier Megaton
Starring: Liam Neeson, Forest Whitaker, Maggie Grace, Dougray Scott, Famke Janssen
From: 20th Century Fox
Oh Lord, this movie... it's even worse than Taken 2. I explain why below:
It was not the plan to watch Taken 2 and then immediately thereafter this piece of crap, but I was with someone last night and this is what they wanted to do, so that is what happened. I had never seen any version of 3 before; once I saw that the director would be the same, I knew to give it a pass. Finally, I saw the unrated version and it made me wish I could watch 2 again, it was so bad.
To steal a thought from someone else, this movie is pretty much The Fugitive remade; the ex-wife of Bryan Mills is murdered and it's set up to appear that he did it, so he's on the run from the cops while trying to avoid a group of people after him, led by a wise man. In this case, Liam Neeson has to avoid Forest Whitaker, who I guess is wise because he doesn't underestimate Mills and he has some odd tics involving such things as a chess piece and rubber bands. I know, “great” characterization, right? Then again, I knew I was in trouble in the first act when we got several moments straight out of a sitcom happen between Bryan and his daughter Kim, who is at least college aged now and is closer in age to Maggie Grace.
The story is complete nonsense; it's drivel and they try to go the convoluted route but there are few surprises, if any at all. Russian gangsters factor into the plot and while that sort of thing is sadly more relevant now than it was a few years ago, that does not make this retroactively better. It's incredibly dumb and I'd rather not say more about the plot. To my disappointment, not only did director Olivier Megaton return, he actually regressed as an action director. The quick cutting and shaky-cam was even worse than in 2, sapping all the fun out of the action scenes.
The actors don't really care, you can't enjoy the action and the plot was poppycock, where Mills can cause an incredible amount of collateral damage, to little repercussions. Let's hope Neeson is literally too old for this shit and we never get a Taken 4 (Please, No More).
11% on Rotten Tomatoes, out of 105 reviews
Runtime: I saw the unrated version, which was 115 minutes
Directed by: The hack known as Olivier Megaton
Starring: Liam Neeson, Forest Whitaker, Maggie Grace, Dougray Scott, Famke Janssen
From: 20th Century Fox
Oh Lord, this movie... it's even worse than Taken 2. I explain why below:
It was not the plan to watch Taken 2 and then immediately thereafter this piece of crap, but I was with someone last night and this is what they wanted to do, so that is what happened. I had never seen any version of 3 before; once I saw that the director would be the same, I knew to give it a pass. Finally, I saw the unrated version and it made me wish I could watch 2 again, it was so bad.
To steal a thought from someone else, this movie is pretty much The Fugitive remade; the ex-wife of Bryan Mills is murdered and it's set up to appear that he did it, so he's on the run from the cops while trying to avoid a group of people after him, led by a wise man. In this case, Liam Neeson has to avoid Forest Whitaker, who I guess is wise because he doesn't underestimate Mills and he has some odd tics involving such things as a chess piece and rubber bands. I know, “great” characterization, right? Then again, I knew I was in trouble in the first act when we got several moments straight out of a sitcom happen between Bryan and his daughter Kim, who is at least college aged now and is closer in age to Maggie Grace.
The story is complete nonsense; it's drivel and they try to go the convoluted route but there are few surprises, if any at all. Russian gangsters factor into the plot and while that sort of thing is sadly more relevant now than it was a few years ago, that does not make this retroactively better. It's incredibly dumb and I'd rather not say more about the plot. To my disappointment, not only did director Olivier Megaton return, he actually regressed as an action director. The quick cutting and shaky-cam was even worse than in 2, sapping all the fun out of the action scenes.
The actors don't really care, you can't enjoy the action and the plot was poppycock, where Mills can cause an incredible amount of collateral damage, to little repercussions. Let's hope Neeson is literally too old for this shit and we never get a Taken 4 (Please, No More).
The First Two Taken Movies
I saw and reviewed them here a few years ago but to be brief, the first one is still a lot of fun and the second is still pretty bad. Well, I finally saw the third one; it's even worse than the second one. I'll explain why late Thursday night.
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
The Admiral: Roaring Currents
The Admiral: Roaring Currents (Myeong-Ryang) (2014)
Runtime: 128 minutes
Directed by: Han-Min Kim
Starring: Min-Sik Choi, Seung-Ryong Ryu, Jin-Woong Jo, Myung-Gon Kim, Ku Jin
From: Several South Korean companies
It's been awhile since I've seen a South Korean film; as this one will be gone from Netflix Instant in a matter of hours, this is what I went with. It's pretty good, as I explain below:
Runtime: 128 minutes
Directed by: Han-Min Kim
Starring: Min-Sik Choi, Seung-Ryong Ryu, Jin-Woong Jo, Myung-Gon Kim, Ku Jin
From: Several South Korean companies
It's been awhile since I've seen a South Korean film; as this one will be gone from Netflix Instant in a matter of hours, this is what I went with. It's pretty good, as I explain below:
As sometimes happens, I only see a film because it's about to leave Netflix Instant. That was the case here with this film, which will be gone in a matter of hours from when I post this. It's still the most popular domestic release in the history of the South Korean box office so it obviously resonated with the citizens as it told a real life tale where in 1597 a fleet of only 12 ships did battle with over 300 invading ships from Japan and because of the currents in the water and other factors, it was not a mismatch like it first appeared to be.
Now, the story would be stronger for me if I was more familiar with the various key figures you see, both from Korea and Japan, not to mention the whole “nationalistic pride” thing. Even with that caveat, I was able to genuinely figure out what was going on. Only a little bit of the focus was on the Japanese side; I understand but I wouldn't have minded this be longer and have the attention be more equal; considering the box office performance, the producers did things the right way.
Anyhow, the focus is on Korean Admiral Yi Sun-Shin as he does some rather harsh things to motivate his troops to do battle against the Japanese despite overwhelming odds. Yet, those troops did need motivating so the Admiral does not come off badly. The second half of the movie is almost all action as it's devoted to the big battle on the seas and it's all pretty exciting and some of the violence is pretty badly... although not as gruesome as you see in some films from the country. While not the best I have seen from South Korea by any means, it is clear how this stirring film that was well-made became such a success. Later on I'll look into the real life story to see how much “creative liberty” was taken here; as it this is a pretty good film with some good drama to go along with the action.
