Zombie (1979)
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: Lucio Fulci
Starring: Tisa Farrow, Ian McCullough, Richard Johnson, Al Cliver, Auretta Gay
From: Variety Film Productions
This is one of those infamous pictures, and divorced of the infamy it is worth seeing, at least if you are a horror fan:
It was about time I viewed then reviewed this Italian horror classic, Fulci's most famous (or infamous) work. There are various scenes that are unforgettable and yet the entire movie is a gas to watch if you enjoy such things; it is straightforward, especially for a Fulci picture.
A sailboat floats into New York City and it appears to be abandoned, only there is a zombie on board. The daughter of the boat's owner teams up with a journalist and a duo they stumble across in the Caribbean to visit the secluded island her dad was on and find out what happened. Yes, zombie flesh eaters are involved; a doctor is there investigating the cause of this and it goes about as well as you can surmise.
Certain aspects can be nitpicked and sometimes characters have to act stupid in order to advance the plot. Even then, I find the movie to be a lot of fun for what it is. None of the characters are aggravating and there are memorable setpieces; one in the middle makes me queasy, although that is in part due to my phobias and you'll probably feel differently. It was filmed well so it was an easy hour and a half watch.
In a movie like this, how scary the zombies are and the gore effects are of paramount importance; both of those aspects were nailed. The slow shuffling zombies may seen passe to some. Here, the makeup effects still hold up and they are chilling, especially when you see them do graphically gory things; those bloody practical moments also hold up. The music is a mix of the expected Italian synth stuff and pulsating tropical rhythms. And the ending... talk about haunting.
The T&A quotient is met here; even more obvious than a gratuitous shower scene was a women who scuba-dived and did all other water-based activities while being topless and having a teeny thong bikini bottom, which of course is zoomed in on. That was almost a parody with how absurdly evident it was. Then again, this is something where the movie gives the middle finger to Jaws by having a zombie underwater fighting a tiger shark, which was as much of a mondo experience as you can imagine.
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Attack From Space
Attack from Space (1965)
I won't include data here as the credits that appeared for the movie are not even correct!
What a curio this is, a wacky English dubbing of a silly Japanese serial:
I was originally going to watch two movies last night but Internet issues and other aggravations derailed those plans. I could have watched something on disc (like I did with this film) yet I was too peeved to be in the mood for a double feature, even if the Internet fixed itself before I went to bed. Anyhow, I recently mentioned how I purchase movies yet wait a long time to see them. I don't even want to mention how long I've had this movie in a box set from Something Weird Video and I never saw any of the movies from any of the discs until last night. This is a mid-60's English dub, one of four films that Walter Manley Enterprises put together; Americans were science fiction crazy so all sorts of foreign movies were dubbed and edited together to try and satiate the public's hunger for the genre.
In this case it was a late 50's serial from an offshoot of Toho in Japan; the hero was known there as Super Giant but in English he was Starman... no, Jeff Bridges nor Karen Allen were around. That serial is not to be confused with the Japanese TV show that was turned into two movies that were then combined into one to become the MST3K favorite Prince of Space. Anyhow, Starman was a human-looking creation sent by the wacky denizens of the “Emerald Planet” to stop various threats to Earth. In this case it was a-holes who want to rule the universe and yada yada yada. They kidnap a rocket scientist and his two kids (thankfully the boy was NOT wearing uncomfortably tiny short-shorts) as they need his assistance to blow up the Earth.
These productions must have been incredibly cheap; you can see the wires and the effects of the padded codpiece-sporting Starman (yes it's a true story, the codpiece was padded for what I'll call “masculinity reasons” flying are obvious. Yet that's part of the charm, how logic about space and other things are thrown out the window as there is plenty of silliness instead. Kitschy charm went a long way for me. Starman beats up the bad guys in a combination karate/ballet kind of way and at times it seemed interminable yet the hero not only uses guns when he can, he has a trademark laugh and cackles as the heels are unable to stop him.
Those heels, by the way, are mainly portrayed by Japanese people, although the leader is a German-looking dude and as they often give the Nazi salute... this was not by happenstance. What helps is that this was only 75 minutes long and two related episodes of the serial (those were almost 40 minutes long each) were combined and that was easy for Walter Manley Enterprises. I understand the other three movies were more difficult as there were multiple storylines so I presume the rest will be zanier and more gonzo than this was. As is, technically Attack from Space is pretty bad yet it's a silly serial from Japan where the hero has a padded codpiece and poses like he's an action figure on at least a dozen occasions.
I won't include data here as the credits that appeared for the movie are not even correct!
What a curio this is, a wacky English dubbing of a silly Japanese serial:
I was originally going to watch two movies last night but Internet issues and other aggravations derailed those plans. I could have watched something on disc (like I did with this film) yet I was too peeved to be in the mood for a double feature, even if the Internet fixed itself before I went to bed. Anyhow, I recently mentioned how I purchase movies yet wait a long time to see them. I don't even want to mention how long I've had this movie in a box set from Something Weird Video and I never saw any of the movies from any of the discs until last night. This is a mid-60's English dub, one of four films that Walter Manley Enterprises put together; Americans were science fiction crazy so all sorts of foreign movies were dubbed and edited together to try and satiate the public's hunger for the genre.
In this case it was a late 50's serial from an offshoot of Toho in Japan; the hero was known there as Super Giant but in English he was Starman... no, Jeff Bridges nor Karen Allen were around. That serial is not to be confused with the Japanese TV show that was turned into two movies that were then combined into one to become the MST3K favorite Prince of Space. Anyhow, Starman was a human-looking creation sent by the wacky denizens of the “Emerald Planet” to stop various threats to Earth. In this case it was a-holes who want to rule the universe and yada yada yada. They kidnap a rocket scientist and his two kids (thankfully the boy was NOT wearing uncomfortably tiny short-shorts) as they need his assistance to blow up the Earth.
These productions must have been incredibly cheap; you can see the wires and the effects of the padded codpiece-sporting Starman (yes it's a true story, the codpiece was padded for what I'll call “masculinity reasons” flying are obvious. Yet that's part of the charm, how logic about space and other things are thrown out the window as there is plenty of silliness instead. Kitschy charm went a long way for me. Starman beats up the bad guys in a combination karate/ballet kind of way and at times it seemed interminable yet the hero not only uses guns when he can, he has a trademark laugh and cackles as the heels are unable to stop him.
Those heels, by the way, are mainly portrayed by Japanese people, although the leader is a German-looking dude and as they often give the Nazi salute... this was not by happenstance. What helps is that this was only 75 minutes long and two related episodes of the serial (those were almost 40 minutes long each) were combined and that was easy for Walter Manley Enterprises. I understand the other three movies were more difficult as there were multiple storylines so I presume the rest will be zanier and more gonzo than this was. As is, technically Attack from Space is pretty bad yet it's a silly serial from Japan where the hero has a padded codpiece and poses like he's an action figure on at least a dozen occasions.
Monday, May 28, 2018
Kelly's Heroes
Runtime:
146 minutes
Directed
by: Brian G. Hutton
Starring:
Clint Eastwood, Telly Savalas, Don Rickles, Donald Sutherland, Gavin
MacLeod
From:
MGM
Happy Memorial Day, everybody:
Each Memorial Day weekend Turner Classic Movies shows a bunch of old war movies; this happened to be one of them last night. I figured that would be appropriate to watch then and post a review of now on Memorial Day itself. This is a more tongue-in-cheek example in the genre; I know that the filmmakers and Eastwood wanted there to be more focus on the characters themselves but MGM preferred there being more comedy and they got their way. So yeah, it is not a modern phenomenon for Hollywood studios to do this nonsense. That said, the movie is still fun; sure this is ridiculous, but ridiculously entertaining at the same time.
Each Memorial Day weekend Turner Classic Movies shows a bunch of old war movies; this happened to be one of them last night. I figured that would be appropriate to watch then and post a review of now on Memorial Day itself. This is a more tongue-in-cheek example in the genre; I know that the filmmakers and Eastwood wanted there to be more focus on the characters themselves but MGM preferred there being more comedy and they got their way. So yeah, it is not a modern phenomenon for Hollywood studios to do this nonsense. That said, the movie is still fun; sure this is ridiculous, but ridiculously entertaining at the same time.
Loosely
based on a real life incident, a wacky ragtag group of soldiers
discover there is millions of dollars worth of Nazi gold stored in a
bank that is controlled by German soldiers, so even though the French
town is full of Germans, the titular Kelly's Heroes wish to go behind
enemy lines and steal it. Eastwood is Kelly and yet he is only a
Private; the outfit is run by the Master Sergeant played by Telly
Savalas, who shouts much of his dialogue. I think the supporting
Major General character done by Carroll O'Connor yells everything he
says. The film is loud and unsubtle, which I know won't be for
everyone.
Anyhow,
it should be no surprise there are laughs when Donald Sutherland
plays an anachronistic hippie character named Oddball and a major
role is played by Don Rickles. Yet there is also the expected action
you'd see in a war picture; plenty of people die and as there are
tanks, destruction is a-plenty. Not to give a spoiler but not all of
the Heroes make it to the end. As this is almost 2 ½ hours long,
there is still enough time for laughs, action, the planning then
execution of the heist, and the disparate characters interacting with
each other. That is why this film has plenty of memorable roles and
moments.
