The last few days I've been busy with various things and Sunday there were computer troubles (which I fully fixed late in the night) so there's been no time for movies. Tomorrow night will finally be a review as I'll finally get back in the swing of things. Last night I did talk about an old cartoon on Letterboxd, and that would be 1929's The Skeleton Dance. I will copy and paste that below:
Ub Iwerks is quite a name; so is his birth name: Ubbe Ert Iwwerks.
What a weekend... and not in a good way. It was not all bad but there were too many bad things so I'd rather forget about it. That includes the computer issues I had earlier today and I think are fixed (after a few hours of work) yet that is uncertain. If I peace out for the next few days-or heck, if it happens at any point in the future-you will know why.
Anyhow, at least I did have time to revisit this classic cartoon, and why not include cartoons in my annual Halloween season list? Sometime in October I'll talk about Skeleton Frolic, which was also directed by Ub Iwerks and was in essence an expanded color remake of this, the first of the Silly Symphonies done by Disney. In only 5 minutes, you can almost feel the chill of an autumn night (such as in Illinois, where I grew up) as various iconography connected to the Halloween season-black cats, spiders, owls, etc.-are seen in a cemetery graveyard, and a quartet of skeletons come out of the ground to dance and engage in creative sight gags as a jaunty tune plays in the background.
The animation and music are nice, so this is a short that is still effective 90 years later. In hindsight, I wish I would have viewed this and Skeleton Frolic around this time of year in autumns past as it sets the proper mood for the spooky season, and how can I not laugh at a skeleton using its own skull as a projectile, or another's backbone being used as a xylophone?
Monday, September 30, 2019
Friday, September 27, 2019
Hell House LLC III: Lake Of Fire
Runtime: 86 minutes
Directed by: Stephen
Cognetti
Starring: Gabriel Chytry,
Elizabeth Vermilyea, Sam Cazzi, Theodore Bouloukos, Brian David Tracy
From: Cognetti Films
Last night I got to view The Shining on the big screen (for the third time ever) and the movie was remastered in 4K. Not everyone in the near sold old crowd loved it but I did... besides it being a classic, it looked and sounded better than ever. Wednesday night was this movie... which will never be confused for a classic:
This movie contains multiple grammatical errors.
I've seen the first two so I might as well do the same with this one, right? At least the first film (reviewed around this time last year) was good, at least by found footage standards. The second-viewed this past May-was not so hot, with some horrendous acting and dopey moments. This installment at least did not have performances that made me cringe, yet the plot had some stupid moments, laughably bad CG and has less scares/creepy moments than the first two.
The plot is that some billionaire media mogul uses the old hotel as a place to have an interactive theater thing called Insomnia, even though it's the old Faust legend... I don't know why it's called Insomnia, but then again I have a number of questions about the plot. The reason for this event being held in the old hotel: I'll be charitable and just call it “goofy”, and it makes this media mogul look less than sympathetic, to say the least. The fact that this does have one scary scene and some creepy moments-along with a finale which actually has a lot happening-means that I can't give this a bottom of the barrel rating... plus, the scene that plays during the end credits is so bizarre and unexpected, I laughed-even though it was supposed to be deadly serious.
Anyhow, they stretched the found footage concept pretty far here, with a morning TV show crew filming everything (including moments that really shouldn't be on camera), some of the cast of this play getting cameras also, and come to think of it, once you know what's going on, I am not sure why media mogul even wanted cameras there... or to echo a mutual here on Letterboxd, why has a billionaire created a play which looks so cheap? Then again, this is a motion picture where the intertitles-even though they appear rather infrequently-contain more than one grammatical mistake, the biggest of which was “where” being used instead of “were”; I was amazed that there was no “your” instead of “you're”, but it's kind of embarrassing that no one caught this and it made the finished film, viewable by anyone who has an active Shudder account. The first movie in this series is really the only one worth watching, as it hasn't really been worth the effort in seeing the mythology expanded upon and trying to answer the questions the original movie raised.
I've seen the first two so I might as well do the same with this one, right? At least the first film (reviewed around this time last year) was good, at least by found footage standards. The second-viewed this past May-was not so hot, with some horrendous acting and dopey moments. This installment at least did not have performances that made me cringe, yet the plot had some stupid moments, laughably bad CG and has less scares/creepy moments than the first two.
The plot is that some billionaire media mogul uses the old hotel as a place to have an interactive theater thing called Insomnia, even though it's the old Faust legend... I don't know why it's called Insomnia, but then again I have a number of questions about the plot. The reason for this event being held in the old hotel: I'll be charitable and just call it “goofy”, and it makes this media mogul look less than sympathetic, to say the least. The fact that this does have one scary scene and some creepy moments-along with a finale which actually has a lot happening-means that I can't give this a bottom of the barrel rating... plus, the scene that plays during the end credits is so bizarre and unexpected, I laughed-even though it was supposed to be deadly serious.
Anyhow, they stretched the found footage concept pretty far here, with a morning TV show crew filming everything (including moments that really shouldn't be on camera), some of the cast of this play getting cameras also, and come to think of it, once you know what's going on, I am not sure why media mogul even wanted cameras there... or to echo a mutual here on Letterboxd, why has a billionaire created a play which looks so cheap? Then again, this is a motion picture where the intertitles-even though they appear rather infrequently-contain more than one grammatical mistake, the biggest of which was “where” being used instead of “were”; I was amazed that there was no “your” instead of “you're”, but it's kind of embarrassing that no one caught this and it made the finished film, viewable by anyone who has an active Shudder account. The first movie in this series is really the only one worth watching, as it hasn't really been worth the effort in seeing the mythology expanded upon and trying to answer the questions the original movie raised.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Ad Astra
Runtime: 123 minutes
Directed by: James Gray
Starring: Brad Pitt, Tommy
Lee Jones, Ruth Negga, Donald Sutherland, Kimberly Elise
From: Many production
companies
I understand those who are not... over the moon for Ad Astra.
Hearing that there were reshoots and the release date being pushed back several times did give me pause but this movie still seemed interesting so after hearing the high critical praise, yesterday I went and saw this on an IMAX screen, the best way to experience a movie with such gorgeous visuals throughout. Considering this is not a space adventure but instead is a personal story involving a son who has issues with his dad abandoning him and his attempt to deal with his own flaws... I am not surprised the general public is not as enamored with this as critics and film fans.
By now I am sure that everyone knows this is the story of how astronaut Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) has to go to the depths of the solar system to land on a ship piloted by his legendary father Clifford (Tommy Lee Jones) after he is feared to be gone mad and doing things that literally threaten the entire solar system... so I won't dwell on the plot and plus, I don't want to spoil anything. “Slow” and “boring” are common refrains against this movie that I have even seen here on Letterboxd; personally, I was always invested in the story and did not mind its methodical pace. It definitely helped that the film always looked great and it had a tremendous ethereal score from Max Richter.
Another big asset was that the cast did a swell job overall, especially Pitt and Jones. The former had to be pretty subdued due to Roy being a low-key and calm character in general, yet expressed a variety of emotions throughout and remained an interesting character despite an action or two he did in his obsessive quest to reunite with his dad after all those years. Part of that is that we frequently hear voice-over from Roy and some have balked at that inclusion. To me it was not an issue as it helped characterize what was a reserved character and plus, it's not like Blade Runner as unlike with that movie, Brad was not only one step above comatose because of NOT wanting to do any narration.