Monday, February 13, 2017
John Wick: Chapter 2
John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
90% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 122 reviews)
Runtime: 122 minutes
Directed by: Chad Stahelski
Starring: Keanu Reeves, Riccardo Scamarcio, Ian McShane, Common, Lance Reddick
From: Summit Entertainment
Boy was I let down by this movie. I am disappointed to say this but I can't lie to you guys. I explain why below:
I hate having to rate the movie this way, but I have to be honest here. It reminds me of The Raid and The Raid 2. I need to watch the first Raid again so I can give it a proper review but both that and John Wick are simple yet effective, both awesome action films with tremendous beats and it's not the point that the story is pared down to the bone in order to focus on basic themes that everyone can understand. Both this movie and The Raid 2 complicate matters by having more complex stories which I unfortunately did not enjoy at all. Raid 2 was a bad crime Asian crime drama which paled in comparison to all the great tales to come from that part of the world and Chapter 2, I won't spoil this brand new movie except to say that while the first Wick was greatly enjoyable and a lot of fun, to me this movie was hardly any fun at all and instead was not only preposterous and far-fetched, but not entertaining. A massive disappointment, considering that in both movies they have tremendous action scenes; the ones in Chapter 2 are creative, are usually a lot of fun and are typically shot cleanly.
I won't spoil what the plot is; at least for me I went into the movie not knowing what it was about except that Wick was out of retirement again and the co-stars were Common and Ruby Rose. I'll leave it at that in case other people are in the same boat as me. I saw this movie on a giant screen and I couldn't turn down that opportunity so that is why I saw this late last night when I was thinking beforehand that I'd watch this tonight. As the movie looks and sounds real good, it was a wise move on my part... shame the plot was no fun for me... not to mention it wasn't told well to boot. I groaned and sighed more often than I was expecting.
I can't fault Keanu for his performance or his martial arts skills. Wick is still a badass who causes some to soil their pants at the mere mention of him. As I did not follow the movie beforehand I was pleasantly surprised to see some old action movie veterans appear; that was a positive. I am sure everyone will dig the action beats; it's more up in the air what people will think of the story being told in this Chapter, or its ending. Needless to say I did not care for the ending either or what it was suggesting. This movie has enough to where I can technically rate it as “fine” but as I expected something to blow my socks off, I am crestfallen that this only gets 3 stars from me.
90% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 122 reviews)
Runtime: 122 minutes
Directed by: Chad Stahelski
Starring: Keanu Reeves, Riccardo Scamarcio, Ian McShane, Common, Lance Reddick
From: Summit Entertainment
Boy was I let down by this movie. I am disappointed to say this but I can't lie to you guys. I explain why below:
I hate having to rate the movie this way, but I have to be honest here. It reminds me of The Raid and The Raid 2. I need to watch the first Raid again so I can give it a proper review but both that and John Wick are simple yet effective, both awesome action films with tremendous beats and it's not the point that the story is pared down to the bone in order to focus on basic themes that everyone can understand. Both this movie and The Raid 2 complicate matters by having more complex stories which I unfortunately did not enjoy at all. Raid 2 was a bad crime Asian crime drama which paled in comparison to all the great tales to come from that part of the world and Chapter 2, I won't spoil this brand new movie except to say that while the first Wick was greatly enjoyable and a lot of fun, to me this movie was hardly any fun at all and instead was not only preposterous and far-fetched, but not entertaining. A massive disappointment, considering that in both movies they have tremendous action scenes; the ones in Chapter 2 are creative, are usually a lot of fun and are typically shot cleanly.
I won't spoil what the plot is; at least for me I went into the movie not knowing what it was about except that Wick was out of retirement again and the co-stars were Common and Ruby Rose. I'll leave it at that in case other people are in the same boat as me. I saw this movie on a giant screen and I couldn't turn down that opportunity so that is why I saw this late last night when I was thinking beforehand that I'd watch this tonight. As the movie looks and sounds real good, it was a wise move on my part... shame the plot was no fun for me... not to mention it wasn't told well to boot. I groaned and sighed more often than I was expecting.
I can't fault Keanu for his performance or his martial arts skills. Wick is still a badass who causes some to soil their pants at the mere mention of him. As I did not follow the movie beforehand I was pleasantly surprised to see some old action movie veterans appear; that was a positive. I am sure everyone will dig the action beats; it's more up in the air what people will think of the story being told in this Chapter, or its ending. Needless to say I did not care for the ending either or what it was suggesting. This movie has enough to where I can technically rate it as “fine” but as I expected something to blow my socks off, I am crestfallen that this only gets 3 stars from me.
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Alien 3
Alien 3 (1992)
Runtime: 145 minutes (The Assembly Cut; that's what I saw)
Directed by: David Fincher
Starring: Sigourney Weaver, Charles S. Dutton, Charles Dance, Brian Glover, Ralph Brown
From: 20th Century Fox
I hadn't seen this movie in years. I was fine with that. This is not terrible but it's not great either. I give all the sordid details below:
NOTE: In the past I have seen both versions of the film, albeit both were years ago. I went with the 145 minute Assembly Cut, as everyone says it is better than what 20th Century Fox released theatrically. I imagine David Fincher would also agree, but he's always disowned the movie and this cut had to be put together by the producer using his notes. I am not the biggest Fincher fan (while I haven't seen a lot of his most highly regarded movies, I can say that the one time I saw Fight Club I hated it and this was in 2001 so it wasn't a “in hindsight” sort of thing and Gone Girl is not only thoroughly unpleasant but has like 50 gigantic story-ruining plotholes and yet most people love it to death...?) and even I can say he was done wrong, in between being hired at the last minute, not having a finished script when filming began, and fighting Fox the entire time-and doing this when he was a first time feature film director... “unfair” is me underselling it. My problems with Fincher don't have to do with his directorial skills, in other words.
The first two Alien movies, I have seen plenty of times as they are both really awesome. The rest of the series, less so. Thus, that is why I haven't seen this in over 10 years. Watching it again, the Assembly Cut is better; while some of the added beats aren't always great, overall it is an improvement and at least there aren't characters that vanish out of nowhere never to return. Yet, it's a shame that production was always a nightmare. Fincher was not the original director and this script was definitely not original either.
There were many different versions. The first teaser trailer seemed to suggest a xenomorph would be coming to Earth. That brings up bad memories of the AvP films; the less said about them the better. I wonder what it would have been like if New Zealand director Vincent Ward would have made what he desired, which was a setting of a floating wooden planet that is populated by cloistered monks. I know, pretty weird and you don't want to think about the plot too much or how a floating wooden planet is even a thing but at least its aesthetic probably would have been pretty bitchin'.
Instead, we get Ripley crash landing on a desolate planet which has a foundry facility where the workers (born again as they are) are extremely violent and predatory criminals. They are “double Y”, which the movie doesn't elaborate upon (unfortunately, the movie fails to properly explain a few important details like that. When one of the things is a huge part of the climax... I won't get into it but it is unfortunate) but the movie's Wikipedia article explains as a genetic disorder which makes him predisposed to be a criminal, in essence. In this setting where modern weapons aren't a thing, these characters have to deal with a xenomorph, sometimes seen as an early 90's CGI thing... yikes does it usually look bad 25 years after the fact.