Who
knows what could have been if the movie had been as originally
intended. At least what we got was quite popular at the time and even
now there are plenty of film fans that appreciate it.
Madman
Madman (1981 or 1982, depending on where you look)
Runtime:
87 minutes
Directed
by: Joe Giannone
Starring:
Gaylen Ross, Tony Fish, Harriet Bass, Seth Jones, Jan Claire
From:
The Legend Lives Company
This is not the only film I saw this weekend. I'll talk about what I watched a few hours ago on Monday afternoon. Late Saturday night I rewatched Interstellar, which I am still "meh" about. This I can say was at least fine:
This
was an obscure slasher that got attention when Vinegar Syndrome put it
out on Blu a few years ago. They aren't Criterion so a few scenes of the
print they scanned at 4K have deep dark scratches yet I was fine with
that as otherwise it looked great. This is a slasher at its most
elemental (so I understand why people would not care for this) and yet
it was done fine enough to where I can give this a decent grade.
The
plot will sound familiar: at a camp “for gifted children”, they are
around a campfire one night telling spooky stories (and one sings an
amazing and atonal acapella ditty) when the camp's owner mentions the
legend of Madman Marz, a horrible human being who killed his family, was
hanged... only his body and the bodies of the murder victims all
vanish. Like Candyman, Bloody Mary, or Beetlejuice, if you say his name
out loud, he shows up. A kid yells out the name and yep, that hulking
brute starts killing. His weapon of choice is an axe but that isn't the
only way he dispatches his victims.
What helps is that this is not poorly made... as long as you ignore how not everything always makes logical sense. There are some suspense scenes that are drawn out yet never boring. There are some teases of how Marz almost attacks someone but the person obliviously avoids it. There are a few gory moments for those that love such things. The setting (the woods somewhere in the state of New York) are well-utilized and help set the mood tremendously.
But the two biggest assets are the characters and the music. None of the characters are annoying, which is always good in a slasher. Yes, the counselors look rather old for what I presume are supposed to be teenagers, and naturally most of them are pretty horny. The score was dark brooding synth, which is always appreciated by me. There's another song sung, and it's about Madman Marz! What a tune that is, along with what you hear during a humdinger of a scene involving a hot tub. It does help with the rating somewhat yet most of it was that even if the trappings are familiar, I found this to be fun and if you like old slashers, you might like this too.
What helps is that this is not poorly made... as long as you ignore how not everything always makes logical sense. There are some suspense scenes that are drawn out yet never boring. There are some teases of how Marz almost attacks someone but the person obliviously avoids it. There are a few gory moments for those that love such things. The setting (the woods somewhere in the state of New York) are well-utilized and help set the mood tremendously.
But the two biggest assets are the characters and the music. None of the characters are annoying, which is always good in a slasher. Yes, the counselors look rather old for what I presume are supposed to be teenagers, and naturally most of them are pretty horny. The score was dark brooding synth, which is always appreciated by me. There's another song sung, and it's about Madman Marz! What a tune that is, along with what you hear during a humdinger of a scene involving a hot tub. It does help with the rating somewhat yet most of it was that even if the trappings are familiar, I found this to be fun and if you like old slashers, you might like this too.
Saturday, May 26, 2018
The Hidden Fortress
The Hidden Fortress (Kakushi-Toride No San Akunin) (1958)
Runtime: 139 minutes
Directed by: Akira Kurosawa
Starring: Toshiro Mifune, Misa Uehara, Minoru Chiaki, Katamari Fujiwara, Susumu Fujita
From: Toho
As you'll see, this seemed like an apt time for such a review:
The weekend that a new Star Wars film is out seemed like the most appropriate time for me to watch then discussion this motion picture. Even if George Lucas had never admitted this was a big influence on what is now typically known as A New Hope, it'd be obvious. The movie is from the perspective of two bumbling characters, who help escort a mysterious man that is actually a general and a princess to an ally clan so she isn't captured by the villains and she can once again take her place on the throne. There are other allusions (there are even horizontal wipes used to transition between scenes) but the story itself is rather obvious.
The leads Matashichi and Tahei are fools yet they are fun and not so dumb you get annoyed by them... although at times they definitely are scoundrels and at one point think about doing something pretty heinous to the princess. Toshiro Mifune as the general Kokurota-who basically what is known now as a romper-is pretty cool and not just because he is played by Toshiro Mifune. He's a badass character who tricks the leads into helping him and the princess under the guise of “a crapton of gold.” The princess is pretty tough and takes no crap.
This was Kurosawa's first widescreen picture yet he already mastered it the first time out. The variety of different shots were all great and everything is exactly placed within frame where it should be; the movie is dynamic when it comes to cinematography. It was well-edited to boot. The action you do see is memorable; the highlight is a duel using wooden sticks that pretty much is a light saber fight. But there are serious themes in the film too, such as honor and someone really experiencing life for the first time.
While I don't think this is the best Kurosawa nor is it my favorite, that is only because of who the director is and him having a career with almost no equal. The Hidden Fortress can either be watched by those who want to see what inspired a legendary franchise, or divorced from that you can still dig this adventure.
Runtime: 139 minutes
Directed by: Akira Kurosawa
Starring: Toshiro Mifune, Misa Uehara, Minoru Chiaki, Katamari Fujiwara, Susumu Fujita
From: Toho
As you'll see, this seemed like an apt time for such a review:
The weekend that a new Star Wars film is out seemed like the most appropriate time for me to watch then discussion this motion picture. Even if George Lucas had never admitted this was a big influence on what is now typically known as A New Hope, it'd be obvious. The movie is from the perspective of two bumbling characters, who help escort a mysterious man that is actually a general and a princess to an ally clan so she isn't captured by the villains and she can once again take her place on the throne. There are other allusions (there are even horizontal wipes used to transition between scenes) but the story itself is rather obvious.
The leads Matashichi and Tahei are fools yet they are fun and not so dumb you get annoyed by them... although at times they definitely are scoundrels and at one point think about doing something pretty heinous to the princess. Toshiro Mifune as the general Kokurota-who basically what is known now as a romper-is pretty cool and not just because he is played by Toshiro Mifune. He's a badass character who tricks the leads into helping him and the princess under the guise of “a crapton of gold.” The princess is pretty tough and takes no crap.
This was Kurosawa's first widescreen picture yet he already mastered it the first time out. The variety of different shots were all great and everything is exactly placed within frame where it should be; the movie is dynamic when it comes to cinematography. It was well-edited to boot. The action you do see is memorable; the highlight is a duel using wooden sticks that pretty much is a light saber fight. But there are serious themes in the film too, such as honor and someone really experiencing life for the first time.
While I don't think this is the best Kurosawa nor is it my favorite, that is only because of who the director is and him having a career with almost no equal. The Hidden Fortress can either be watched by those who want to see what inspired a legendary franchise, or divorced from that you can still dig this adventure.
Friday, May 25, 2018
Solo: A Star Wars Story
Eh, you should know all the details by now.. but I will mention the Rotten Tomatoes score of (as of posting) 71%, out of 283 reviews.
Or... Solo: A Mediocre Star Wars Story.
Everyone has biases when it comes to films that they like and what cinema they prefer. For a long while I have been fed up with a lot of what Hollywood shovels out (for a long while now, the summer is the least busy season for me when it comes to theatrical viewings) and this movie has two things I have grown to dislike more and more: producers needlessly meddling with projects, and the proliferation of sequels over original ideas.
Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, I'll just say that any trailer I've seen for any of their films, I've never laughed even once. That is why I've only seen The Lego Movie (that's been watched twice) and as I thought it was below average-and ironically, with hindsight I'd say the same about The Last Jedi, a movie that gets worse the more I think about it; why it's beloved by so many, I'll never comprehend-I never went and saw anything else they did. It is likely they would have made this into something I really did not like, but the way they were treated and fired was BS on principle. They shouldn't have been surprised with how filming was going if they hired them for the job. I am sure I'll always think highly of Rogue One, but it wasn't until months after first viewing that I heard how Gareth Edwards was treated and I am no fan of that either.
Those that say this is a Space Western, the term is quite apt. I won't say much about plot specifics as everyone has seen the trailers; basically, a bunch of smugglers steal s***. Not surprisingly, the movie is quite uneven and is only sporadically successful. There are some quality action setpieces and while Alden Ehrenrich usually did not make me think he was a young Han Solo, the actual performance wasn't bad. I am not sure when the Internet turned against Emilia Clarke; I haven't watched Game of Thrones either and honestly this is the first film I've even seen her in. Her performance wasn't THAT bad to me. Donald Glover as young Lando was memorable, and it wasn't just because he mimicked the original character very well at times.
Unfortunately, I had big problems with the story; it is not as clever as it thinks it is. Yeah, it's one of those deals. That kind of stuff works in Spaghetti Westerns, but hey they are Spaghetti Westerns and not only is it a unique animal of its own, but it's usually done better there. Thankfully this wasn't a quip a minute BS you got in The Last Jedi which ruined many scenes, was usually just stupid and in no way made me feel as if I was watching Star Wars... that crap isn't in this film. The humor that you do get... sometimes it is bad.