Happily, I thought this was a rewarding journey which explored various mature themes and is mostly low-key, with some exciting moments... including one that caught me off-guard as I was not expecting it. Even if it was not the box office hit that some were expecting, it does make me want to see Gray's other movies... yes, this was my first one, shame on me.
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Bride Of Frankenstein
Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
Runtime: 75 minutes
Directed by: James Whale
Starring: Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, Valerie Hobson, Ernest Thesiger, Elsa Lanchester
From: Universal
A few years ago I viewed the 1931 Frankenstein and talked about it here; last night I finally got around to its first sequel (shown on Turner Classic Movies) and while I rated the OG movie highly, I am like many in thinking that the sequel is in the rare category of being comparable or even better.
It was amusing that there was a brief prologue w/ Mary Shelley and gang which offered some sort of explanation as to why there was a sequel considering how the 1931 movie ended. In any case, this starts literally seconds after the events of the first film... both Dr. Frankenstein and The Monster survive; the latter escapes the wild mob chasing after him while the former meets up with an even crazier Doctor (Pretorious) who forces a team-up to make the titular bride.
This was about as well-directed by James Whale as the 1931 movie, with the bonus of The Monster becoming even more of a sympathetic figure as everyone hates it due to its appearance, except for a blind hermit. This has a musical score, which fits and is not obtrusive. The movie is lovely to look at and The Monster actually speaks words this time. The fact that the Bride is not as much of a presence in this as you may suspect (even though many are familiar with her image despite only some of them having viewed the film) is not a big deal, as the actual creation of that creature is not the point... Dr. Frankenstein and The Monster changing throughout the course of this classic is.
Runtime: 75 minutes
Directed by: James Whale
Starring: Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, Valerie Hobson, Ernest Thesiger, Elsa Lanchester
From: Universal
It was amusing that there was a brief prologue w/ Mary Shelley and gang which offered some sort of explanation as to why there was a sequel considering how the 1931 movie ended. In any case, this starts literally seconds after the events of the first film... both Dr. Frankenstein and The Monster survive; the latter escapes the wild mob chasing after him while the former meets up with an even crazier Doctor (Pretorious) who forces a team-up to make the titular bride.
This was about as well-directed by James Whale as the 1931 movie, with the bonus of The Monster becoming even more of a sympathetic figure as everyone hates it due to its appearance, except for a blind hermit. This has a musical score, which fits and is not obtrusive. The movie is lovely to look at and The Monster actually speaks words this time. The fact that the Bride is not as much of a presence in this as you may suspect (even though many are familiar with her image despite only some of them having viewed the film) is not a big deal, as the actual creation of that creature is not the point... Dr. Frankenstein and The Monster changing throughout the course of this classic is.
Galaxy Of Terror
Galaxy of Terror (1981)
Runtime: 81 minutes
Directed by: Bruce D. Clark
Starring: Edward Albert, Erin Moran, Ray Walston, Zalman King, Sid Haig (RIP)
From: New World Pictures
I was originally going to post this last night but I got tied up with things. The review was posted on Letterboxd about this time 24 hours ago:
RIP Sid Haig
It was not the original plan to watch this movie this early evening; however, coming across the announcement today that he passed away on Saturday meant that I better check out something of his. I did not want to go with something I've already seen (even if it may be something that deserves a better review) and a movie I suspect would be terrible would not be fitting. Instead, here is one of the many low-budget Alien ripoffs that could have been good but instead was average.
A motley crew is forced to go on a rescue mission to try and find survivors of a crashed ship on a desolate planet; what they find is something that forces them to confront their darkest, deepest fears. On paper that sounds fine and this movie does have low-budget charm in its sets, effects, and wacky 80's synth score. Unfortunately, in execution this isn't great. There is gore and unintentionally hilarious moments, but this is a mission where the pilot is a mentally unstable woman and one of the crewman is a wuss who acts frightened and yells due to sheer terror even more often than that sentient trashcan known as PewDiePie... honestly, why is this bigoted troll/pile of feces popular or even considered entertaining?
Anyhow, there is also a rather gross scene involving another woman member of the crew and in this day and age, some will be offended by it being a plot point. A shame it wasn't better with its positives and it having quite the B-movie cast in Haig, Edward Albert, Erin Moran, Ray Walston, Zalman King, Robert Englund, and Grace Zabriskie. Sid has the most memorable moment (that wasn't gross) and it involves the zaniness of him having giant crystal throwing stars and he uses them often as a weapon. But personally, Forbidden World is a more entertaining Alien clone from Roger Corman that has a better story, is funnier and the sleazy moments are goofy instead of off-putting. Also, I am glad that Sid found his most success late in life thanks to Rob Zombie and it allowed him to do many more B-movies and made people like me be willing to check out a random flick from the past just because he was in it. A shame that he is now gone.
Runtime: 81 minutes
Directed by: Bruce D. Clark
Starring: Edward Albert, Erin Moran, Ray Walston, Zalman King, Sid Haig (RIP)
From: New World Pictures
I was originally going to post this last night but I got tied up with things. The review was posted on Letterboxd about this time 24 hours ago:
RIP Sid Haig
It was not the original plan to watch this movie this early evening; however, coming across the announcement today that he passed away on Saturday meant that I better check out something of his. I did not want to go with something I've already seen (even if it may be something that deserves a better review) and a movie I suspect would be terrible would not be fitting. Instead, here is one of the many low-budget Alien ripoffs that could have been good but instead was average.
A motley crew is forced to go on a rescue mission to try and find survivors of a crashed ship on a desolate planet; what they find is something that forces them to confront their darkest, deepest fears. On paper that sounds fine and this movie does have low-budget charm in its sets, effects, and wacky 80's synth score. Unfortunately, in execution this isn't great. There is gore and unintentionally hilarious moments, but this is a mission where the pilot is a mentally unstable woman and one of the crewman is a wuss who acts frightened and yells due to sheer terror even more often than that sentient trashcan known as PewDiePie... honestly, why is this bigoted troll/pile of feces popular or even considered entertaining?
Anyhow, there is also a rather gross scene involving another woman member of the crew and in this day and age, some will be offended by it being a plot point. A shame it wasn't better with its positives and it having quite the B-movie cast in Haig, Edward Albert, Erin Moran, Ray Walston, Zalman King, Robert Englund, and Grace Zabriskie. Sid has the most memorable moment (that wasn't gross) and it involves the zaniness of him having giant crystal throwing stars and he uses them often as a weapon. But personally, Forbidden World is a more entertaining Alien clone from Roger Corman that has a better story, is funnier and the sleazy moments are goofy instead of off-putting. Also, I am glad that Sid found his most success late in life thanks to Rob Zombie and it allowed him to do many more B-movies and made people like me be willing to check out a random flick from the past just because he was in it. A shame that he is now gone.
Saturday, September 21, 2019
Rambo: Last Blood
Rambo: Last Blood (2019)
29% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 87 reviews)
Runtime: 89 minutes... at least in the United States
Directed by: Adrian Grunberg
Starring: Sly Stallone, Paz Vega, Yvette Monreal, Oscar Jaenada, Sergio Peris-Mencheta
From: Lionsgate
At least in the film community I know that many will disagree, but I had a great time with this sleazy little picture:
Never trust a man wearing a white snakeskin jacket.