I wish that the director would have been able to make what he wanted to and not be so hamstrung by Fox, among the other problems I listed already. It's not always a sign of doom, but more often than not when you start shooting a movie with an unfinished script, the movie at best will be disappointing. Considering all the drama it's an achievement that this is still watchable and I can rate it as “fine”; it's just that the first two are legendary classics and fair or not, this is a letdown in comparison. Having to deal with a bunch of lowlife criminals seems like no fun but thankfully this does not revel in disgusting behavior so while this is dark, it isn't a miserable experience. Unfortunately, this is no better than just watchable. The plot and geography of the world is lacking and not even strong performances from Sigourney Weaver and Charles S. Dutton and a powerful ending (which is negated by there being Alien: Resurrection; whoops) can make this a classic.
Runtime: 145 minutes (The Assembly Cut; that's what I saw)
Directed by: David Fincher
Starring: Sigourney Weaver, Charles S. Dutton, Charles Dance, Brian Glover, Ralph Brown
From: 20th Century Fox
I hadn't seen this movie in years. I was fine with that. This is not terrible but it's not great either. I give all the sordid details below:
NOTE: In the past I have seen both versions of the film, albeit both were years ago. I went with the 145 minute Assembly Cut, as everyone says it is better than what 20th Century Fox released theatrically. I imagine David Fincher would also agree, but he's always disowned the movie and this cut had to be put together by the producer using his notes. I am not the biggest Fincher fan (while I haven't seen a lot of his most highly regarded movies, I can say that the one time I saw Fight Club I hated it and this was in 2001 so it wasn't a “in hindsight” sort of thing and Gone Girl is not only thoroughly unpleasant but has like 50 gigantic story-ruining plotholes and yet most people love it to death...?) and even I can say he was done wrong, in between being hired at the last minute, not having a finished script when filming began, and fighting Fox the entire time-and doing this when he was a first time feature film director... “unfair” is me underselling it. My problems with Fincher don't have to do with his directorial skills, in other words.
The first two Alien movies, I have seen plenty of times as they are both really awesome. The rest of the series, less so. Thus, that is why I haven't seen this in over 10 years. Watching it again, the Assembly Cut is better; while some of the added beats aren't always great, overall it is an improvement and at least there aren't characters that vanish out of nowhere never to return. Yet, it's a shame that production was always a nightmare. Fincher was not the original director and this script was definitely not original either.
There were many different versions. The first teaser trailer seemed to suggest a xenomorph would be coming to Earth. That brings up bad memories of the AvP films; the less said about them the better. I wonder what it would have been like if New Zealand director Vincent Ward would have made what he desired, which was a setting of a floating wooden planet that is populated by cloistered monks. I know, pretty weird and you don't want to think about the plot too much or how a floating wooden planet is even a thing but at least its aesthetic probably would have been pretty bitchin'.
Instead, we get Ripley crash landing on a desolate planet which has a foundry facility where the workers (born again as they are) are extremely violent and predatory criminals. They are “double Y”, which the movie doesn't elaborate upon (unfortunately, the movie fails to properly explain a few important details like that. When one of the things is a huge part of the climax... I won't get into it but it is unfortunate) but the movie's Wikipedia article explains as a genetic disorder which makes him predisposed to be a criminal, in essence. In this setting where modern weapons aren't a thing, these characters have to deal with a xenomorph, sometimes seen as an early 90's CGI thing... yikes does it usually look bad 25 years after the fact.
I wish that the director would have been able to make what he wanted to and not be so hamstrung by Fox, among the other problems I listed already. It's not always a sign of doom, but more often than not when you start shooting a movie with an unfinished script, the movie at best will be disappointing. Considering all the drama it's an achievement that this is still watchable and I can rate it as “fine”; it's just that the first two are legendary classics and fair or not, this is a letdown in comparison. Having to deal with a bunch of lowlife criminals seems like no fun but thankfully this does not revel in disgusting behavior so while this is dark, it isn't a miserable experience. Unfortunately, this is no better than just watchable. The plot and geography of the world is lacking and not even strong performances from Sigourney Weaver and Charles S. Dutton and a powerful ending (which is negated by there being Alien: Resurrection; whoops) can make this a classic.
Saturday, February 11, 2017
King Kong (The One From 2005)
King Kong (2005)
Runtime: I saw the 200 minute extended version
Directed by: Peter Jackson
Starring: Jack Black, Naomi Watts, Adrien Brody, Thomas Kretschmann, Andy Serkis
From: Universal
This is not as good as the original from 1933, which doesn't mean I don't think it's good. I try to explain it all below:
As Kong: Skull Island will come out a month from today, this was the perfect time for me to see this motion picture for the first time since I saw it theatrically with a friend back in late 2005; I saw the extended 200 minute version. I did not think the movie needed to be even longer, but I was able to watch this in one sitting and not feel like I needed to take extended breaks, which is a compliment.
The plot: it's a remake of the original 1933 movie-which everyone knows-but it also has some elements from the '76 remake, the biggest being the relationship between Kong and Ann Darrow. I know it is a little wacky but it was still a nice relationship, and it goes with the whole “it was beauty killed the beast” thing. As this is over 3 hours long, plenty of time is spent getting to know the main players (and some of the supporting cast also) & there's a lot of time spent on Skull Island... maybe too much time, and maybe the action setpieces are too ridiculous, and maybe some of the characters should have been at the very least crippled for like with the way they are thrown about... that's modern blockbusters these days, and this movie is fun to watch, even if it falls into the trap of modern blockbusters of the characters not being as rich or in-depth as they probably should be.
All that said, this is still an entertaining movie; at least I thought so despite its epic length. I know this was the first movie that Peter Jackson fell in love with and it's been his favorite since he was a little kid; it being a passion project is obvious. While some of the CG did not look so hot at the time and it still doesn't look so great in 2017, a lot of it I can't carp about. There's a lot to see and a lot of it sure is pretty. While Skull Island is an obvious stunner, I personally would love to be in early 1930's New York City, at least based on how it was portrayed here... well, without the whole “Great Depression” thing, which the movie did show was a big deal. In addition, Andy Serkis does a swell job as both a minor character and the motion capture work he did as Kong. As others have stated, hopefully one day he gets recognized for his contributions by entities such as the Academy Awards.
While not a classic like the original, I'd rather watch this than plenty of modern blockbusters, whether a first time viewing or not.
Runtime: I saw the 200 minute extended version
Directed by: Peter Jackson
Starring: Jack Black, Naomi Watts, Adrien Brody, Thomas Kretschmann, Andy Serkis
From: Universal
This is not as good as the original from 1933, which doesn't mean I don't think it's good. I try to explain it all below:
As Kong: Skull Island will come out a month from today, this was the perfect time for me to see this motion picture for the first time since I saw it theatrically with a friend back in late 2005; I saw the extended 200 minute version. I did not think the movie needed to be even longer, but I was able to watch this in one sitting and not feel like I needed to take extended breaks, which is a compliment.