There's a character I ended up hating. I won't reveal anything that would give away who I am referring to. When I legit would have preferred Jar Jar Binks in the same role... it'd paint another character in a new light but honestly what I am referring to was a fail all around... tremendously annoying and a caricature instead of funny or insightful. Then again, the big bad villain of this was totally “meh”; I did not really care about them at all even if they tried to make them a threatening menace. They were just dull and forgettable and like this movie, pointless. That actor originally wasn't the one in the role; instead it was another actor but when there were reshoots, in went this new person... that character was originally going to resemble a bipedal mountain lion (?!) instead of the appearance we got here.
One last thing: if you thought the prequels were full of references to all sorts of Star Wars lore, wait until you see this film. It's like the entire movie was based on references. Not only do you get nods to the original trilogy, but also the prequels themselves. That got old pretty quickly for me. But already I see that many enjoyed this more than I did, so your mileage may vary. There are plenty who aren't as cynical about modern Hollywood as I am, or thought this was a story worth telling... which I am unsure if THIS tale was worth telling.
Or... Solo: A Mediocre Star Wars Story.
Everyone has biases when it comes to films that they like and what cinema they prefer. For a long while I have been fed up with a lot of what Hollywood shovels out (for a long while now, the summer is the least busy season for me when it comes to theatrical viewings) and this movie has two things I have grown to dislike more and more: producers needlessly meddling with projects, and the proliferation of sequels over original ideas.
Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, I'll just say that any trailer I've seen for any of their films, I've never laughed even once. That is why I've only seen The Lego Movie (that's been watched twice) and as I thought it was below average-and ironically, with hindsight I'd say the same about The Last Jedi, a movie that gets worse the more I think about it; why it's beloved by so many, I'll never comprehend-I never went and saw anything else they did. It is likely they would have made this into something I really did not like, but the way they were treated and fired was BS on principle. They shouldn't have been surprised with how filming was going if they hired them for the job. I am sure I'll always think highly of Rogue One, but it wasn't until months after first viewing that I heard how Gareth Edwards was treated and I am no fan of that either.
Those that say this is a Space Western, the term is quite apt. I won't say much about plot specifics as everyone has seen the trailers; basically, a bunch of smugglers steal s***. Not surprisingly, the movie is quite uneven and is only sporadically successful. There are some quality action setpieces and while Alden Ehrenrich usually did not make me think he was a young Han Solo, the actual performance wasn't bad. I am not sure when the Internet turned against Emilia Clarke; I haven't watched Game of Thrones either and honestly this is the first film I've even seen her in. Her performance wasn't THAT bad to me. Donald Glover as young Lando was memorable, and it wasn't just because he mimicked the original character very well at times.
Unfortunately, I had big problems with the story; it is not as clever as it thinks it is. Yeah, it's one of those deals. That kind of stuff works in Spaghetti Westerns, but hey they are Spaghetti Westerns and not only is it a unique animal of its own, but it's usually done better there. Thankfully this wasn't a quip a minute BS you got in The Last Jedi which ruined many scenes, was usually just stupid and in no way made me feel as if I was watching Star Wars... that crap isn't in this film. The humor that you do get... sometimes it is bad.
There's a character I ended up hating. I won't reveal anything that would give away who I am referring to. When I legit would have preferred Jar Jar Binks in the same role... it'd paint another character in a new light but honestly what I am referring to was a fail all around... tremendously annoying and a caricature instead of funny or insightful. Then again, the big bad villain of this was totally “meh”; I did not really care about them at all even if they tried to make them a threatening menace. They were just dull and forgettable and like this movie, pointless. That actor originally wasn't the one in the role; instead it was another actor but when there were reshoots, in went this new person... that character was originally going to resemble a bipedal mountain lion (?!) instead of the appearance we got here.
One last thing: if you thought the prequels were full of references to all sorts of Star Wars lore, wait until you see this film. It's like the entire movie was based on references. Not only do you get nods to the original trilogy, but also the prequels themselves. That got old pretty quickly for me. But already I see that many enjoyed this more than I did, so your mileage may vary. There are plenty who aren't as cynical about modern Hollywood as I am, or thought this was a story worth telling... which I am unsure if THIS tale was worth telling.
Thursday, May 24, 2018
Bad Ben
Runtime:
86 minutes
Directed
by: Nigel Bach
Starring:
Nigel Bach... and that's it
From:
Not surprisingly, Nigel Bach Productions
What a movie I only first heard about last night; talk about micro-budget:
Wait, so this ISN'T a parody of found footage horror?
I literally first heard about the film a half hour before I decided to watch it; it was because (you guessed it) of discussion in a horror thread on a messageboard. The tenor of the talk was that this was “so bad it's good” and as this (and its two sequels! Actually, it's a prequel then a sequel; I understand those don't have the charm that this did) are available on Amazon Prime if you are a member... note that in no way this could be considered a quality motion picture, but even if by accident it is pretty darn funny at times.
The important thing to know is that it is literally a one man show here: a random middle-aged dude named Nigel Bach did everything... then again you only see him on camera in the entire film and what isn't “home security footage” is filmed from his iPhone, and for what he says was only a 300 dollar budget! I won't rip on this guy as hey, he has made movies that made its way on a service where anyone can see it (and some can for free); that's more than what I've done. Whether or not that's an indictment of the genre or what Amazon accepts for streaming, that is up to you to decide.
Bach is Tom Riley, who purchases a house at auction and he wants to flip it. I have to wonder, in New Jersey do they really sell abandoned houses with all the s*** still in it, and do they not actually disclose the house history unless you ask? It's New Jersey, so I actually don't have a hard time believing it... anyhow, spooky things happen and you'll likely be reminded of Paranormal Activity. Now, the movie is pretty funny for unintentional reasons. For example, Riley-after witnessing the lo-fi special effects-has an interesting reaction to realizing his situation: he gets mad. Even more so than Micah in Paranormal Activity, he's all “F*** you, ghost! Up yours, demon!”, to paraphrase. I laughed at how he cursed often, made random non-sequitors and how he did not always logically react how a normal person would in this predicament.
It doesn't sound great by making the statement, “Oh, at least Bach has some sort of clue as to what he's doing,” but honestly I've seen incompetence by productions with much larger budgets. Riley does ask existentially why he's still filming if he was only filming the house for the sake of being an aid to flip the house but now there's the whole evil spirit thing; it's not a question he answers. A few times there are things in the periphery and other times there are more obvious sightings. Even if he is copying other films at least this has a logical structure and isn't baffling like The Room, to list an obvious example.
In these modern times, it is now easy to make a film using a smartphone or even what is known as an action camera. Those can be found for relatively cheap and can film in 4K, although image stabilization only goes up to 1080p. The movie should look nice if the lighting (natural or not) isn't bad, but it can't help if the content is atrocious. Bad Ben-the title is explained in the final act-is at least watchable and is not a punishing sit... although not necessarily for the reasons that Nigel Bach intended.
Wait, so this ISN'T a parody of found footage horror?
I literally first heard about the film a half hour before I decided to watch it; it was because (you guessed it) of discussion in a horror thread on a messageboard. The tenor of the talk was that this was “so bad it's good” and as this (and its two sequels! Actually, it's a prequel then a sequel; I understand those don't have the charm that this did) are available on Amazon Prime if you are a member... note that in no way this could be considered a quality motion picture, but even if by accident it is pretty darn funny at times.
The important thing to know is that it is literally a one man show here: a random middle-aged dude named Nigel Bach did everything... then again you only see him on camera in the entire film and what isn't “home security footage” is filmed from his iPhone, and for what he says was only a 300 dollar budget! I won't rip on this guy as hey, he has made movies that made its way on a service where anyone can see it (and some can for free); that's more than what I've done. Whether or not that's an indictment of the genre or what Amazon accepts for streaming, that is up to you to decide.
Bach is Tom Riley, who purchases a house at auction and he wants to flip it. I have to wonder, in New Jersey do they really sell abandoned houses with all the s*** still in it, and do they not actually disclose the house history unless you ask? It's New Jersey, so I actually don't have a hard time believing it... anyhow, spooky things happen and you'll likely be reminded of Paranormal Activity. Now, the movie is pretty funny for unintentional reasons. For example, Riley-after witnessing the lo-fi special effects-has an interesting reaction to realizing his situation: he gets mad. Even more so than Micah in Paranormal Activity, he's all “F*** you, ghost! Up yours, demon!”, to paraphrase. I laughed at how he cursed often, made random non-sequitors and how he did not always logically react how a normal person would in this predicament.
It doesn't sound great by making the statement, “Oh, at least Bach has some sort of clue as to what he's doing,” but honestly I've seen incompetence by productions with much larger budgets. Riley does ask existentially why he's still filming if he was only filming the house for the sake of being an aid to flip the house but now there's the whole evil spirit thing; it's not a question he answers. A few times there are things in the periphery and other times there are more obvious sightings. Even if he is copying other films at least this has a logical structure and isn't baffling like The Room, to list an obvious example.
In these modern times, it is now easy to make a film using a smartphone or even what is known as an action camera. Those can be found for relatively cheap and can film in 4K, although image stabilization only goes up to 1080p. The movie should look nice if the lighting (natural or not) isn't bad, but it can't help if the content is atrocious. Bad Ben-the title is explained in the final act-is at least watchable and is not a punishing sit... although not necessarily for the reasons that Nigel Bach intended.