I imagine some are gobsmacked that I am rating this so high; it's a little surprising to me although I'll explain it later. I do understand those that are not fans of this movie and take umbrage with it... I can't even argue with First Blood author David Morrell thinking this was terrible and something that betrayed a character he created. It does not always seem like it is John Rambo we saw on the screen, and not just because he does not have long, luxorious locks like usual. He also remarked how this was like a 70's exploitation film... well, some of those I do enjoy and whether or not this is a “true” Rambo movie, for me it was a sleazy good time as an exploitation film.
The plot is simple: Rambo now runs his dad's horse ranch in Arizona, living with a friend and her granddaughter, who just graduated from high school. She goes down to Mexico for family reasons, but is kidnapped by the cartel and is forced into sex trafficking. Rambo goes down there to try and get her back... and yes, Taken definitely comes to mind. Things happen, he gets aid from Paz Vega, and this leads to one hell of a third act. There is a montage that occurs right before this final act and I got giddy because of what was being teased... I'll just say “a lot of carnage.”
The crowd I saw this with were pretty happy with how this turned out; they loved the finale as much as I did, and throughout there were both cheers and applause. Now, on Twitter there is plenty of discourse concerning Last Blood. Allegedly, if you love this movie then you are a red hat-wearing Trump supporter and racist who wants to build that wall, while if you hated it you are a Millennial SJW who is a snowflake and needs a safe space. Both are equally ludicrous takes to have. Then again, it may be ludicrous on my part that I am able to overlook the flaws of this because the final act was so over the top and bombastic, or that unlike too many movies this year I left the auditorium feeling satisfied and pleased instead of letdown and disappointed.
I'd say that this was a swell 90 minutes, but at least from someone I know who lives in Southeast Asia (along with a mutual here that lives elsewhere), he saw a different cut that has a decent amount of different material added and from other sources, that is like 10 minutes longer and this version was first screened earlier in the year for test audiences. Curious, but I presume the United States will get it on disc in some sort of Director's Cut. In any case, like I mention this was sleazy trash in a good way, even if this may not have been a “proper” Rambo movie.
29% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 87 reviews)
Runtime: 89 minutes... at least in the United States
Directed by: Adrian Grunberg
Starring: Sly Stallone, Paz Vega, Yvette Monreal, Oscar Jaenada, Sergio Peris-Mencheta
From: Lionsgate
At least in the film community I know that many will disagree, but I had a great time with this sleazy little picture:
Never trust a man wearing a white snakeskin jacket.
I imagine some are gobsmacked that I am rating this so high; it's a little surprising to me although I'll explain it later. I do understand those that are not fans of this movie and take umbrage with it... I can't even argue with First Blood author David Morrell thinking this was terrible and something that betrayed a character he created. It does not always seem like it is John Rambo we saw on the screen, and not just because he does not have long, luxorious locks like usual. He also remarked how this was like a 70's exploitation film... well, some of those I do enjoy and whether or not this is a “true” Rambo movie, for me it was a sleazy good time as an exploitation film.
The plot is simple: Rambo now runs his dad's horse ranch in Arizona, living with a friend and her granddaughter, who just graduated from high school. She goes down to Mexico for family reasons, but is kidnapped by the cartel and is forced into sex trafficking. Rambo goes down there to try and get her back... and yes, Taken definitely comes to mind. Things happen, he gets aid from Paz Vega, and this leads to one hell of a third act. There is a montage that occurs right before this final act and I got giddy because of what was being teased... I'll just say “a lot of carnage.”
The crowd I saw this with were pretty happy with how this turned out; they loved the finale as much as I did, and throughout there were both cheers and applause. Now, on Twitter there is plenty of discourse concerning Last Blood. Allegedly, if you love this movie then you are a red hat-wearing Trump supporter and racist who wants to build that wall, while if you hated it you are a Millennial SJW who is a snowflake and needs a safe space. Both are equally ludicrous takes to have. Then again, it may be ludicrous on my part that I am able to overlook the flaws of this because the final act was so over the top and bombastic, or that unlike too many movies this year I left the auditorium feeling satisfied and pleased instead of letdown and disappointed.
I'd say that this was a swell 90 minutes, but at least from someone I know who lives in Southeast Asia (along with a mutual here that lives elsewhere), he saw a different cut that has a decent amount of different material added and from other sources, that is like 10 minutes longer and this version was first screened earlier in the year for test audiences. Curious, but I presume the United States will get it on disc in some sort of Director's Cut. In any case, like I mention this was sleazy trash in a good way, even if this may not have been a “proper” Rambo movie.
Cannibal Ferox
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: Umberto Lenzi
Starring: Giovanni
Lombardo Radice, Lorraine De Selle, Danilo Mattei, Zora Kerova,
Robert Kerman
From: Several Italian
Companies
Imagine Cannibal Holocaust, only w/ less social commentary, and more cocaine... a lot more cocaine.
CH is something I've seen twice before, but Ferox was new to me. As it was directed by Umberto Lenzi (who I've seen plenty of movies from) I knew this would be plenty sleazy, and I was not incorrect with my prediction. This definitely copied Holocaust... filmed in Colombia, it follows dumb white people that go into the jungle & piss off native tribes, who happen to be cannibals. This even has some scenes set in New York City, because CH did so... that was a key part of the plot while those moments here are rather superfluous.
There really only needed to be the first NYC scene, which established the character Mike, who is a drug dealer that is missing. Turns out, he is in South America with a pal to find more cocaine AND try to pan not for gold, but rather emeralds. They and a trio of college students-there to do research for a dissertation-cross paths and believe it or not, it is a coke binge from Mike that starts all the problems.
This is not as good as Holocaust and I do regret that they also decided to copy its scenes of animals being killed... yet at least this provides entertainment on a trash level and the effects are all fine. The gore does top what was seen in Deodato's movie, although how gruesome it was wasn't what made CH so compelling. Plus, the score from Roberto Donati and Fiamma Maglione is pretty groovy... and actually lifted from another Lenzi cannibal feature, Eaten Alive! At least this isn't as depressing a watch as the tone is lighter; like I said, the bad s*** starts after a coke binge. That said, at least for the rest of this Halloween season, I've seen enough gross-out movies involving humans eating each other.
CH is something I've seen twice before, but Ferox was new to me. As it was directed by Umberto Lenzi (who I've seen plenty of movies from) I knew this would be plenty sleazy, and I was not incorrect with my prediction. This definitely copied Holocaust... filmed in Colombia, it follows dumb white people that go into the jungle & piss off native tribes, who happen to be cannibals. This even has some scenes set in New York City, because CH did so... that was a key part of the plot while those moments here are rather superfluous.
There really only needed to be the first NYC scene, which established the character Mike, who is a drug dealer that is missing. Turns out, he is in South America with a pal to find more cocaine AND try to pan not for gold, but rather emeralds. They and a trio of college students-there to do research for a dissertation-cross paths and believe it or not, it is a coke binge from Mike that starts all the problems.