The plot: it's a remake of the original 1933 movie-which everyone knows-but it also has some elements from the '76 remake, the biggest being the relationship between Kong and Ann Darrow. I know it is a little wacky but it was still a nice relationship, and it goes with the whole “it was beauty killed the beast” thing. As this is over 3 hours long, plenty of time is spent getting to know the main players (and some of the supporting cast also) & there's a lot of time spent on Skull Island... maybe too much time, and maybe the action setpieces are too ridiculous, and maybe some of the characters should have been at the very least crippled for like with the way they are thrown about... that's modern blockbusters these days, and this movie is fun to watch, even if it falls into the trap of modern blockbusters of the characters not being as rich or in-depth as they probably should be.
All that said, this is still an entertaining movie; at least I thought so despite its epic length. I know this was the first movie that Peter Jackson fell in love with and it's been his favorite since he was a little kid; it being a passion project is obvious. While some of the CG did not look so hot at the time and it still doesn't look so great in 2017, a lot of it I can't carp about. There's a lot to see and a lot of it sure is pretty. While Skull Island is an obvious stunner, I personally would love to be in early 1930's New York City, at least based on how it was portrayed here... well, without the whole “Great Depression” thing, which the movie did show was a big deal. In addition, Andy Serkis does a swell job as both a minor character and the motion capture work he did as Kong. As others have stated, hopefully one day he gets recognized for his contributions by entities such as the Academy Awards.
While not a classic like the original, I'd rather watch this than plenty of modern blockbusters, whether a first time viewing or not.
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Gang War In Milan
Gang War in Milan (Milano Rovente) (1973)
Runtime: 100 minutes
Directed by: Umberto Lenzi
Starring: Antonio Sabato (Sr.), Philippe Leroy, Antonio Casagrande, Allesandro Sperli, Marisa Mell
From: Telemondial
Last night I finally watched a movie from a certain genre (the last time I was in this genre was awhile ago) and I made a good decision. I explain it all below:
I recently realized that it had been months since I had seen a poliziotteschi new to me, so I knew it was about time I returned to a world I think pretty highly of. As I have more than one follower who commonly watches and reviews older European genre movies and likely followed me due to my occasional watching of such things, I need to not neglect that corner of the movie world.
The plot of this isn't too complex: a businessman in Milan (Antonio Sabato Sr.) who is also a pimp is approached by a French drug baron who wishes to work with him, but Sabato declines, so a nasty feud starts where both sides do some severe things. This doesn't have all the trademarks I expect of this genre-there's no vehicle chases, for example-but that is alright as it's still a solid genre example. As it's a poliziotteschi and it's from Umberto Lenzi, there is plenty of sleaze and plenty of sexism. Our “hero” pimp isn't always nice to his ladies and there is plenty of nudity and women being abused. For those sensitive to such things, there is a scene involving a transgender person and it is as unenlightened as you'd expect.
While the protagonist isn't the most likable person (something that even Lenzi admitted in later years wasn't the best idea) this is an entertaining-if dark-genre entry. It was enjoyable watching those two forces feud with each other and pull various tricks out of their bag to cause the other to break. I also dug such things as the jazzy score and how Sabato's apartment was amazingly 70's: much of it was a dark blue or purple color, and there appeared to be matching velvet carpets! If that wasn't groovy enough, there also was random art strewn all about. What a look. Such things as that and the rather “shocking” thing that happened to one guy's genitals, such things are appealing to me and that's why I can give this a nice rating.
Runtime: 100 minutes
Directed by: Umberto Lenzi
Starring: Antonio Sabato (Sr.), Philippe Leroy, Antonio Casagrande, Allesandro Sperli, Marisa Mell
From: Telemondial
Last night I finally watched a movie from a certain genre (the last time I was in this genre was awhile ago) and I made a good decision. I explain it all below:
I recently realized that it had been months since I had seen a poliziotteschi new to me, so I knew it was about time I returned to a world I think pretty highly of. As I have more than one follower who commonly watches and reviews older European genre movies and likely followed me due to my occasional watching of such things, I need to not neglect that corner of the movie world.
The plot of this isn't too complex: a businessman in Milan (Antonio Sabato Sr.) who is also a pimp is approached by a French drug baron who wishes to work with him, but Sabato declines, so a nasty feud starts where both sides do some severe things. This doesn't have all the trademarks I expect of this genre-there's no vehicle chases, for example-but that is alright as it's still a solid genre example. As it's a poliziotteschi and it's from Umberto Lenzi, there is plenty of sleaze and plenty of sexism. Our “hero” pimp isn't always nice to his ladies and there is plenty of nudity and women being abused. For those sensitive to such things, there is a scene involving a transgender person and it is as unenlightened as you'd expect.
While the protagonist isn't the most likable person (something that even Lenzi admitted in later years wasn't the best idea) this is an entertaining-if dark-genre entry. It was enjoyable watching those two forces feud with each other and pull various tricks out of their bag to cause the other to break. I also dug such things as the jazzy score and how Sabato's apartment was amazingly 70's: much of it was a dark blue or purple color, and there appeared to be matching velvet carpets! If that wasn't groovy enough, there also was random art strewn all about. What a look. Such things as that and the rather “shocking” thing that happened to one guy's genitals, such things are appealing to me and that's why I can give this a nice rating.
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
King Kong (The One From 1976)
King Kong (1976)
Runtime: 134 minutes
Directed by: John Guillermin
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Jessica Lange, Charles Grodin, John Randolph, Rene Auberjonois
From: Dino De Laurentiis Company
This is a movie I hadn't seen in more than 11 years; my memories of it were pretty hazy. Overall, I can say that this was fine, but nothing more than just fine. I attempt to explain why below:
As Kong: Skull Island is coming out in a month's time, I figured it would make sense to watch this movie and the Peter Jackson Kong (but not King Kong Lives; I have avoided that like the plague as I have heard that is something I am best never ever seeing) so I can finally review them here and also get me in the mood to see the new one... I am not sure if we need another Kong but maybe that will be great and I will look like an assclown for speculating such a thing. In 2015 I saw and reviewed the original; it's still a classic and I don't need to review it again.
This does have plenty of differences when compared to the original version. This time it's an A-hole executive with the Petrox Oil Company who hopes to find a great oil reserve on an uncharted island (this character Fred Wilson-played by Charles Grodin-would be a Trump supporter) but instead discover a giant ape. The rest of it is similar: Kong falls in love with a blonde, he rampages through New York City, although this time he climbs one of the World Trade Center skyscrapers. Yeah, I always feel melancholy seeing the Twin Towers in a movie; they shouldn't retroactively be erased from older movies where they aren't part of the plot, though.
The movie, it's not a classic like the original but I can't say I hate it either. I do have to admit that it is rather ridiculous at times, Jessica Lange's DWAN (yes, not Dawn, but Dwan) is sometimes a frustrating character due to a few befuddling moments-and you could tell that this was Lange's debut performance; she definitely improved since this debut-effects that even by 70's standards don't always look so hot, some overacting, and while they tried their best, it is still a guy in an ape suit tromping around miniatures, even if it's the legendary Rick Baker.