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
Come And See
Come and See (Idi I Smotri) (1985)
Runtime: The version I saw was 137 minutes long
Directed by: Elem Klimov
Starring: Aleksey Kravchenko, Olga Mironova, Liubomiras Laucevicius, Vladas Bagdonas, Juri Lumiste
From: Mosfilm/Belarusfilm
Runtime: The version I saw was 137 minutes long
Directed by: Elem Klimov
Starring: Aleksey Kravchenko, Olga Mironova, Liubomiras Laucevicius, Vladas Bagdonas, Juri Lumiste
From: Mosfilm/Belarusfilm
This is an excellent motion picture... which I might never see again. There are great reasons as to why:
For a long while I've known of this Soviet Union (in the area now known as Belarus, to be more exact) film, which is why I only saw this last night; it has a reputation that precedes it of being incredibly bleak and depressing. Motion pictures like that I can't just watch one night; I need to be in the proper mood for such an experience. Well, all the preparation I could do was not enough for the ordeal that Come and See was. This movie is excellent and does deserve all the lofty praise it has received at sites like Letterboxd; It is just that it is so brutally effective at delivering its incredibly potent and virulent anti-war message, it may not be something I ever watch again, so grueling was it for me. What people have said about this being incredibly affecting and moving, they were correct.
The fact that the lead is a 13 year old boy (who in real life was like 15 when the film was made) is rough enough; he wants to join the resistance movement, which is a bunch of random guys with guns getting together and bringing the fight to the German soldiers. His mom's reaction is what you'd expect but this son (Florya) is excited to join. Quickly, he realizes how miserable war really is and later he discovers just how appallingly evil some human beings can be. He is in a number of different situations and eventually his spirit is broken... his childhood has ended and from all the shots of his face throughout the film you see his innocence has shattered and he will be a husk of a human being for the rest of his life, a person who will be haunted by all the horrifying experiences he had in a short amount of time.
The performances throughout are solid (especially from young Olga Mironova; her Glasha is a nice contrast to the lead) but it is Aleksey Kravchenko as Florya who is astounding in this movie. He really sells the character and you being able to understand exactly how he feels at any given moment is one of the reasons why this movie is so devastating. The movie is incredibly blunt about World War II atrocities and apparently the German troops did all of the appalling acts you see in the movie. It is well shot also, with the camera moving around in a way that is not overly flashy. The dreary look of the cinematography is perfect for the film, along with the musical score. I heard it described as “rhythmically amorphous” and that seems appropriate. It is not a traditional score and instead is a series of low tones; it works for this film.
To reiterate, all the discussion about the movie being a masterpiece... along with it being so disturbing and realistic that various images and moments will stick with you for a long time, that is all true. As real bullets and bombs were used during production, no wonder Kravchennko looks as if he ages by many years from beginning to end.
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
A Special Cop In Action
Runtime:
97 minutes
Directed
by: Marino Girolami
Starring:
Maurizio Merli, Raymond Pellegrin, John Saxon, Mirella D'Angelo, Toni
Ucci
From:
New Film Production S.R.L.
I am glad I returned to this genre:
I realized recently that it has been WAY too long since I had seen a
poliziotteschi for the first time; this was a situation I needed to fix
right away, as the list I have of all the genre films I've seen is my
most popular list. I figured I should go with this film as it is the
last of three films that star Maurizio Merli did where he played Betti,
the loosest of loose cannon cops. The other two films (Violent
City-sometimes referred to as Violent Rome-and Violent Naples are better
and crazier than this-the reviews I have for the two are short but they
are pretty entertaining genre entries) were good times so it made sense
to check this out.
Betti isn't as crazy as he was in the first two entries and the story is less episodic—there were still things I liked about this film where I can give it a nice rating. Basically, Betti believes that John Saxon (he was also in Violent Naples, albeit playing a different character) is behind both a string of bank robberies and the kidnapping of seven schoolchildren for ransom. That kidnapping happens only a few minutes in and you know the movie is going to be pretty harsh. A school bus is taken... or rather, a 70's passenger van being used as a school bus.
The movie at times strains credulity and there are misses along with hits when it comes to this trying to do some things different from genre norms. Yet I found this acceptable enough for my tastes. It's always nice seeing the likes of Merli and Saxon, after all... even if Saxon doesn't show up until about 45 minutes in. There are still car chases, shootouts, fistfights, etc. that are required for a poliziotteschi, not to mention a funky score. Another genre hallmark-sleaze-is also included, and that typically is “something gross happening to a woman.” The biggest moment there does end up becoming a plot point and isn't just gratuitous... not that I am defending this trope.
While there are better genre examples, that means this is not worthy of being watched for those that enjoy this films as much as I do.
Betti isn't as crazy as he was in the first two entries and the story is less episodic—there were still things I liked about this film where I can give it a nice rating. Basically, Betti believes that John Saxon (he was also in Violent Naples, albeit playing a different character) is behind both a string of bank robberies and the kidnapping of seven schoolchildren for ransom. That kidnapping happens only a few minutes in and you know the movie is going to be pretty harsh. A school bus is taken... or rather, a 70's passenger van being used as a school bus.
The movie at times strains credulity and there are misses along with hits when it comes to this trying to do some things different from genre norms. Yet I found this acceptable enough for my tastes. It's always nice seeing the likes of Merli and Saxon, after all... even if Saxon doesn't show up until about 45 minutes in. There are still car chases, shootouts, fistfights, etc. that are required for a poliziotteschi, not to mention a funky score. Another genre hallmark-sleaze-is also included, and that typically is “something gross happening to a woman.” The biggest moment there does end up becoming a plot point and isn't just gratuitous... not that I am defending this trope.
While there are better genre examples, that means this is not worthy of being watched for those that enjoy this films as much as I do.
Monday, May 21, 2018
Rififi
Runtime:
118 minutes
Directed
by: Jules Dassin
Starring:
Jean Servais, Carl Mohner, Robert Manuel, Jules Dassin, Magali Noel
From: Pathe
Here is a classic which deserves its classic reputation:
A bad habit of mine is purchasing movies on disc then waiting a long
while to see them. It even applies to classics I purchase in a blind buy
that I delay watching even if I suspect it is a motion picture I will
rate highly. That is what I did here; I've had the Criterion Blu release
for a good amount of time yet it was only last night that I finally saw
Rififi... and I realized I was a pillock, as this should have been
watched much sooner, because it is an excellent film.
This heist film has a plot which sounds simple enough: a jewel thief is released from prison after 5 years and his pals convince him to do one last big heist; the story is actually more complex than that. Tony is the man who just got out of the can and his pal Jo is the one who convinces him to perform the robbery at a high-end jewelry store. Mario and Italian safecracker Cesar (played by director Jules Dassin) are the other two. You get to see that all four have various attachments to women (for example, one has a wife & son and Cesar is a ladies man) and that does factor into the plot.
You see that they case the joint and a few minutes is shown them trying to figure out the place's nifty security alarm (by purchasing an identical alarm they can practice on) and then they attempt the robbery during the middle of the night. After that there are complications, which aren't surprising yet the movie is always engrossing. It does not take long before the heist is first proposed and the main players are all intriguing characters. The movie is well-made, the ending is utterly unforgettable and the movie really pulls no punches. Yet the true highlight is the actual heist itself; the sequence is more than a half hour and not only do you not hear a word spoken, there is no soundtrack either. It is just natural noises such as them drilling or pulling up floorboards. That was not only masterfully done, allegedly there were real life criminals that were inspired by this scheme.
Jules Dassin made several quality noirs in Hollywood, then he was banished due to the “wonderful” blacklist; he was on the shelf for a few years before going to France and he spent a lot of time working in Europe. If you enjoy heist movies from any time period, this is a must-see; heck, even if you don't I say this is so great the movie is worthy of viewing... how the robbery is done makes me give such a high rating.
This heist film has a plot which sounds simple enough: a jewel thief is released from prison after 5 years and his pals convince him to do one last big heist; the story is actually more complex than that. Tony is the man who just got out of the can and his pal Jo is the one who convinces him to perform the robbery at a high-end jewelry store. Mario and Italian safecracker Cesar (played by director Jules Dassin) are the other two. You get to see that all four have various attachments to women (for example, one has a wife & son and Cesar is a ladies man) and that does factor into the plot.
You see that they case the joint and a few minutes is shown them trying to figure out the place's nifty security alarm (by purchasing an identical alarm they can practice on) and then they attempt the robbery during the middle of the night. After that there are complications, which aren't surprising yet the movie is always engrossing. It does not take long before the heist is first proposed and the main players are all intriguing characters. The movie is well-made, the ending is utterly unforgettable and the movie really pulls no punches. Yet the true highlight is the actual heist itself; the sequence is more than a half hour and not only do you not hear a word spoken, there is no soundtrack either. It is just natural noises such as them drilling or pulling up floorboards. That was not only masterfully done, allegedly there were real life criminals that were inspired by this scheme.
Jules Dassin made several quality noirs in Hollywood, then he was banished due to the “wonderful” blacklist; he was on the shelf for a few years before going to France and he spent a lot of time working in Europe. If you enjoy heist movies from any time period, this is a must-see; heck, even if you don't I say this is so great the movie is worthy of viewing... how the robbery is done makes me give such a high rating.