This is not as good as Holocaust and I do regret that they also decided to copy its scenes of animals being killed... yet at least this provides entertainment on a trash level and the effects are all fine. The gore does top what was seen in Deodato's movie, although how gruesome it was wasn't what made CH so compelling. Plus, the score from Roberto Donati and Fiamma Maglione is pretty groovy... and actually lifted from another Lenzi cannibal feature, Eaten Alive! At least this isn't as depressing a watch as the tone is lighter; like I said, the bad s*** starts after a coke binge. That said, at least for the rest of this Halloween season, I've seen enough gross-out movies involving humans eating each other.
Thursday, September 19, 2019
I Talk Battle At Big Rock
If you haven't heard, this short unexpectedly dropped a few days ago and is some sort of bridge between the latest Jurassic World movie (which was awful) and whenever the third one comes out. Judging by this, that won't be any good either:
Originally I was not planning on seeing this, because it's connected
to the Jurassic World movies and both of those are pretty atrocious.
However, my schedule as of late meant that I had limited time to see
something so since this is so short... and turns out, pointless...
It was not as awful as than either JW so I will give it credit for that. The scary moments would have been better if the family wasn't so damn annoying. Even in something less than 10 minutes, there was no shortage of bad expository dialogue, stupid moments and things that made me shake my head in disbelief... that ending, Christ! I am glad that there are some who got enjoyment out of this but I suppose a big issue for me even before I hit play and viewed this on YouTube: the entire scenario presented in the short only occurred because of the astoundingly wrong-headed moment from the end of Fallen Kingdom that the movie presented as “the right choice”, the decision that the audience was supposed to agree with. That's why I have zero expectations for the JW3 actually being any good or even alright. A real shame as the OG Jurassic Park is still awesome and JP2/JP3 are at least average.
It was not as awful as than either JW so I will give it credit for that. The scary moments would have been better if the family wasn't so damn annoying. Even in something less than 10 minutes, there was no shortage of bad expository dialogue, stupid moments and things that made me shake my head in disbelief... that ending, Christ! I am glad that there are some who got enjoyment out of this but I suppose a big issue for me even before I hit play and viewed this on YouTube: the entire scenario presented in the short only occurred because of the astoundingly wrong-headed moment from the end of Fallen Kingdom that the movie presented as “the right choice”, the decision that the audience was supposed to agree with. That's why I have zero expectations for the JW3 actually being any good or even alright. A real shame as the OG Jurassic Park is still awesome and JP2/JP3 are at least average.
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Another Revisit
This time it was... Cannibal Holocaust. Yeah, that's the type of movie I won't see again for many, many years... even if this has some great scenes. The awful moments (the animal killing in particular) are good reasons for me to make such a statement. Tomorrow night I'll be back with a proper review of something new, at least to me.
Monday, September 16, 2019
Time For Revisits
The last two movies I've
viewed have been ones discussed before on this blog: yesterday
afternoon was Star Trek: The Motion Picture on the big screen via
Fathom Events, and on the night of Friday the 13th was
Silver Bullet, because a full moon was out. As in a moment I'll view
the 2008 Rambo, I won't be back here until Wednesday night.
Saturday, September 14, 2019
7 Saal Baad
Runtime: 120 minutes
Directed by: S.U. Syed
Starring: Sharmila Tagore,
Suresh Oberoi, Navin Nischol, Prema Narayan, Chandrashekhar
From: Several Indian
companies
A Hindi Bollywood version of Friday the 13th!
To address the elephant in the room, I did hear about this from The Cinema Snob doing a video about the film a few days ago. I do not watch The Cinema Snob as to me the character is not funny... like at all. Plus, Channel Awesome is a horrorshow all its own, as many probably have heard by now. However, with what I do watch those videos sometimes pop up in my recommendations and I at least watched enough of that to find out what this was called, and it can be found on YouTube. The idea of this does make me chortle, and India rips off many Hollywood movies, or so I've heard... that includes the horror genre. A few years ago I saw and reviewed Makakaal, a 1993 movie known on Letterboxd as The Monster. What a hoot that was, as that ripped off A Nightmare on Elm Street and Indian Freddy Kreuger-among other things-sported a mullet!
This does start off with a sing-a-long at a campfire, then killings inside a building; unlike 13th, this had bizarre images and opening credits which feature 80's electro music, complete with vocodor and record scratches directly taken from Herbie Hancock's Rockit. All of this was tremendous, then the first hour happened and it was full of dialogue (which was mainly useless to me, as it was in Hindi, I don't speak Hindi, and no subtitles were present) and traditional Bollywood musical numbers, which were fine I guess... more than one was pretty hilarious unintentionally with its wacky choreography.
All that needs to be said about the plot was that the setting was a mansion turned into a hotel instead of Camp Crystal Lake, so it is adults we follow instead of randy teenagers. Although, one of the guys we see here has a girlfriend and yet gets incredibly horny at multiple women, while his girlfriend is nearby. There is even a Crazy Ralph substitute, who dresses like a hobo for some reason. Also, there was a random fight scene.
Things do pick up in the second act as a woman is killed then IMMEDIATELY afterwards is a dance number in a club which is a cover of Giorgio Moroder's The Chase, complete with lyrics, and the dancing is rather amazingly, in a spectacle sort of way. About ¾ of the way through is the true highlight: a number set on a fake roof with a fake city skyline as the backdrop, and we finally get the return of electro music, as it's our lead couple dressed in 80's futuristic outfits and it becomes more and more tremendous the longer it lasts.
I am unsure how to rate this; besides the obvious language barrier, the prints of it out there are not of great quality. Yet I guess I'll say that it's fine. There is great novelty value to a Hindi version of an 80's slasher classic which gives the villain a supernatural bent along with replicating its famous stinger ending and yet also has Moroder & electro. It is better than Srigala, an Indonesian Friday the 13th which I've also seen without subtitles; it's known on Letterboxd as Wolf.
To address the elephant in the room, I did hear about this from The Cinema Snob doing a video about the film a few days ago. I do not watch The Cinema Snob as to me the character is not funny... like at all. Plus, Channel Awesome is a horrorshow all its own, as many probably have heard by now. However, with what I do watch those videos sometimes pop up in my recommendations and I at least watched enough of that to find out what this was called, and it can be found on YouTube. The idea of this does make me chortle, and India rips off many Hollywood movies, or so I've heard... that includes the horror genre. A few years ago I saw and reviewed Makakaal, a 1993 movie known on Letterboxd as The Monster. What a hoot that was, as that ripped off A Nightmare on Elm Street and Indian Freddy Kreuger-among other things-sported a mullet!
This does start off with a sing-a-long at a campfire, then killings inside a building; unlike 13th, this had bizarre images and opening credits which feature 80's electro music, complete with vocodor and record scratches directly taken from Herbie Hancock's Rockit. All of this was tremendous, then the first hour happened and it was full of dialogue (which was mainly useless to me, as it was in Hindi, I don't speak Hindi, and no subtitles were present) and traditional Bollywood musical numbers, which were fine I guess... more than one was pretty hilarious unintentionally with its wacky choreography.
All that needs to be said about the plot was that the setting was a mansion turned into a hotel instead of Camp Crystal Lake, so it is adults we follow instead of randy teenagers. Although, one of the guys we see here has a girlfriend and yet gets incredibly horny at multiple women, while his girlfriend is nearby. There is even a Crazy Ralph substitute, who dresses like a hobo for some reason. Also, there was a random fight scene.