Yet, I still think this is watchable; I did not mind how it was different from the other iterations of the story, for starters. It was a nice cast, from Grodin (his buzz-cut and big mustache was quite the look) to Jeff Bridges (his long hair and beard was also quite the look), Ed Lauter to Julius Harris and others. There are some scenic locations. Despite some uneven, dumb and unintentionally hilarious moments, it is always watchable. How you feel about the obvious attempts to make Lange a sex symbol here, that is up to you. Thus, I can give it a passable rating.
Runtime: 134 minutes
Directed by: John Guillermin
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Jessica Lange, Charles Grodin, John Randolph, Rene Auberjonois
From: Dino De Laurentiis Company
This is a movie I hadn't seen in more than 11 years; my memories of it were pretty hazy. Overall, I can say that this was fine, but nothing more than just fine. I attempt to explain why below:
As Kong: Skull Island is coming out in a month's time, I figured it would make sense to watch this movie and the Peter Jackson Kong (but not King Kong Lives; I have avoided that like the plague as I have heard that is something I am best never ever seeing) so I can finally review them here and also get me in the mood to see the new one... I am not sure if we need another Kong but maybe that will be great and I will look like an assclown for speculating such a thing. In 2015 I saw and reviewed the original; it's still a classic and I don't need to review it again.
This does have plenty of differences when compared to the original version. This time it's an A-hole executive with the Petrox Oil Company who hopes to find a great oil reserve on an uncharted island (this character Fred Wilson-played by Charles Grodin-would be a Trump supporter) but instead discover a giant ape. The rest of it is similar: Kong falls in love with a blonde, he rampages through New York City, although this time he climbs one of the World Trade Center skyscrapers. Yeah, I always feel melancholy seeing the Twin Towers in a movie; they shouldn't retroactively be erased from older movies where they aren't part of the plot, though.
The movie, it's not a classic like the original but I can't say I hate it either. I do have to admit that it is rather ridiculous at times, Jessica Lange's DWAN (yes, not Dawn, but Dwan) is sometimes a frustrating character due to a few befuddling moments-and you could tell that this was Lange's debut performance; she definitely improved since this debut-effects that even by 70's standards don't always look so hot, some overacting, and while they tried their best, it is still a guy in an ape suit tromping around miniatures, even if it's the legendary Rick Baker.
Yet, I still think this is watchable; I did not mind how it was different from the other iterations of the story, for starters. It was a nice cast, from Grodin (his buzz-cut and big mustache was quite the look) to Jeff Bridges (his long hair and beard was also quite the look), Ed Lauter to Julius Harris and others. There are some scenic locations. Despite some uneven, dumb and unintentionally hilarious moments, it is always watchable. How you feel about the obvious attempts to make Lange a sex symbol here, that is up to you. Thus, I can give it a passable rating.
Monday, February 6, 2017
Cop Out
Cop Out (2010)
Runtime: 107 brutal minutes
Directed by: That hack Kevin Smith
Starring: Bruce Willis, Tracy Morgan, Guillermo Diaz, Ana De La Reguera, Seann William Scott
From: Warner Bros.
I finally saw this movie in full; years ago I only saw the first 15 minutes or so then I shut it off. I gave it a chance and well, the movie is incredibly bad. I explain why below:
Cripes, this movie... I have more than one story to share about this movie. The second one I'll save until the very end; I'll just say now that it features something which shocks me even today and I can't quite explain. But first things first, way back when, soon after it came out for rental, someone I know rented it so I decided to borrow it for a night. I could only make it about 15 minutes when I turned it off in disgust; what offended me was how unfunny and stupid the movie was. Still, I gave it another chance to see if it became better after the first 15 minutes.
It did not.
This was an agonizing experience the whole way through. Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan are incredibly inept and irritating police officers. Bruce has money woes and he has to sell a rare baseball card in order to pay for his daughter's wedding, only it gets stolen... and a bunch of nonsense happens after that. The first scene of the movie, it may be one of the worst in cinematic history. I've never been a Tracy Morgan fan; I am sorry he got into that serious accident and he required months of rehab to get well again, but I still don't care for him. The character he plays here... all that screaming and mugging at the camera, it's unbearable. This first scene has him yelling movie lines to a suspect, and it's never amusing and it's way overlong... I am not sure how I made it past that first scene the first time I tried watching this. To my horror, the rest of the movie is almost as bad in how lame and excruciating it was. Truth be told, I did not even laugh once; there were a few mild chuckles but that was it.
I realize that Kevin Smith did not write this but between his directing and editing, he did nothing to redeem the movie either. Everyone has lamented how far his career has fallen so I won't repeat it here. I'll just say that not even Harold Faltermeyer's score was worthwhile; nothing comes close to being as great as Axel F. This movie failed on every level and managed to waste a decent cast too. Honestly, the troubled production and the feud between Smith and Willis is a lot more entertaining than what ended up on screen.
I know some people who actually saw this on the big screen and really enjoyed it; if that isn't astounding enough, their identity will be: my MOM and some of her similarly-aged friends! I swear I am telling the truth here. They saw it at random and the film's start time that night was the main reason they picked this. I have no explanation either, folks. Maybe that's what Smith should have done after this, more bad comedies for old ladies. This is truly the worst buddy cop action comedy I've ever seen and I'll be horrified both if I see another worse genre example, and if this is actually better than Yoga Hosers. I really did hate this pile of elephant dung, if my review did not make that clear enough.
Runtime: 107 brutal minutes
Directed by: That hack Kevin Smith
Starring: Bruce Willis, Tracy Morgan, Guillermo Diaz, Ana De La Reguera, Seann William Scott
From: Warner Bros.
I finally saw this movie in full; years ago I only saw the first 15 minutes or so then I shut it off. I gave it a chance and well, the movie is incredibly bad. I explain why below:
Cripes, this movie... I have more than one story to share about this movie. The second one I'll save until the very end; I'll just say now that it features something which shocks me even today and I can't quite explain. But first things first, way back when, soon after it came out for rental, someone I know rented it so I decided to borrow it for a night. I could only make it about 15 minutes when I turned it off in disgust; what offended me was how unfunny and stupid the movie was. Still, I gave it another chance to see if it became better after the first 15 minutes.
It did not.
This was an agonizing experience the whole way through. Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan are incredibly inept and irritating police officers. Bruce has money woes and he has to sell a rare baseball card in order to pay for his daughter's wedding, only it gets stolen... and a bunch of nonsense happens after that. The first scene of the movie, it may be one of the worst in cinematic history. I've never been a Tracy Morgan fan; I am sorry he got into that serious accident and he required months of rehab to get well again, but I still don't care for him. The character he plays here... all that screaming and mugging at the camera, it's unbearable. This first scene has him yelling movie lines to a suspect, and it's never amusing and it's way overlong... I am not sure how I made it past that first scene the first time I tried watching this. To my horror, the rest of the movie is almost as bad in how lame and excruciating it was. Truth be told, I did not even laugh once; there were a few mild chuckles but that was it.