Sunday, May 20, 2018
A Touch Of Zen
Runtime:
I saw the version that was 180 minutes long
Directed
by: King Hu
Starring:
Feng Hsu, Chun Shih, Ying Bai, Xue Han, Roy Chiao
From:
Union Film
This is an epic from Taiwan which finally got the respect it deserves after it was released in the United States (by Criterion) and in the UK back two summers ago. The film is worth seeing if you want to check out a different sort of wuxia motion picture:
For
awhile now I've known of this 3 hour* wuxia epic but last night I
finally sat down and gave this a shot. 3 hours later I realized I made
an error in putting this off despite its very long runtime. The martial
arts in here are pretty cool-swordplay is what is on display-but those
moments aren't plentiful yet it is alright as the movie is not about
that; instead you find out this picture has a lot it wants to say.
The plot sounds like a standard Shaw Brothers picture, which shouldn't be a surprise as of course King Hu used to work there. A man in his 30's who can be described as ineffectual or effete (he lives with his nagging mother and is definitely henpecked; he wants to be a painter instead of getting a government job) finds out a new girl who lives nearby is actually on the run from some corrupt authorities; they offed the rest of her family but she escapes. All that said, the movie has higher ambitions than a typical Shaw Brothers flick. Plenty of time is spent with the main characters so you get to know them pretty well and it is intriguing seeing how the heroes (which include Roy Chiao and his fellow monks) try to avoid capture. The final half hour or so is pretty beautiful in several different ways, none of which I dare spoil here.
Overall, the movie is a joy to look at between the scenic rural locations and how they were all filmed. As you might suspect from the English title, spirituality is part of the equation, and in fact is rather important. The film dabbles in several different genres and deception is something you should expect to see often. But as I just said this is not a film I want to spoil as there are plenty of unexpected developments and I'd rather let people find out for themselves why people like Tarantino, Ang Lee, Wong Kar-Wai and Zhang Yimou have all been inspired and sometimes paid tribute to this movie in their own works. This is a lyrical treat although to steal a line from someone, the notes being played are more like jazz rather than a classical piece.
* On Amazon the stream of this film is listed as being 170 minutes long; that is not correct. It is 180 minutes exactly.
The plot sounds like a standard Shaw Brothers picture, which shouldn't be a surprise as of course King Hu used to work there. A man in his 30's who can be described as ineffectual or effete (he lives with his nagging mother and is definitely henpecked; he wants to be a painter instead of getting a government job) finds out a new girl who lives nearby is actually on the run from some corrupt authorities; they offed the rest of her family but she escapes. All that said, the movie has higher ambitions than a typical Shaw Brothers flick. Plenty of time is spent with the main characters so you get to know them pretty well and it is intriguing seeing how the heroes (which include Roy Chiao and his fellow monks) try to avoid capture. The final half hour or so is pretty beautiful in several different ways, none of which I dare spoil here.
Overall, the movie is a joy to look at between the scenic rural locations and how they were all filmed. As you might suspect from the English title, spirituality is part of the equation, and in fact is rather important. The film dabbles in several different genres and deception is something you should expect to see often. But as I just said this is not a film I want to spoil as there are plenty of unexpected developments and I'd rather let people find out for themselves why people like Tarantino, Ang Lee, Wong Kar-Wai and Zhang Yimou have all been inspired and sometimes paid tribute to this movie in their own works. This is a lyrical treat although to steal a line from someone, the notes being played are more like jazz rather than a classical piece.
* On Amazon the stream of this film is listed as being 170 minutes long; that is not correct. It is 180 minutes exactly.
Saturday, May 19, 2018
The Medusa Touch
The Medusa Touch (1978)
Runtime: 105 minutes
Directed by: Jack Gold
Starring: Richard Burton, Lino Ventura, Lee Remick, Harry Andrews, Alan Badel
From: ITC Entertainment
You may have never heard of this before; I say that it is worth seeing, and I explain why:
I sometimes mention how I am inspired to watch something due to discussion on a messageboard; well, this time it was someone making a query this movie which was the impetus behind me finally seeing this in full. A few years ago, I only saw a small amount when it aired late one night on Turner Classic Movies.
The plot: John Morlar (Richard Burton) is a novelist who is brutally beaten in his apartment and is barely hanging on to life. Lino Ventura is the detective investigating this and Lee Remick plays a psychiatrist. Via flashbacks you discover that Morlar is quite the character; he is a misanthrope, a sarcastic, arrogant haughty man who speaks ornately (this book is based on a novel so no surprise that a writer would write a writer like this) and he has some hilarious lines. Morlar believes that disaster follows him wherever he goes, but it's not just bad luck—he states that he has telekinesis. The movie spends a lot of time being ambiguous on whether this claim is true or not so I won't reveal the truth.
I could nitpick various aspects of the film but that'd be petty and besides, I found it to be pretty good. Ventura and Remick do a swell job yet it is Burton who is the most memorable. He is unfortunately better known for his quite public love life and equally public issues with alcohol rather than his prodigious talent as an actor. He did not sleepwalk through this role or just take it for a paycheck. He did quite well with such a role and delivered the flowery dialogue with no issue at all. Plus, at times his stare was creepy as hell.
There are definitely some frightening moments and the practical effects used there were effective. If you are a Burton fan, for sure you should track this down. The person who made the query about the movie, he will be getting the Blu-ray in a few days. I hope it was a worthy purchase for him.
Runtime: 105 minutes
Directed by: Jack Gold
Starring: Richard Burton, Lino Ventura, Lee Remick, Harry Andrews, Alan Badel
From: ITC Entertainment
You may have never heard of this before; I say that it is worth seeing, and I explain why:
I sometimes mention how I am inspired to watch something due to discussion on a messageboard; well, this time it was someone making a query this movie which was the impetus behind me finally seeing this in full. A few years ago, I only saw a small amount when it aired late one night on Turner Classic Movies.
The plot: John Morlar (Richard Burton) is a novelist who is brutally beaten in his apartment and is barely hanging on to life. Lino Ventura is the detective investigating this and Lee Remick plays a psychiatrist. Via flashbacks you discover that Morlar is quite the character; he is a misanthrope, a sarcastic, arrogant haughty man who speaks ornately (this book is based on a novel so no surprise that a writer would write a writer like this) and he has some hilarious lines. Morlar believes that disaster follows him wherever he goes, but it's not just bad luck—he states that he has telekinesis. The movie spends a lot of time being ambiguous on whether this claim is true or not so I won't reveal the truth.
I could nitpick various aspects of the film but that'd be petty and besides, I found it to be pretty good. Ventura and Remick do a swell job yet it is Burton who is the most memorable. He is unfortunately better known for his quite public love life and equally public issues with alcohol rather than his prodigious talent as an actor. He did not sleepwalk through this role or just take it for a paycheck. He did quite well with such a role and delivered the flowery dialogue with no issue at all. Plus, at times his stare was creepy as hell.
There are definitely some frightening moments and the practical effects used there were effective. If you are a Burton fan, for sure you should track this down. The person who made the query about the movie, he will be getting the Blu-ray in a few days. I hope it was a worthy purchase for him.
Thursday, May 17, 2018
Superman II (Both Versions)
Runtime:
127 minutes
Directed
by: Richard Lester... and Richard Donner
Starring:
Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder (RIP), Gene Hackman, Terence Stamp,
Sarah Douglas, Jack O'Halloran
From:
Warner Bros.
This is a review of both the theatrical version of this movie and the 2006 Richard Donner Cut that he completed (at least to the best of his ability); I imagine everyone knows by now that he was let go from II so Richard Lester had to finish the film. I'll note the two versions by different fonts:
There are plenty of movies I'd like to see soon (some of which
involve individuals that recently passed away) but as I watched all the
Salkind Superman movies when I was a little kid, I was sad when I heard
that Margot Kidder had passed away. As a kid I only knew her from those
films, then as an adult I saw films like Black Christmas and Amityville
Horror... she could play plenty of different roles but she was great
doing such characters as Barb from Black Christmas... a tough, sassy
lady who I could imagine drinking shots of whiskey with, for example.
Off the screen, she dealt with mental health issues and she had a real
bad few days in the mid 90's-sparked by a computer virus, of all things
in that time period-but after that she had no more episodes and was open
about her battles with said issues. She was great as Lois Lane in these
films but I am glad that her struggles did not lead to a tragic death
and instead she had a more normal death (if there could ever be such a
thing), passing away in her sleep at home.
Both this version and The Richard Donner Cut have their own separate issues (the review of the latter will be posted in a few hours) but what is a big help in both versions is Kidder and Christopher Reeve as the leads. They were great in their roles and with each other. What a bad time for Superman to voluntarily lose his powers so he could have Lois as a g/f right as a trio of villains from Krypton escape and happen to stumble upon Planet Houston... er, I mean Earth. There is more than one deus ex machina in this film, the biggest one being how Supes gets his powers back.