Things do pick up in the second act as a woman is killed then IMMEDIATELY afterwards is a dance number in a club which is a cover of Giorgio Moroder's The Chase, complete with lyrics, and the dancing is rather amazingly, in a spectacle sort of way. About ¾ of the way through is the true highlight: a number set on a fake roof with a fake city skyline as the backdrop, and we finally get the return of electro music, as it's our lead couple dressed in 80's futuristic outfits and it becomes more and more tremendous the longer it lasts.
I am unsure how to rate this; besides the obvious language barrier, the prints of it out there are not of great quality. Yet I guess I'll say that it's fine. There is great novelty value to a Hindi version of an 80's slasher classic which gives the villain a supernatural bent along with replicating its famous stinger ending and yet also has Moroder & electro. It is better than Srigala, an Indonesian Friday the 13th which I've also seen without subtitles; it's known on Letterboxd as Wolf.
Thursday, September 12, 2019
Easy Rider
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Dennis Hopper
Starring: Hopper, Peter
Fonda (RIP), Jack Nicholson, Karen Black, Toni Basil
From: Columbia
Between this movie now being half a century old and paying tribute to
the late Peter Fonda, last night seemed like the right time to watch
this counterculture classic, which unexpectedly was one of the biggest
hits of '69 and was one of the motion pictures that helped in the great
New Hollywood era of the 1970's, where plenty of bold films were made
and directors had plenty of artistic freedom.
I understand how some may not like the groove of this, and thought it was boring or pointless. Me, I happen to disagree and even half a century later this is still intriguing and full of important statements about this time period, but this is more than just a snapshot of the era for those that weren't alive to experience it. Fonda and director Dennis Hopper are rebel bikers Wyatt and Billy, riding choppers and heading from Los Angeles to New Orleans to experience Mardi Gras after scoring big on a drug deal. I imagine it was a shock back in 1969 to see a big studio release open with characters sniffing coke, including the leads of the picture.
This was more than just a road movie; rather, Wyatt and Billy weave in and out of the lives of many different people on this trip, and from this the movie said a lot about such things as the counterculture, hippies, commune living, and “the establishment.” It is not the cheeriest of movies as many discriminate against our leads only because of their appearance and their bikes. It was a fascinating journey as the two don't always agree with each other but they are still quite the pair and at least I hoped for better times as they at least “are free” and not tied down to any specific job, which I know many would be envious of.
This was shot in a style that still seems fresh today and must have been mind-blowing back then; aside from the unique and vibrant editing, much of the dialogue was ad-libbed, most of the drugs you see used in the movie were real drugs, and plenty of the characters on screen were local non-actors who reacted to the leads, sometimes just from how Wyatt & Billy looked and sometimes with certain prodding from director Hopper. Mix in a fiery performance from a young Jack Nicholson and many shots of beautiful scenery matched with rock songs from the likes of Steppenwolf, Jimi Hendrix & The Byrds... no wonder I thought this was my jam.
I understand how some may not like the groove of this, and thought it was boring or pointless. Me, I happen to disagree and even half a century later this is still intriguing and full of important statements about this time period, but this is more than just a snapshot of the era for those that weren't alive to experience it. Fonda and director Dennis Hopper are rebel bikers Wyatt and Billy, riding choppers and heading from Los Angeles to New Orleans to experience Mardi Gras after scoring big on a drug deal. I imagine it was a shock back in 1969 to see a big studio release open with characters sniffing coke, including the leads of the picture.
This was more than just a road movie; rather, Wyatt and Billy weave in and out of the lives of many different people on this trip, and from this the movie said a lot about such things as the counterculture, hippies, commune living, and “the establishment.” It is not the cheeriest of movies as many discriminate against our leads only because of their appearance and their bikes. It was a fascinating journey as the two don't always agree with each other but they are still quite the pair and at least I hoped for better times as they at least “are free” and not tied down to any specific job, which I know many would be envious of.
This was shot in a style that still seems fresh today and must have been mind-blowing back then; aside from the unique and vibrant editing, much of the dialogue was ad-libbed, most of the drugs you see used in the movie were real drugs, and plenty of the characters on screen were local non-actors who reacted to the leads, sometimes just from how Wyatt & Billy looked and sometimes with certain prodding from director Hopper. Mix in a fiery performance from a young Jack Nicholson and many shots of beautiful scenery matched with rock songs from the likes of Steppenwolf, Jimi Hendrix & The Byrds... no wonder I thought this was my jam.
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
I Talk Texas Rangers... Again
I am finally caught up here with what I've posted on Letterboxd a few weeks ago: a movie from 2001 that most have forgotten about.
Would YOU expect anything better from a Western starring Ashton Kutcher and James Van Der Beek?
This is a movie I've watched before (for a specific reason) but never in HD; when I saw it was on Allison M.'s least favorite network-The Outdoor Channel, where seemingly most of their programming is devoted to hunting shows-last night I decided to check this out. Young Guns this ain't... it isn't even Young Guns 2. I mean, it's more serious than that, which is kind of odd given that they wanted to have “a cool youth Western” as again, the leads are Kelso and Dawson.
This movie has been in gestation for so long that Peckinpah was rumored to be a director; eventually, none other than John Milius was going to write AND direct this and it almost happened... only for it to not because a studio did not want it to feature TOMMY LEE JONES... good move right there. Instead, the Weinsteins acquired this and it ended up being a Steve Miner joint w/ everything being totally average, from the story to the storytelling, the action, direction, music and all the rest. Not even the presence of veteran actors like Tom Skerritt, Dylan McDermott, Alfred Molina and Robert Patrick do much to make this rise above mediocrity. Of course, it's Miramax so this sat on the shelf for two years before being dumped in cinemas and making no money, which is unfortunate as this wasn't that bad... typical Miramax, I say.
Don't be fooled by the credits... while to me Rachael Leigh Cook is above average, her role here is small, only appearing in a few scenes and seemingly all she did was try and make the two lead guys not have such a homoerotic relationship, which didn't quite work as it was still rather homoerotic. I believe the movie was also edited to be shorter before it finally was released and maybe she had more to do before. There have been times in the past where I've felt bad for her; this movie isn't one of those as she's been in far worse. Rather, I feel bad because earlier in the summer she and her longtime husband Daniel Gillies separated and I presume a divorce is inevitable. A shame, as they have two young kids, which is why she has not acted all that often in recent years. I know someone would say, “Oh, but you have a shot now!” Well, the one time I actually met her-July of last year at a con-anxiety reared its ugly head and I acted like a buffoon, so it's not like I'm ever going to woo her!
Anyhow... maybe one day Hollywood will make another “youth Western” and hopefully it's at least better than this motion picture.
Would YOU expect anything better from a Western starring Ashton Kutcher and James Van Der Beek?
This is a movie I've watched before (for a specific reason) but never in HD; when I saw it was on Allison M.'s least favorite network-The Outdoor Channel, where seemingly most of their programming is devoted to hunting shows-last night I decided to check this out. Young Guns this ain't... it isn't even Young Guns 2. I mean, it's more serious than that, which is kind of odd given that they wanted to have “a cool youth Western” as again, the leads are Kelso and Dawson.