I realize that Kevin Smith did not write this but between his directing and editing, he did nothing to redeem the movie either. Everyone has lamented how far his career has fallen so I won't repeat it here. I'll just say that not even Harold Faltermeyer's score was worthwhile; nothing comes close to being as great as Axel F. This movie failed on every level and managed to waste a decent cast too. Honestly, the troubled production and the feud between Smith and Willis is a lot more entertaining than what ended up on screen.
I know some people who actually saw this on the big screen and really enjoyed it; if that isn't astounding enough, their identity will be: my MOM and some of her similarly-aged friends! I swear I am telling the truth here. They saw it at random and the film's start time that night was the main reason they picked this. I have no explanation either, folks. Maybe that's what Smith should have done after this, more bad comedies for old ladies. This is truly the worst buddy cop action comedy I've ever seen and I'll be horrified both if I see another worse genre example, and if this is actually better than Yoga Hosers. I really did hate this pile of elephant dung, if my review did not make that clear enough.
Sunday, February 5, 2017
The Canal
The Canal (2014)
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: Ivan Kavanagh
Starring: Rupert Evans, Antonia Campbell-Hughes, Hannah Hoekstra, Kelly Byrne, Steve Oram
From: Several different Irish and UK companies
First off, WOW what a Super Bowl. I feel awful for all the Falcons fans but what a chokejob by that team. With that out of the way, The Canal is a recent horror movie worth seeing. I explain why I feel that way below:
This was the second of two Irish movies I saw on Netflix Instant last night. I've known about this movie since it came out and despite hearing rave reviews for all that time, I put off seeing it. Well, shame on me as I should have seen this sooner.
This is about a young couple who have a son; David is a film archivist and one day he sees film where he discovers a murder happened at his home in the early 1900's. That and his fears about his wife being faithful causes him concern, and after a horrific incident... he believes he is being haunted by a supernatural presence.
I understand those who felt disappointed by the movie. No spoilers but I do understand it. While the plot was not too surprising, overall I was always interested in seeing David and how he handled his predicament and how both he and we as an audience try to figure out what's going on. In addition, there are some pretty solid scares throughout, and the final act made me go WOW a few times due to what you witness. Note that this ends up being a rather macabre tale.
I enjoyed things in front of the camera and behind it, whether it was the cinematography, the tense score, the direction, or the performances from the cast. As I previously mentioned there is a little boy present. I am usually wary of kids in movies as things can go quite awry right there. Praise the Lord then that aside from Calum Heath being a rather cute kid in his role as Billy, but that his performance wasn't aggravating and the character wasn't written to be a dopey precocious kid; henceforth, no one should let the knowledge that there are many scenes with a young boy dissuade you from seeing this. This is definitely NOT something you should watch with your young children-if you have any-though.
As others have noted, the poster currently used by Letterboxd for this movie is unfortunate; the movie appears to be yet another low-budget horror piece of crap. I've seen several arty posters for this movie that are a lot better and are more fitting for this; don't let the poster dissuade you from seeing this either.
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: Ivan Kavanagh
Starring: Rupert Evans, Antonia Campbell-Hughes, Hannah Hoekstra, Kelly Byrne, Steve Oram
From: Several different Irish and UK companies
First off, WOW what a Super Bowl. I feel awful for all the Falcons fans but what a chokejob by that team. With that out of the way, The Canal is a recent horror movie worth seeing. I explain why I feel that way below:
This was the second of two Irish movies I saw on Netflix Instant last night. I've known about this movie since it came out and despite hearing rave reviews for all that time, I put off seeing it. Well, shame on me as I should have seen this sooner.
This is about a young couple who have a son; David is a film archivist and one day he sees film where he discovers a murder happened at his home in the early 1900's. That and his fears about his wife being faithful causes him concern, and after a horrific incident... he believes he is being haunted by a supernatural presence.
I understand those who felt disappointed by the movie. No spoilers but I do understand it. While the plot was not too surprising, overall I was always interested in seeing David and how he handled his predicament and how both he and we as an audience try to figure out what's going on. In addition, there are some pretty solid scares throughout, and the final act made me go WOW a few times due to what you witness. Note that this ends up being a rather macabre tale.
I enjoyed things in front of the camera and behind it, whether it was the cinematography, the tense score, the direction, or the performances from the cast. As I previously mentioned there is a little boy present. I am usually wary of kids in movies as things can go quite awry right there. Praise the Lord then that aside from Calum Heath being a rather cute kid in his role as Billy, but that his performance wasn't aggravating and the character wasn't written to be a dopey precocious kid; henceforth, no one should let the knowledge that there are many scenes with a young boy dissuade you from seeing this. This is definitely NOT something you should watch with your young children-if you have any-though.
As others have noted, the poster currently used by Letterboxd for this movie is unfortunate; the movie appears to be yet another low-budget horror piece of crap. I've seen several arty posters for this movie that are a lot better and are more fitting for this; don't let the poster dissuade you from seeing this either.
The Hallow
The Hallow (2015)
Runtime: 97 minutes
Directed by: Corin Hardy
Starring: Joseph Mawle, Bojana Novakovic, Michael McElhatton, Michael Smiley, Gary Lydon
From: Several different companies across Ireland, the UK and the US
I created my own double bill at home via Netflix Instant. I saw this movie and another Irish one, the review of which I'll post late tonight after the Super Bowl. What I thought of this first film is below:
Last night via Netflix Instant I saw a pair of Irish horror movies. I created my own double feature. The second review will go up soon after the Super Bowl is over with.
This movie is all about Irish folklore; I don't know too much about the topic so I will presume that the movie doesn't take too many creative liberties with the topic. The plot: a scientist, his wife, infant child and dog move to a small house in rural Ireland; he happens to be doing work on a section of forest a logging company is about to cut down. Things start to go wrong... that folklore apparently says that you shouldn't mess around in forests, lest you piss off some spooky creatures.
Sure, the film is kind of ridiculous and it requires the characters to be pretty dumb at times and the homages can be rather obvious. It also tips its hand real early; all that said, this was an entertaining horror film. The two leads do a swell job which is good as most of the movie is spent with them. There are plenty of chilling moments and I appreciated how it wasn't all CG and there were plenty of practical effects. For those that are not fans of graphically gory horror, then this is something for you.
Overall, the movie was well-made and I appreciated how it was different via the Irish setting and usage of folktales from that country. I say this is something worth watching on Netflix Instant; there are plenty of pretty bad horror films on that platform so you are better off giving this a shot.
Runtime: 97 minutes
Directed by: Corin Hardy
Starring: Joseph Mawle, Bojana Novakovic, Michael McElhatton, Michael Smiley, Gary Lydon
From: Several different companies across Ireland, the UK and the US
I created my own double bill at home via Netflix Instant. I saw this movie and another Irish one, the review of which I'll post late tonight after the Super Bowl. What I thought of this first film is below:
Last night via Netflix Instant I saw a pair of Irish horror movies. I created my own double feature. The second review will go up soon after the Super Bowl is over with.