If I wanted to be overly critical, I could nitpick various issues with the story, how the humor isn't always funny and there probably is too much of it (yes, the MCU was not the first to have this problem; it is not as bad as in Superman III) and what I like to call “general comic book silliness.” The whole controversy over Richard Donner directing part of this before being replaced by Richard Lester... other places go in depth on what happened, although if Donner was invited back to finish II or not is still in question. For a film with those production problems, it usually isn't apparent as you're watching the movie. Although, the fact that Lex Luthor seemed like a character shoehorned into the movie and he wasn't around for long stretches was obvious to me... that is explained because Gene Hackman was loyal to Donner and did not want to film with Lester.
Despite all that and on a few occasions Superman living up to the meme of him being a dick, it is still an enjoyable film. It helps that the three super villains are all memorable and Terence Stamp's General Zod became iconic, and not just for KNEEL BEFORE ZOD! The Kryptonians doing battle with each other was memorable and fun with all the practical effects used to make some parts of New York Ci... I mean “Metropolis” being destroyed look realistic. I still haven't seen Man of Steel but I've heard about its final act... at least here Superman saves people who are in danger, which is an important plot point and the villains try to use this to their advantage. One day I guess I should watch Man of Steel since I am sure it will always be incredibly polarizing and I should judge for myself which camp I fall into.
Nostalgia may play a part in how I feel about this; it was something I watched and had fun with as a kid, and the same is true many years later when I know much about about what happened behind the scenes.
Both this version and The Richard Donner Cut have their own separate issues (the review of the latter will be posted in a few hours) but what is a big help in both versions is Kidder and Christopher Reeve as the leads. They were great in their roles and with each other. What a bad time for Superman to voluntarily lose his powers so he could have Lois as a g/f right as a trio of villains from Krypton escape and happen to stumble upon Planet Houston... er, I mean Earth. There is more than one deus ex machina in this film, the biggest one being how Supes gets his powers back.
If I wanted to be overly critical, I could nitpick various issues with the story, how the humor isn't always funny and there probably is too much of it (yes, the MCU was not the first to have this problem; it is not as bad as in Superman III) and what I like to call “general comic book silliness.” The whole controversy over Richard Donner directing part of this before being replaced by Richard Lester... other places go in depth on what happened, although if Donner was invited back to finish II or not is still in question. For a film with those production problems, it usually isn't apparent as you're watching the movie. Although, the fact that Lex Luthor seemed like a character shoehorned into the movie and he wasn't around for long stretches was obvious to me... that is explained because Gene Hackman was loyal to Donner and did not want to film with Lester.
Despite all that and on a few occasions Superman living up to the meme of him being a dick, it is still an enjoyable film. It helps that the three super villains are all memorable and Terence Stamp's General Zod became iconic, and not just for KNEEL BEFORE ZOD! The Kryptonians doing battle with each other was memorable and fun with all the practical effects used to make some parts of New York Ci... I mean “Metropolis” being destroyed look realistic. I still haven't seen Man of Steel but I've heard about its final act... at least here Superman saves people who are in danger, which is an important plot point and the villains try to use this to their advantage. One day I guess I should watch Man of Steel since I am sure it will always be incredibly polarizing and I should judge for myself which camp I fall into.
Nostalgia may play a part in how I feel about this; it was something I watched and had fun with as a kid, and the same is true many years later when I know much about about what happened behind the scenes.
A few hours ago, I posted a review of the theatrical version of
Superman II; I have watched this before, back when it came out in '06.
It was a DVD I watched and the movie was an interesting curio, but last
night was the first viewing on Blu.
I rate this the same as I do the theatrical; both have their strengths and weaknesses. I can't get mad that some Lester footage had to be used in order to complete this, as that was the only way it could be done. The terrible CG that was used to complete some scenes... I did not remember how bad that looked, even by 2006 standards. At times the movie seems rushed and while some humor was taken out, there's an occasion or two where bad humor is added in.
Yet there are positives. A lot of the dumb humor was excised but the biggest asset is that Marlon Brando returned as Jor-El. He wasn't in II not because of the whole Donner being let go thing... rather, he was mad at the Salkinds as he felt he was not paid what he was owed. As an aside, the Salkinds don't sound like the best people to work for; allegedly Lester did not care for them either. Anyhow, the Brando estate allowed his footage to be used here. Those scenes happened to work better than the ones in the original with Superman's mom not because of the acting but because there is not only more gravitas, the dialogue is better so the drama is improved as they debate the critical topic of if Supes should give up his powers so he could have a girlfriend.
I'll close this out by mention some odd things. In both versions of the film, Perry White's office has hanging up something rather odd. I read about this in an article many years ago but for some reason, you get to see a framed photo of BILL COSBY. It has to be some sort of in-joke, an Easter egg. Unfortunately for the film, now that is incredibly awkward. Also, a woman remarks that Superman must be Jewish... strange, although the creators of the character (Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster) were Jewish so that is an in-joke I understand. But, the last bit relates to how Superman is a Dick, which is a meme that is still a thing.
To reveal a spoiler, the ending used here was partially borrowed from the first's ending. Well, actually... the original ending of II WAS to be Superman's wacky time travel thing but it was used for I's ending instead; no, I have no idea what I's original conclusion was going to be. It isn't as creepy as the mind-erasing kiss powers he has, although I then realized something hilarious. The very end of this is the same, although now Superman beats up someone who hadn't seen him before! Yeah, he was a bully and a jerk but now Clark Kent looks even more petty for getting revenge and it doesn't exactly live up to his virtuous image now, does it?
Irregardless, I believe that both cuts should be viewed, so you can decide for yourself which one you prefer.
I rate this the same as I do the theatrical; both have their strengths and weaknesses. I can't get mad that some Lester footage had to be used in order to complete this, as that was the only way it could be done. The terrible CG that was used to complete some scenes... I did not remember how bad that looked, even by 2006 standards. At times the movie seems rushed and while some humor was taken out, there's an occasion or two where bad humor is added in.
Yet there are positives. A lot of the dumb humor was excised but the biggest asset is that Marlon Brando returned as Jor-El. He wasn't in II not because of the whole Donner being let go thing... rather, he was mad at the Salkinds as he felt he was not paid what he was owed. As an aside, the Salkinds don't sound like the best people to work for; allegedly Lester did not care for them either. Anyhow, the Brando estate allowed his footage to be used here. Those scenes happened to work better than the ones in the original with Superman's mom not because of the acting but because there is not only more gravitas, the dialogue is better so the drama is improved as they debate the critical topic of if Supes should give up his powers so he could have a girlfriend.
I'll close this out by mention some odd things. In both versions of the film, Perry White's office has hanging up something rather odd. I read about this in an article many years ago but for some reason, you get to see a framed photo of BILL COSBY. It has to be some sort of in-joke, an Easter egg. Unfortunately for the film, now that is incredibly awkward. Also, a woman remarks that Superman must be Jewish... strange, although the creators of the character (Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster) were Jewish so that is an in-joke I understand. But, the last bit relates to how Superman is a Dick, which is a meme that is still a thing.
To reveal a spoiler, the ending used here was partially borrowed from the first's ending. Well, actually... the original ending of II WAS to be Superman's wacky time travel thing but it was used for I's ending instead; no, I have no idea what I's original conclusion was going to be. It isn't as creepy as the mind-erasing kiss powers he has, although I then realized something hilarious. The very end of this is the same, although now Superman beats up someone who hadn't seen him before! Yeah, he was a bully and a jerk but now Clark Kent looks even more petty for getting revenge and it doesn't exactly live up to his virtuous image now, does it?
Irregardless, I believe that both cuts should be viewed, so you can decide for yourself which one you prefer.
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
Citizen Kane
Citizen Kane (1941)
Runtime: 119 minutes
Directed by: Orson Welles
Starring: Welles, Joseph Cotten, Dorothy Comingore, Everett Sloane, Ray Collins
From: RKO
Yeah, it's been too long since I've watched the film in order for it to be reviewed online:
There's no need to get out the pitchforks and torches—I have watched this motion picture before. Although, it can be a source of contention that it was just this past late afternoon I decided to see this for the first time since I've been on Letterboxd, and I've been here for over 5 years now. Factoring into me giving this the highest possible rating is all the cinematic techniques it either debuted in cinema or popularized; there are plenty of sites which explain those techniques in detail... the lighting, non-linear storytelling, overlapping dialogue, low-angled shots, camera movements, dissolves, etc. so I won't dwell on that here.
But aside from all that, it is a greatly compelling story about the enigmatic figure Charles Foster Kane who ends up being sent to live away from his poor family so he could live with ultra-rich banker Thatcher because a gold mine was discovered on their property. While he became a newspaper magnate (definitely based on William Randolph Hearst, which caused a lot of problems for the film even before it was released) who was filthy rich, thought of himself “a man of the people” and was able to get into politics, he was not a happy person and admitted to others he was not always a great human being. The sudden change in childhood was obviously a factor on him, but Kane was a complex 3 dimensional character, which made him fascinating.
Plus, reporter Jerry Thompson investigating the meaning of Kane's last word of “Rosebud” allows the viewer to see his life in flashbacks and there's the whole “unreliable narrator” thing as at least one person giving their thoughts is offering contradictory information. That helps make this so easy to watch multiple times... along with admiring how superbly the movie was together, all the gorgeous cinematography or the quality acting throughout; ten actors that worked with Welles on stage made their debuts here and some (like Joseph Cotten and Agnes Moorehead) would prove to have long, storied careers.