This movie has been in gestation for so long that Peckinpah was rumored to be a director; eventually, none other than John Milius was going to write AND direct this and it almost happened... only for it to not because a studio did not want it to feature TOMMY LEE JONES... good move right there. Instead, the Weinsteins acquired this and it ended up being a Steve Miner joint w/ everything being totally average, from the story to the storytelling, the action, direction, music and all the rest. Not even the presence of veteran actors like Tom Skerritt, Dylan McDermott, Alfred Molina and Robert Patrick do much to make this rise above mediocrity. Of course, it's Miramax so this sat on the shelf for two years before being dumped in cinemas and making no money, which is unfortunate as this wasn't that bad... typical Miramax, I say.
Don't be fooled by the credits... while to me Rachael Leigh Cook is above average, her role here is small, only appearing in a few scenes and seemingly all she did was try and make the two lead guys not have such a homoerotic relationship, which didn't quite work as it was still rather homoerotic. I believe the movie was also edited to be shorter before it finally was released and maybe she had more to do before. There have been times in the past where I've felt bad for her; this movie isn't one of those as she's been in far worse. Rather, I feel bad because earlier in the summer she and her longtime husband Daniel Gillies separated and I presume a divorce is inevitable. A shame, as they have two young kids, which is why she has not acted all that often in recent years. I know someone would say, “Oh, but you have a shot now!” Well, the one time I actually met her-July of last year at a con-anxiety reared its ugly head and I acted like a buffoon, so it's not like I'm ever going to woo her!
Anyhow... maybe one day Hollywood will make another “youth Western” and hopefully it's at least better than this motion picture.
IT: Chapter 2
Runtime: An overlong 169
minutes
Directed by: Andy
Muschietti
Starring: The kids from
Chapter 1, plus adults that usually look and act a lot like their
child counterparts
From: Warner Bros./New
Line Cinema
Featuring the strangest needle drop I've ever experienced.
I finally had the chance to view this, and at a Dolby Cinema at AMC; it was one of those movies where the seats occasionally rumble, which does make for a memorable experience. The first film I saw and reviewed back two falls ago; while it did not frighten my pants off it was still a good time as it was cast quite well and Pennywise managed to be unforgettable in a different way than Tim Curry was. Speaking of the miniseries, that was my only other experience with the story... I've never read the novel.
I imagine everyone is familiar with the story of this so I do not need to dwell on how The Losers Club gets together after 27 years apart due to Pennywise making its return, and they all have to confront their past-no matter how difficult-in order to try and defeat that malevolent creature. Now, to start this off: the opening features a heinous hate crime against a homosexual male couple in Deery, Maine. I understand that this is taken from the novel, but it is different as in that the two timelines were explored at the same time so this came right after Georgie's death, and this proved a point about Pennywise. Here, it starts off the movie on a harsh note and fair or not, in this day and age I understand why some would be offended by it in the wrong way, as in “being turned off and wanting nothing else to do with the movie.” As I know other things were taken out (even a few moments that were in the miniseries) perhaps that was not needed.
Also, there is how this movie is almost 3 hours long; what a shock that was when the length was first announced. Me, I only started to feel that length in the final act, especially the climax that did seem too long; how it finally ends is... interesting and not exactly what I was expecting. The second act of the movie I know many took issue with; apparently it sort of relates to events in the novel and unless it be done in a completely different way, there really was no better alternative to present such plot points. I can admit that at times I guffawed instead of be frightened by what was on screen and that was unfortunate. So was some blatant allusions to famous 80's movies, which were usually better than this was. To be fair, there were some frightening moments and chilling imagery.
All that said, I don't want to be negative here; I was afraid this would be something that made me mad because it was far inferior to Chapter 1 and I've been let down too often by big 2019 releases. Even though I did allude to a few objectionable moments and a very odd needle drop during what was supposed to be a chilling scene, Chapter 2 had enough to where I can say this was at least fine overall. This was also well-cast in terms of choosing actors who resembled their young teen counterparts physically & w/ their attitudes; as many have said, Bill Hader was a great choice as the adult version of Finn Wolfhard's character Richie. At least the movie kept my attention throughout and like I said, it being 169 minutes was not an issue until the final act.
Chapter 1 has the edge in terms of “rewatchability factor” but I am at least not crestfallen and upset by the quality of this compared to the first film.
I finally had the chance to view this, and at a Dolby Cinema at AMC; it was one of those movies where the seats occasionally rumble, which does make for a memorable experience. The first film I saw and reviewed back two falls ago; while it did not frighten my pants off it was still a good time as it was cast quite well and Pennywise managed to be unforgettable in a different way than Tim Curry was. Speaking of the miniseries, that was my only other experience with the story... I've never read the novel.
I imagine everyone is familiar with the story of this so I do not need to dwell on how The Losers Club gets together after 27 years apart due to Pennywise making its return, and they all have to confront their past-no matter how difficult-in order to try and defeat that malevolent creature. Now, to start this off: the opening features a heinous hate crime against a homosexual male couple in Deery, Maine. I understand that this is taken from the novel, but it is different as in that the two timelines were explored at the same time so this came right after Georgie's death, and this proved a point about Pennywise. Here, it starts off the movie on a harsh note and fair or not, in this day and age I understand why some would be offended by it in the wrong way, as in “being turned off and wanting nothing else to do with the movie.” As I know other things were taken out (even a few moments that were in the miniseries) perhaps that was not needed.
Also, there is how this movie is almost 3 hours long; what a shock that was when the length was first announced. Me, I only started to feel that length in the final act, especially the climax that did seem too long; how it finally ends is... interesting and not exactly what I was expecting. The second act of the movie I know many took issue with; apparently it sort of relates to events in the novel and unless it be done in a completely different way, there really was no better alternative to present such plot points. I can admit that at times I guffawed instead of be frightened by what was on screen and that was unfortunate. So was some blatant allusions to famous 80's movies, which were usually better than this was. To be fair, there were some frightening moments and chilling imagery.
All that said, I don't want to be negative here; I was afraid this would be something that made me mad because it was far inferior to Chapter 1 and I've been let down too often by big 2019 releases. Even though I did allude to a few objectionable moments and a very odd needle drop during what was supposed to be a chilling scene, Chapter 2 had enough to where I can say this was at least fine overall. This was also well-cast in terms of choosing actors who resembled their young teen counterparts physically & w/ their attitudes; as many have said, Bill Hader was a great choice as the adult version of Finn Wolfhard's character Richie. At least the movie kept my attention throughout and like I said, it being 169 minutes was not an issue until the final act.
Chapter 1 has the edge in terms of “rewatchability factor” but I am at least not crestfallen and upset by the quality of this compared to the first film.
Monday, September 9, 2019
Secret Agent
Secret Agent (1936)
Runtime: 86 minutes
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
Starring: John Gielgud, Madeleine Carroll, Peter Lorre, Robert Young, Percy Marmont
From: Gaumont British Picture Corporation
Runtime: 86 minutes
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
Starring: John Gielgud, Madeleine Carroll, Peter Lorre, Robert Young, Percy Marmont
From: Gaumont British Picture Corporation
Secret agent man, secret agent man... they've given you a number and taken away your name.
This month and October I won't be watching just horror movies; I'll try to mix it up where other genres occasionally make an appearance. Last night I decided to finally fix my mistake and after way too many months, view a Hitchcock picture. This happens to be one new to me.