This movie is all about Irish folklore; I don't know too much about the topic so I will presume that the movie doesn't take too many creative liberties with the topic. The plot: a scientist, his wife, infant child and dog move to a small house in rural Ireland; he happens to be doing work on a section of forest a logging company is about to cut down. Things start to go wrong... that folklore apparently says that you shouldn't mess around in forests, lest you piss off some spooky creatures.
Sure, the film is kind of ridiculous and it requires the characters to be pretty dumb at times and the homages can be rather obvious. It also tips its hand real early; all that said, this was an entertaining horror film. The two leads do a swell job which is good as most of the movie is spent with them. There are plenty of chilling moments and I appreciated how it wasn't all CG and there were plenty of practical effects. For those that are not fans of graphically gory horror, then this is something for you.
Overall, the movie was well-made and I appreciated how it was different via the Irish setting and usage of folktales from that country. I say this is something worth watching on Netflix Instant; there are plenty of pretty bad horror films on that platform so you are better off giving this a shot.
Saturday, February 4, 2017
Blow-Up
Blow-Up (1966)
Runtime: 111 minutes
Directed by: Michelangelo Antonioni
Starring: David Hemmings, Vanessa Redgrave, Sarah Miles, John Castle
From: MGM
Since Wednesday, I rewatched Annie Hall (which I still enjoy) and saw the ESPN 30 for 30 documentary on the XFL, which I also enjoyed. Last night I saw this famed movie on TCM; a lot of people still rate it highly today... and I don't understand why. It is totally European, in all the worst pretentious ways. De Palma's unofficial remake Blow Out is MUCH better, in my opinion. The explanation for my controversial opinion is below:
I realize that right now I am doing something that occasionally happens: I unveil a controversial opinion about a film. In this case, if it wasn't for some quality Herbie Hancock (or as he was identified in the credits, “Herbert Hancock”) tunes and an appearance from The Yardbirds, I would rate this even lower than I have it currently.. .when you despise the main character and are flummoxed by the “mod scene” of 1960's London... in the future I'll see more of Michelangelo Antonioni's work, and hopefully it's not arch arty nonsense or a shaggy dog story or trying way too hard to be “hip” like this was. I am obviously missing something when it comes to this motion picture; I'd rather not watch this Eurodouche movie again to try and figure it out for myself... and I am probably better off not ever figuring it out anyway. 2 stars is honestly as high as I can go here.
Personally, I preferred it when De Palma did a very similar thing for Blow Out; I found that story of how Jack Terry accidentally records the sound and witnesses a car crash/murder to be much more engrossing than some rich D-bag pompous A-hole photographer capturing what he thinks is a murder in the background of one photo. Terry's descent into madness and paranoid was even better than what we see happen to Thomas here and the ambiguous endings that both had... again, no contest in my mind. At least Blow Out didn't create a world where mimes are plentiful & they actually made a lot of noise as they ride around in an old military vehicle... and at least Blow Out had an actual plot rather than a bunch of meandering grandiloquent nonsense with the murder subplot being a small piece of the puzzle.
The biggest thing I got out of this (besides how I surprisingly enjoyed Blow Out a lot more; having a lead that you can feel sympathy for definitely helps) was how much of a dish Vanessa Redgrave was during the mid 60's; the movies I have seen her in during my movie-watching life were more modern. I knew that she was a lovely woman and a talented actress but I was entranced when I first saw her in this movie; I also hoped that her character Jane would find better men to hang out with.
While this has a few small memorable moments, overall I will presume that if I would have been an adult in the 60's and I saw this and then I witnessed how this was one of the reasons why the Hays Code was eradicated from Hollywood and from the ashes rose the MPAA to rate movies in the United States... I would have been more impressed then rather than now. Then again, maybe I would have thought back then too that this represented the bad stereotypes that certain people have about old European films and maybe I would have thought of this as a gigantic waste of time.
Runtime: 111 minutes
Directed by: Michelangelo Antonioni
Starring: David Hemmings, Vanessa Redgrave, Sarah Miles, John Castle
From: MGM
Since Wednesday, I rewatched Annie Hall (which I still enjoy) and saw the ESPN 30 for 30 documentary on the XFL, which I also enjoyed. Last night I saw this famed movie on TCM; a lot of people still rate it highly today... and I don't understand why. It is totally European, in all the worst pretentious ways. De Palma's unofficial remake Blow Out is MUCH better, in my opinion. The explanation for my controversial opinion is below:
I realize that right now I am doing something that occasionally happens: I unveil a controversial opinion about a film. In this case, if it wasn't for some quality Herbie Hancock (or as he was identified in the credits, “Herbert Hancock”) tunes and an appearance from The Yardbirds, I would rate this even lower than I have it currently.. .when you despise the main character and are flummoxed by the “mod scene” of 1960's London... in the future I'll see more of Michelangelo Antonioni's work, and hopefully it's not arch arty nonsense or a shaggy dog story or trying way too hard to be “hip” like this was. I am obviously missing something when it comes to this motion picture; I'd rather not watch this Eurodouche movie again to try and figure it out for myself... and I am probably better off not ever figuring it out anyway. 2 stars is honestly as high as I can go here.
Personally, I preferred it when De Palma did a very similar thing for Blow Out; I found that story of how Jack Terry accidentally records the sound and witnesses a car crash/murder to be much more engrossing than some rich D-bag pompous A-hole photographer capturing what he thinks is a murder in the background of one photo. Terry's descent into madness and paranoid was even better than what we see happen to Thomas here and the ambiguous endings that both had... again, no contest in my mind. At least Blow Out didn't create a world where mimes are plentiful & they actually made a lot of noise as they ride around in an old military vehicle... and at least Blow Out had an actual plot rather than a bunch of meandering grandiloquent nonsense with the murder subplot being a small piece of the puzzle.
The biggest thing I got out of this (besides how I surprisingly enjoyed Blow Out a lot more; having a lead that you can feel sympathy for definitely helps) was how much of a dish Vanessa Redgrave was during the mid 60's; the movies I have seen her in during my movie-watching life were more modern. I knew that she was a lovely woman and a talented actress but I was entranced when I first saw her in this movie; I also hoped that her character Jane would find better men to hang out with.
While this has a few small memorable moments, overall I will presume that if I would have been an adult in the 60's and I saw this and then I witnessed how this was one of the reasons why the Hays Code was eradicated from Hollywood and from the ashes rose the MPAA to rate movies in the United States... I would have been more impressed then rather than now. Then again, maybe I would have thought back then too that this represented the bad stereotypes that certain people have about old European films and maybe I would have thought of this as a gigantic waste of time.