I shouldn't presume that every film fan has seen this, that every film fan thinks it's a masterpiece, or that it should be seen as one of the greatest of all time. I won't begrudge those who are not in love with the movie or found it to be underwhelming. Personally, I do think it deserves the highest of ratings for the reasons I listed above. I don't have a “best movie of all time” category and I don't think it'd be in there anyhow... but no matter what this should be seen, even if it's a cliché by now that the movie is a must-see. And Welles did all this as a 25 year old first time director! That makes me feel like a real schlub in comparison as I did nothing of note at that age.
Runtime: 119 minutes
Directed by: Orson Welles
Starring: Welles, Joseph Cotten, Dorothy Comingore, Everett Sloane, Ray Collins
From: RKO
Yeah, it's been too long since I've watched the film in order for it to be reviewed online:
There's no need to get out the pitchforks and torches—I have watched this motion picture before. Although, it can be a source of contention that it was just this past late afternoon I decided to see this for the first time since I've been on Letterboxd, and I've been here for over 5 years now. Factoring into me giving this the highest possible rating is all the cinematic techniques it either debuted in cinema or popularized; there are plenty of sites which explain those techniques in detail... the lighting, non-linear storytelling, overlapping dialogue, low-angled shots, camera movements, dissolves, etc. so I won't dwell on that here.
But aside from all that, it is a greatly compelling story about the enigmatic figure Charles Foster Kane who ends up being sent to live away from his poor family so he could live with ultra-rich banker Thatcher because a gold mine was discovered on their property. While he became a newspaper magnate (definitely based on William Randolph Hearst, which caused a lot of problems for the film even before it was released) who was filthy rich, thought of himself “a man of the people” and was able to get into politics, he was not a happy person and admitted to others he was not always a great human being. The sudden change in childhood was obviously a factor on him, but Kane was a complex 3 dimensional character, which made him fascinating.
Plus, reporter Jerry Thompson investigating the meaning of Kane's last word of “Rosebud” allows the viewer to see his life in flashbacks and there's the whole “unreliable narrator” thing as at least one person giving their thoughts is offering contradictory information. That helps make this so easy to watch multiple times... along with admiring how superbly the movie was together, all the gorgeous cinematography or the quality acting throughout; ten actors that worked with Welles on stage made their debuts here and some (like Joseph Cotten and Agnes Moorehead) would prove to have long, storied careers.
I shouldn't presume that every film fan has seen this, that every film fan thinks it's a masterpiece, or that it should be seen as one of the greatest of all time. I won't begrudge those who are not in love with the movie or found it to be underwhelming. Personally, I do think it deserves the highest of ratings for the reasons I listed above. I don't have a “best movie of all time” category and I don't think it'd be in there anyhow... but no matter what this should be seen, even if it's a cliché by now that the movie is a must-see. And Welles did all this as a 25 year old first time director! That makes me feel like a real schlub in comparison as I did nothing of note at that age.
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
Righteous Kill
Runtime:
100 minutes
Directed
by: Jon Avnet
Starring:
Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Carla Gugino, 50 Cent, John Leguizamo
From:
Millennium Films/EFO Films
This is something I saw once before; after last night I don't plan on ever seeing this ever again, as there is no need to:
I will presume I am not the only one who-even with the critical
reviews-still went and saw this theatrically solely because it starred
two acting legends who finally would be in a picture where they would
have multiple scenes w/ each other. I will also presume I was not the
only one who felt disappointed by a lame flick which would have been
direct to DVD if not for the two leads being who they were. The only
reason why I watched this last night was that it was a 99 cent rental
from Amazon.
The plot: Al and Bobby are partners in the NYPD and they start investigating some serial killer offing scumbag criminals; it was not Connor and Murphy MacManus. Rather, the suspect is believed to be a police officer. There are other famous faces (Carla Gugino as a NYPD member who likes rough sex because... well, why not?, 50 Cent, John Leguizamo, Donnie Wahlberg, and even Brian Dennehy in a thankless role) but the two leads are the definite focus. Honestly, the story is pretty slight and really is like some random direct to DVD feature unknown to even the majority of film nerds... including the cheat it uses.
The film is one of those that thinks it is more clever than it actually is. Once you figure out what's going on, I presume the filmmakers would want everyone to give admiration and their adulations to the screenwriter or screenwriters for pulling the wool over everyone's eyes; in this case I instead rolled my eyes and sighed defeatedly, which I am confident plenty of other people have done before. Watching it again, that was The director was a journeyman instead of someone dynamic like Francis Ford Coppola or Michael Mann; then again if they were attached then the projects would be a lot more interesting and worthwhile.
All the main players (even Fiddy) have been in plenty of worthwhile movies that are more worthy of experiencing for the first time or revisiting... that would be a better usage of your time than spending any time with Righteous Kill.
The plot: Al and Bobby are partners in the NYPD and they start investigating some serial killer offing scumbag criminals; it was not Connor and Murphy MacManus. Rather, the suspect is believed to be a police officer. There are other famous faces (Carla Gugino as a NYPD member who likes rough sex because... well, why not?, 50 Cent, John Leguizamo, Donnie Wahlberg, and even Brian Dennehy in a thankless role) but the two leads are the definite focus. Honestly, the story is pretty slight and really is like some random direct to DVD feature unknown to even the majority of film nerds... including the cheat it uses.
The film is one of those that thinks it is more clever than it actually is. Once you figure out what's going on, I presume the filmmakers would want everyone to give admiration and their adulations to the screenwriter or screenwriters for pulling the wool over everyone's eyes; in this case I instead rolled my eyes and sighed defeatedly, which I am confident plenty of other people have done before. Watching it again, that was The director was a journeyman instead of someone dynamic like Francis Ford Coppola or Michael Mann; then again if they were attached then the projects would be a lot more interesting and worthwhile.
All the main players (even Fiddy) have been in plenty of worthwhile movies that are more worthy of experiencing for the first time or revisiting... that would be a better usage of your time than spending any time with Righteous Kill.
Monday, May 14, 2018
Night Of The Demon
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: James C. Wasson
Starring: Michael Cutt, Joy Allen, Bob Collins, Jody Lazarus, Rick Fields
From: Aldan Company
What a Bigfoot movie this is; it's technically pretty bad but boy is it so enjoyable for a certain audience:
Believe me, the rating was solely due to sheer entertainment value and has nothing to do with the technical aspects of film... the story, the characters, logic, and especially the acting. This was the second of two Bigfoot movies I saw last night and wow was it different from the first. While The Capture of Bigfoot was rather staid and not graphic at all aside from some people being shown with a minor amount of blood on them, this was definitely R-rated and in fact, was unsurprisingly on the infamous British Video Nasty list.
Lord, what a movie this is. I am not surprised that many of the people involved never did anything else besides this; the movie is so low-budget it made The Capture of Bigfoot look like a modern Hollywood production. Professor Nugent (no, not Ted) and some students go investigate reports of Sasquatch and what they find... you could only get in a regional oddity such as this, which was filmed somewhere in California. I'll only mention the most infamous moment but in my opinion, most of Sasquatch's kills in Night of the Demon were as if he was a proto Jason Voorhees. The most memorable kill certainly had a lot of chuzpuh... as other reviews have brought it up, I'll reveal this astounding moment: a guy is urinating and not only is he lifted up by his penis, but his penis is ripped off! We get the pleasure of seeing the aftermath in all its lo-fi gore effects glory.
Between the film print that is on Amazon Prime being of VHS quality and the bizarre directions this goes, it is fair to use the “what a fever dream this is” cliché. Plus, there are such sights as a supporting character-who vanishes out of nowhere-looking like Ted Turner and an amazing painting of the Virgin Mary, which is described that way because the Virgin Mary has a face which uncomfortably looks like Saoirse Ronan! It was moments like this (along with a scene which has the two oldest "Girl Scouts" you'll ever lay eyes on) in a film that was usually at least pretty loony which help made this so enjoyable. For certain this movie is not for all tastes but by this point you will have determined if you want to see a bonkers Sasquatch picture which was made for incredibly cheap and yet has some graphic gore scenes.
The Capture Of Bigfoot
Runtime:
90 minutes
Directed
by: Bill Rebane
Starring:
Stafford Morgan, Katie Hopkins Zerby, Richard Kennedy, Buck Flower,
Janus Raudkivi
From:
Studio Film Corp.
Would you believe I saw two Bigfoot movies last night? As you'll see later, they were very different from one another:
Recently I discovered that auteur Bill Rebane once made a Bigfoot
movie, and as that would fit well with what I would watch immediately
afterwards (that review will be up in a matter of hours) it seemed like
the logical thing to do. While his most famous movies are the likes of
Monster-A-Go-Go and The Giant Spider Invasion-which made for a great
episode of MST3K but I wouldn't dare watch it without Mike, Tom Servo
and Crow-I will still give him credit for emigrating from Latvia,
settling in Wisconsin and becoming a regional filmmaker. Even with an
output that many would rate as “not great at all” he still was able to
make some movies in his adopted home state.
Curiously, the “Bigfoot” seen here is more like the Abominable Snowman (i.e. the Yeti; he might as well have been the creature from the Rankin-Bass Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer stop-motion animation cartoon) rather than the brown hair critter that people associate with Sasquatch and was seen in the (probably staged) Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot footage. That creature has a child and well, it's very protective so that's why what was just thought to be a Native American legend starts killing people... and why a way over the top maniacally laughing villain character named Olsen wishes to capture it for profit.