John Gielgud plays a soldier who is forced to become an agent (as the government fakes his death) in World War I who has to track down a German agent-whose identity and even appearance is unknown-in Switzerland before he goes to the Middle East to essentially stir up s***. A lady is tasked with portraying his wife (played by Madeleine Carroll) and he is also assisted by a strange assassin played by Peter Lorre. Lord, what a performance from him. “Unrestrained” seems to be a good term to use, as at times his eyes were literally bugging out of his head and he also came off as more than a little deranged. Believing this character as an assassin was a little much.
Considering the talent involved and this was adapted from two stories by W. Somerset Maugham, I was hoping for something better than just “fine”. But, the humor is hit or miss-there is plenty of it-and Carroll's presence reminds me that I clearly do prefer The 39 Steps as a Hitchcock movie involving murder, mistaken identity and espionage. That said, it doesn't seem fair to complain as this at least was entertaining and had some quality scenes; I just wish the ending wouldn't have felt so flat and felt like a cheat... that is worthy of complaint.
House Of Usher
House of Usher (1960)
Runtime: 79 minutes
Directed by: Roger Corman
Starring: Vincent Price, Mark Damon, Myrna Fahey, Harry Ellerbee
From: AIP
What a confluence of talent: Edgar Allan Poe, Richard Matheson, Roger Corman & Vincent Price. Matheson adapted Poe's legendary short story The Fall of the House of Usher for a movie directed by Corman and starring Price. This was the first of the eight Poe adaptations that Corman did; judging by this, the others should be tracked down by me.
Those familiar with the short story will find few surprises with what was presented on screen. Price and Myrna Fahey play siblings who are trapped in a house they believe is haunted and they cannot escape; the fact that he also believes the entire bloodline is cursed doesn't help the situation. Mark Damon's character Philip wishes to take his woman away but brother steadfastly refuses. A death occurs, along with a whole lot of spookiness. Now, this started off on a nice note as not only was there was a sweet matte painting of the titular house (which were just as nice as the paintings that hang in the house of the Ushers of previous generations) but the opening credits are colored plumes of smoke, which actually reference a scene from the back half of this movie.
Philip is usually over the top-sometimes amazingly so-and a few shots were actually out of focus yet overall I can say this was a pretty good time. Practically all of the movie is set in one house and the only other character is Harry Ellerbee's Bristol, a butler; the movie stays interesting for its 79 minute runtime as the sets are lavish for the low budget and set the chilling mood. The quartet of actors are all at least fine but naturally it is Price (w/ light blonde hair) who is the standout. This ends differently from Poe's story... yet it is for certain memorable and ends this Gothic tale on a nice note. Viewing this late last night when it was on Turner Classic Movies was a prudent decision.
Runtime: 79 minutes
Directed by: Roger Corman
Starring: Vincent Price, Mark Damon, Myrna Fahey, Harry Ellerbee
From: AIP
What a confluence of talent: Edgar Allan Poe, Richard Matheson, Roger Corman & Vincent Price. Matheson adapted Poe's legendary short story The Fall of the House of Usher for a movie directed by Corman and starring Price. This was the first of the eight Poe adaptations that Corman did; judging by this, the others should be tracked down by me.
Those familiar with the short story will find few surprises with what was presented on screen. Price and Myrna Fahey play siblings who are trapped in a house they believe is haunted and they cannot escape; the fact that he also believes the entire bloodline is cursed doesn't help the situation. Mark Damon's character Philip wishes to take his woman away but brother steadfastly refuses. A death occurs, along with a whole lot of spookiness. Now, this started off on a nice note as not only was there was a sweet matte painting of the titular house (which were just as nice as the paintings that hang in the house of the Ushers of previous generations) but the opening credits are colored plumes of smoke, which actually reference a scene from the back half of this movie.
Philip is usually over the top-sometimes amazingly so-and a few shots were actually out of focus yet overall I can say this was a pretty good time. Practically all of the movie is set in one house and the only other character is Harry Ellerbee's Bristol, a butler; the movie stays interesting for its 79 minute runtime as the sets are lavish for the low budget and set the chilling mood. The quartet of actors are all at least fine but naturally it is Price (w/ light blonde hair) who is the standout. This ends differently from Poe's story... yet it is for certain memorable and ends this Gothic tale on a nice note. Viewing this late last night when it was on Turner Classic Movies was a prudent decision.
Sunday, September 8, 2019
Cut-Throats Nine
Runtime: 90 minutes
Directed by: Joaquin Luis
Romero Marchent
Starring: Robert Hundlar,
Emma Cohen, Alberto Dalbes, Antonio Iranzo, Manuel Tejada
From: Films Triunfo S.A.
This was as infamous as I heard it was:
To start this off on an off-topic note, September has not turned out
like I expected it to be. Some things have happened that left me
bumfuzzled (details won't be provided by myself) and in particular,
Thursday and Friday I was preoccupied by other things, mainly offering
someone assistance with something, which did eat up some free time.
While this month has not started off on a great note hankfully things
returned to normal-relatively speaking-and I had time to check out this
infamous Western w/ horror elements.
The plot is simple enough: A
group of convicts who are traveling to jail via wagon are attacked by
bandits due to a belief they are clandestinely also carrying gold; they
then have to walk while the sergeant leading this transport (alone with
his attractive daughter, who was there for flimsy reasons... of course
the movie had her for T&A and also plot machinations) figures out
which one of these scummy characters killed his wife. Even for a movie
like this, it was rather nihilistic and also incredibly bleak; such
things aren't always my cup of tea.
Following around a bunch of scumbags and unlikable characters can be a hard sell for me, depending on the circumstances. But, there was enough here (such as the graphic moments, the mystery aspect and the lovely Spanish scenery) that I can say this was fine overall; that got me through how... well, I don't want to say “grimdark” as that is usually used in a pejorative sense and describes something different from this... it's not the easiest movie to watch, something that I occasionally say here. At times this did seem familiar; I mean, it's a group of unpleasant characters who end up together in a snow-covered landscape, they argue with each other, and end up at a shack in the middle of nowhere-why, yes this was one of the influences on The Hateful Eight.
Following around a bunch of scumbags and unlikable characters can be a hard sell for me, depending on the circumstances. But, there was enough here (such as the graphic moments, the mystery aspect and the lovely Spanish scenery) that I can say this was fine overall; that got me through how... well, I don't want to say “grimdark” as that is usually used in a pejorative sense and describes something different from this... it's not the easiest movie to watch, something that I occasionally say here. At times this did seem familiar; I mean, it's a group of unpleasant characters who end up together in a snow-covered landscape, they argue with each other, and end up at a shack in the middle of nowhere-why, yes this was one of the influences on The Hateful Eight.
Thursday, September 5, 2019
The Giant Gila Monster
Runtime: 74 minutes
Directed by: Ray Kellogg
Starring: Don Sullivan,
Fred Graham, Lisa Simone, Shug Fisher, Bob Thompson
From: Hollywood Pictures
Corporation
I should have gone up to a soda jerk and asked for “a snort of that there so-dee pop!” for consumption while viewing this.
This is another motion picture that I've seen, albeit many, many years ago. The spooky season seemed like the best time to revisit such a silly giant animal film. Gila was literally made by a Texan who owned a series of drive-in theatres (Gordon McLendon) and wanted his own double feature, so that is why this has already been connected to another 50's schlock classic, The Killer Shrews. TGGM is more about rural teens who love sock hops and drive around in hot-rods-and there isn't much in the way of character development or plot progression when it comes to most of them... then again, the titular monster here is a Mexican Beaded Lizard and not a Gila Monster; I guess they featured no one would know any better.