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Wild Beasts
Wild Beasts (1984)
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: Franco Prosperi
Starring: John Aldrich, Lorraine De Selle, Ugo Bologna, Louisa Lloyd, Stefania Pinna
From: Shumba International Corporation
Monday night I saw this infamous 80's exploitation movie, which has an amazing premise and yet due to some elements that range from kind of gross to really gross, it was not as enjoyable as I hoped. At least last night I rewatched John Wick, which is still pretty awesome. As for what it is about Wild Beasts that raised my ire, you'll find out below:
Here is a movie I have known about for awhile; it's hard to forget when you first hear that there's a motion picture out there which is about animals at a zoo that go berserk and escape after drinking PCP-LACED WATER. Recently, it was put on Amazon Video and on a whim, I finally saw it last night. Due to moments that are horrifying in the wrong sort of way, I can't recommend this. You'll soon see what I mean. Then again even without that I can't say that this was good as it is filled with awful moments involving just the humans and there are some atrocious unbearable characters and even for an Italian horror movie of this time, plenty of things made little to no sense.
The setting is “a large northern European city”, as a title card helpfully tells us. Not 10 seconds later, we see a sign that is only barely obscured... it was set and filmed in Frankfurt, Germany. I already explained how it's about wild animals (but mainly large jungle cats and elephants) that escape from a zoo while high on PCP and cause a lot of havoc. A tremendous-looking man (nicknamed RIP) with large brown curly hair and big mustache leads the charge in stopping this madness. He also has a lady friend who has an extremely awful daughter who is all of about 12 (more on her later); all the children you see in this film are as aggravating as can be, which is one of this movie's problems.
As I said already, this is Italian horror and things were nonsensical. Often I was befuddled by the plot and why certain things were happening. The non-animal scenes tended to be pretty painful and not good. At least the animal attacks were memorable (w/ plenty of gore) and there were unforgettable moments, such as seeing a cheetah chase after a Volkswagen Beetle convertible. I also got some solid unintentional laughs out of this; there are more crashing cars than you'd expect.
However... I can't in good conscience give this a decent rating. While I was entertained at times, there were obvious signs of animal abuse, and that doesn't even take into account the scene where many rats were set on fire. It was clear a few times that animals were in distress, and you even see animals attacking each other. I am not a nutcase PETA A-hole by any stretch of the imagination, but that did make me feel uncomfortable. I hope the animals were otherwise not mistreated, but I have a sinking feeling about it. Even more but not as much so as a scene early on, something I'll call “a Victor Salva moment.”
I realize that is an incredibly bold statement to make. That said, what else am I supposed to think about a particular scene involving that aforementioned girl who looked like she was about 12 or so... she is laying in bed at home then gets out of bed and walks around... while wearing only panties and a button-up shirt? Far worse, you see her chest before she buttons up her shirt... how did this moment even make the final cut? Unluckily, that was not the only icky moment involving that young actress and the camera leering at her. I laugh about “Italian sleaze” but that is far above something I can giggle about. Of course, neither the pedo stuff nor the most questionable animal stuff was even needed for the movie. Maybe this is something that should be remade, and with CG it can be less gross and less exploitative in the worst of ways. It's not important in the grand scheme of things, but my opinions of such things does reflect in the score; I do have to penalize it and the rating does reflect this.
I know that other people can look past those disturbing bits and enjoy this movie; after all Severin Films is putting it out a week from today (as of when I am posting this; it's known by its common title of Wild Beasts). Personally, I thought this wasn't great even if you divorce yourself from those segments; things are too dumb and nonsensical & it's not as crazy as you'd expect given the amazing (and bonkers) premise.
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: Franco Prosperi
Starring: John Aldrich, Lorraine De Selle, Ugo Bologna, Louisa Lloyd, Stefania Pinna
From: Shumba International Corporation
Monday night I saw this infamous 80's exploitation movie, which has an amazing premise and yet due to some elements that range from kind of gross to really gross, it was not as enjoyable as I hoped. At least last night I rewatched John Wick, which is still pretty awesome. As for what it is about Wild Beasts that raised my ire, you'll find out below:
Here is a movie I have known about for awhile; it's hard to forget when you first hear that there's a motion picture out there which is about animals at a zoo that go berserk and escape after drinking PCP-LACED WATER. Recently, it was put on Amazon Video and on a whim, I finally saw it last night. Due to moments that are horrifying in the wrong sort of way, I can't recommend this. You'll soon see what I mean. Then again even without that I can't say that this was good as it is filled with awful moments involving just the humans and there are some atrocious unbearable characters and even for an Italian horror movie of this time, plenty of things made little to no sense.
The setting is “a large northern European city”, as a title card helpfully tells us. Not 10 seconds later, we see a sign that is only barely obscured... it was set and filmed in Frankfurt, Germany. I already explained how it's about wild animals (but mainly large jungle cats and elephants) that escape from a zoo while high on PCP and cause a lot of havoc. A tremendous-looking man (nicknamed RIP) with large brown curly hair and big mustache leads the charge in stopping this madness. He also has a lady friend who has an extremely awful daughter who is all of about 12 (more on her later); all the children you see in this film are as aggravating as can be, which is one of this movie's problems.
As I said already, this is Italian horror and things were nonsensical. Often I was befuddled by the plot and why certain things were happening. The non-animal scenes tended to be pretty painful and not good. At least the animal attacks were memorable (w/ plenty of gore) and there were unforgettable moments, such as seeing a cheetah chase after a Volkswagen Beetle convertible. I also got some solid unintentional laughs out of this; there are more crashing cars than you'd expect.
However... I can't in good conscience give this a decent rating. While I was entertained at times, there were obvious signs of animal abuse, and that doesn't even take into account the scene where many rats were set on fire. It was clear a few times that animals were in distress, and you even see animals attacking each other. I am not a nutcase PETA A-hole by any stretch of the imagination, but that did make me feel uncomfortable. I hope the animals were otherwise not mistreated, but I have a sinking feeling about it. Even more but not as much so as a scene early on, something I'll call “a Victor Salva moment.”
I realize that is an incredibly bold statement to make. That said, what else am I supposed to think about a particular scene involving that aforementioned girl who looked like she was about 12 or so... she is laying in bed at home then gets out of bed and walks around... while wearing only panties and a button-up shirt? Far worse, you see her chest before she buttons up her shirt... how did this moment even make the final cut? Unluckily, that was not the only icky moment involving that young actress and the camera leering at her. I laugh about “Italian sleaze” but that is far above something I can giggle about. Of course, neither the pedo stuff nor the most questionable animal stuff was even needed for the movie. Maybe this is something that should be remade, and with CG it can be less gross and less exploitative in the worst of ways. It's not important in the grand scheme of things, but my opinions of such things does reflect in the score; I do have to penalize it and the rating does reflect this.
I know that other people can look past those disturbing bits and enjoy this movie; after all Severin Films is putting it out a week from today (as of when I am posting this; it's known by its common title of Wild Beasts). Personally, I thought this wasn't great even if you divorce yourself from those segments; things are too dumb and nonsensical & it's not as crazy as you'd expect given the amazing (and bonkers) premise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)