The movie, it's technically not good. The story has its share of issues, the actual filmmaking is quite weak at times and ooh boy, is there some bad child acting. Yet I can't hate this movie. The creature suits are acceptable. There is plenty of local northern Wisconsin flavor (the strong accents, how the people looked, signs advertising Schlitz, Pabst Blue Ribbon and Old Style beer), and it was set during the winter so the scenery was pretty as there was plenty of snow on the ground... which makes the Yeti thing make more sense. The music is all over the place, which was fine for an eclectic fellow like myself. One tune was rather prog rock, which was unexpected yet a treat for my ears.
I did get some solid laughs out of it-the chief one was how even in tiny Gleason, Wisconsin... there are lodges or clubs or what have you that feature bands which play disco-tinged songs and there are women dressed up shaking their asses. Also, there is 70's soft rock music you get to hear, which I thought was a pleasant surprise. I'll be kind and say that because it was not a painful watch and you at times would get bizarre moments like the town sheriff doing impressions of people like Bogie and John Wayne for no reason at all, I will rate this as average.
Curiously, the “Bigfoot” seen here is more like the Abominable Snowman (i.e. the Yeti; he might as well have been the creature from the Rankin-Bass Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer stop-motion animation cartoon) rather than the brown hair critter that people associate with Sasquatch and was seen in the (probably staged) Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot footage. That creature has a child and well, it's very protective so that's why what was just thought to be a Native American legend starts killing people... and why a way over the top maniacally laughing villain character named Olsen wishes to capture it for profit.
The movie, it's technically not good. The story has its share of issues, the actual filmmaking is quite weak at times and ooh boy, is there some bad child acting. Yet I can't hate this movie. The creature suits are acceptable. There is plenty of local northern Wisconsin flavor (the strong accents, how the people looked, signs advertising Schlitz, Pabst Blue Ribbon and Old Style beer), and it was set during the winter so the scenery was pretty as there was plenty of snow on the ground... which makes the Yeti thing make more sense. The music is all over the place, which was fine for an eclectic fellow like myself. One tune was rather prog rock, which was unexpected yet a treat for my ears.
I did get some solid laughs out of it-the chief one was how even in tiny Gleason, Wisconsin... there are lodges or clubs or what have you that feature bands which play disco-tinged songs and there are women dressed up shaking their asses. Also, there is 70's soft rock music you get to hear, which I thought was a pleasant surprise. I'll be kind and say that because it was not a painful watch and you at times would get bizarre moments like the town sheriff doing impressions of people like Bogie and John Wayne for no reason at all, I will rate this as average.
Sunday, May 13, 2018
Wild Things
Runtime:
115 minutes... that's the Unrated Cut I saw
Directed
by: John McNaughton
Starring:
Kevin Bacon, Denise Richards, Neve Campbell, Matt Dillon, Bill Murray
From:
Mandalay Entertainment
The past few days I either haven't watched anything or checked out films I already reviewed here before. Last night was the first time I saw this in many, many years:
Or: If Florida Man tried to do a film noir.
To clarify, I am reviewing the Unrated Cut but I am sure I'd rate this the same way if I had checked out the theatrical. I moved down here around this time in 2004 and long before the Florida Man meme started gaining steam, I realized there were plenty of stupid, outrageous people down here. If I wanted to I could write a lot about all the clowns I have to deal with each week. To be frank, this movie is like a really stupid version of a noir, a sleazy piece of trash which has so many nonsensical plot twists, you probably are not able to logically deconstruct the story and be able to explain what all the characters were actually doing or all their true relationships to each other, let alone try to rationalize why they were acting the way they were throughout the story.
Yet I can't hate this silly picture. It can be viewed as something you're supposed to laugh at, or maybe laugh WITH, I am not sure which distinction is correct, or maybe both are. It is entertaining both seeing how ludicrous things get and how many more plot twists can be stuffed into this. It definitely does help that the director is John McNaughton (of all people) as he adds in various subtle things... which stand out if you spot them as the movie is otherwise over the top throughout. Having some quality actors in this is a benefit-especially but not only including Bill Murray-and this has to be the finest hour of Denise Richards-it certainly wasn't The World is Not Enough.
There's also a score that was appropriate for such a tawdry tale, not to mention some songs that reminded me of how old I was as I was a teen when they were late 90's hits, and even an odd disco tune or two, such as the Miracles ditty Love Machine. I would be remiss if I did not bring up “the pool scene”, which is still memorable... yet not as titillating as it used to be two decades prior. This is not a legitimately good trashy neo-noir (you'd have to look at something along the lines of a few De Palma films) yet it still has entertainment value.
To clarify, I am reviewing the Unrated Cut but I am sure I'd rate this the same way if I had checked out the theatrical. I moved down here around this time in 2004 and long before the Florida Man meme started gaining steam, I realized there were plenty of stupid, outrageous people down here. If I wanted to I could write a lot about all the clowns I have to deal with each week. To be frank, this movie is like a really stupid version of a noir, a sleazy piece of trash which has so many nonsensical plot twists, you probably are not able to logically deconstruct the story and be able to explain what all the characters were actually doing or all their true relationships to each other, let alone try to rationalize why they were acting the way they were throughout the story.
Yet I can't hate this silly picture. It can be viewed as something you're supposed to laugh at, or maybe laugh WITH, I am not sure which distinction is correct, or maybe both are. It is entertaining both seeing how ludicrous things get and how many more plot twists can be stuffed into this. It definitely does help that the director is John McNaughton (of all people) as he adds in various subtle things... which stand out if you spot them as the movie is otherwise over the top throughout. Having some quality actors in this is a benefit-especially but not only including Bill Murray-and this has to be the finest hour of Denise Richards-it certainly wasn't The World is Not Enough.
There's also a score that was appropriate for such a tawdry tale, not to mention some songs that reminded me of how old I was as I was a teen when they were late 90's hits, and even an odd disco tune or two, such as the Miracles ditty Love Machine. I would be remiss if I did not bring up “the pool scene”, which is still memorable... yet not as titillating as it used to be two decades prior. This is not a legitimately good trashy neo-noir (you'd have to look at something along the lines of a few De Palma films) yet it still has entertainment value.
Thursday, May 10, 2018
Tarzan and His Mate
Runtime:
104 minutes
Directed
by: Cedric Gibbons... and some uncredited people
Starring:
Johnny Weissmuller, Maureen O'Sullivan, Neil Hamilton, Paul Cavanagh,
Forrester Harvey
From:
MGM
Yep, this is better than Tarzan the Ape Man:
I understood this was an improvement on the franchise's first
(Tarzan, the Ape Man) entry and overall that was correct. The movie was
bigger and/or better in a variety of ways: the effects, the number of
people in the film, the battles, the number of animals, how the animal
interactions look, the overall story, etc. In addition, Jane is a more
tolerable character for sure and her annoying moments were less
prevailing.
If at first you don't succeed with your ivory-hunting scheme because it ended in a flaming disaster w/ dozens of people killed, why not try, try again? That's what happens here as Jane's ex-fiance returns to the jungle with a new party in a second attempt to find that elephant graveyard filled with all that ivory. They meet up with Tarzan & Jane, but Tarzan is like many people now in being against humans using ivory. Naturally, someone else in the party is a real A-hole so there's some conflict. Yeah, you still have some white people leading a battle against African natives and it is a little awkward to realize that in these modern times, but otherwise I can say this is a very good film.
This plays little into my rating as overall it is a quite enjoyable jungle adventure flick, but this was still Pre-Code so this is still randy compared to things being toned way the F down once the Hays Code began. Jane wears a revealing outfit for much of the film, not to mention how she and Tarzan are a couple that sleep together despite not being married... and oh yeah, you get to see Maureen O'Sullivan nude! That was NOT what audiences saw in '34 but the original version of the film is the one in circulation and that's what Turner Classic Movies played on Tuesday night.
I won't spoil all the impressive moments but there definitely are at least a few and those help make this such a romp.
If at first you don't succeed with your ivory-hunting scheme because it ended in a flaming disaster w/ dozens of people killed, why not try, try again? That's what happens here as Jane's ex-fiance returns to the jungle with a new party in a second attempt to find that elephant graveyard filled with all that ivory. They meet up with Tarzan & Jane, but Tarzan is like many people now in being against humans using ivory. Naturally, someone else in the party is a real A-hole so there's some conflict. Yeah, you still have some white people leading a battle against African natives and it is a little awkward to realize that in these modern times, but otherwise I can say this is a very good film.
This plays little into my rating as overall it is a quite enjoyable jungle adventure flick, but this was still Pre-Code so this is still randy compared to things being toned way the F down once the Hays Code began. Jane wears a revealing outfit for much of the film, not to mention how she and Tarzan are a couple that sleep together despite not being married... and oh yeah, you get to see Maureen O'Sullivan nude! That was NOT what audiences saw in '34 but the original version of the film is the one in circulation and that's what Turner Classic Movies played on Tuesday night.
I won't spoil all the impressive moments but there definitely are at least a few and those help make this such a romp.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)