I wish this would have been more exciting as I actually did not mind any of the characters (the one true villain was at least a genuine A-hole) and I was amused by how much they made the lead-Chase Winstead-into a cool hero. I mean, he sings, loves hot rodding, has a beautiful French girlfriend (Lisa Simone, a beauty pageant contestant who was once Miss France; they barely addressed how she was in the middle of rural Texas) and even helps the sheriff with towing wrecked cars. It was at least a nice twist to see law enforcement be friendly with the 50's greasers and rodders; he is not a pushover yet I was glad he wasn't the stereotypical strict drill sergeant type either. It was a treat seeing older rural characters, such as the typical town drunk.
Of course the effects are lo-fi and it's mainly the Beaded Lizard trampeling around miniature sets and (to steal a line) usually by accident causing such events as car crashes and a train derailment. Those were quaint and have their charm but like I said, I wish this story would have more excitement, especially when it came to the monster action. Then again, I imagine those who saw this in their '55 Pontiac Star Chief probably didn't notice, due to extracurricular activities... Still, it was not a regret seeing this without MST3K providing assistance.
This is another motion picture that I've seen, albeit many, many years ago. The spooky season seemed like the best time to revisit such a silly giant animal film. Gila was literally made by a Texan who owned a series of drive-in theatres (Gordon McLendon) and wanted his own double feature, so that is why this has already been connected to another 50's schlock classic, The Killer Shrews. TGGM is more about rural teens who love sock hops and drive around in hot-rods-and there isn't much in the way of character development or plot progression when it comes to most of them... then again, the titular monster here is a Mexican Beaded Lizard and not a Gila Monster; I guess they featured no one would know any better.
I wish this would have been more exciting as I actually did not mind any of the characters (the one true villain was at least a genuine A-hole) and I was amused by how much they made the lead-Chase Winstead-into a cool hero. I mean, he sings, loves hot rodding, has a beautiful French girlfriend (Lisa Simone, a beauty pageant contestant who was once Miss France; they barely addressed how she was in the middle of rural Texas) and even helps the sheriff with towing wrecked cars. It was at least a nice twist to see law enforcement be friendly with the 50's greasers and rodders; he is not a pushover yet I was glad he wasn't the stereotypical strict drill sergeant type either. It was a treat seeing older rural characters, such as the typical town drunk.
Of course the effects are lo-fi and it's mainly the Beaded Lizard trampeling around miniature sets and (to steal a line) usually by accident causing such events as car crashes and a train derailment. Those were quaint and have their charm but like I said, I wish this story would have more excitement, especially when it came to the monster action. Then again, I imagine those who saw this in their '55 Pontiac Star Chief probably didn't notice, due to extracurricular activities... Still, it was not a regret seeing this without MST3K providing assistance.
Tuesday, September 3, 2019
Why Horror?
Why Horror? (2014)
Runtime: 81 minutes
Directed by: Nicolas Kleiman/Rob Lindsay
Starring: Some tool “journalist” I haven't even heard of before
From: Don Ferguson Productions
You know, the question asked in the title of this documentary... it never got a satisfactory answer.
I would have never even heard of this if not for Shudder recently adding it and several people on Letterboxd giving this a skewering; plenty seem to think it's OK but some were real unhappy with this and that did pique my curiosity. In hindsight, for much of this I was thinking that I should have listened to those negative reviews.
This follows a “journalist” I've never heard of before, Tal Zimerman. I follow a few horror sites, such as Bloody Disgusting... this is a schmuck completely new to me. He is a bearded hipster tool w/ glasses, as if the Internet isn't already too full of those! He was all too happy to have his mom be scared by watching random horror footage in an obvious experiment... in addition, he yelled at mom for looking away from said horror footage AND he was all rude about her getting Dario Argento's name wrong-he was not a guy I enjoyed following and having this be centered around, in other words.
There was some information new to me-such as horror from before there was film along with some of the psychology behind humanity's love of being scared-but much of what was said here was obvious so I can't imagine Tal's fellow horror fans will get much from this; I imagine those that aren't will get more out of the “no s---, Sherlock!” moment of Tal noting that he and a fellow fanboy from Japan have shared experiences regarding the genre. Mr. Zimerman at least got to travel around the world while this was in production, although it certainly seemed like he implied that Mexico wasn't part of North America, which is a revelation that did not make him look too good.
Besides the fact that this seemed more like an exercise for Tal to brag about how much a fan he is than answering the questions that were presumably the thesis of this documentary, some had a big problem with how the subject of misogyny in the genre was broached but brushed off superficially; as others have noted, “the final girl” does not excuse how that has been an issue in the past. Furthermore, it does not help credibility-wise when one of the talking heads (IIRC, an editor for a horror magazine) talked about guys bringing girls to see a genre movie at the multiplex so that “she'd get wet” and “he'd get some nookie”... some things should have been left on the figurative cutting room floor.
I wish this would have been done in a different way or different format, as it could have been more interesting and I wanted more of the historical stuff and less of the obvious nonsense; I don't know if this will even have much to offer for those that are not genre fans and have questioned its popularity. I suppose it was nice to hear that-for example-Don Coscarelli was real impressed when he first viewed the original The Ring, but otherwise I do get why some hated this even more than I did.
Runtime: 81 minutes
Directed by: Nicolas Kleiman/Rob Lindsay
Starring: Some tool “journalist” I haven't even heard of before
From: Don Ferguson Productions
You know, the question asked in the title of this documentary... it never got a satisfactory answer.
I would have never even heard of this if not for Shudder recently adding it and several people on Letterboxd giving this a skewering; plenty seem to think it's OK but some were real unhappy with this and that did pique my curiosity. In hindsight, for much of this I was thinking that I should have listened to those negative reviews.
This follows a “journalist” I've never heard of before, Tal Zimerman. I follow a few horror sites, such as Bloody Disgusting... this is a schmuck completely new to me. He is a bearded hipster tool w/ glasses, as if the Internet isn't already too full of those! He was all too happy to have his mom be scared by watching random horror footage in an obvious experiment... in addition, he yelled at mom for looking away from said horror footage AND he was all rude about her getting Dario Argento's name wrong-he was not a guy I enjoyed following and having this be centered around, in other words.
There was some information new to me-such as horror from before there was film along with some of the psychology behind humanity's love of being scared-but much of what was said here was obvious so I can't imagine Tal's fellow horror fans will get much from this; I imagine those that aren't will get more out of the “no s---, Sherlock!” moment of Tal noting that he and a fellow fanboy from Japan have shared experiences regarding the genre. Mr. Zimerman at least got to travel around the world while this was in production, although it certainly seemed like he implied that Mexico wasn't part of North America, which is a revelation that did not make him look too good.
Besides the fact that this seemed more like an exercise for Tal to brag about how much a fan he is than answering the questions that were presumably the thesis of this documentary, some had a big problem with how the subject of misogyny in the genre was broached but brushed off superficially; as others have noted, “the final girl” does not excuse how that has been an issue in the past. Furthermore, it does not help credibility-wise when one of the talking heads (IIRC, an editor for a horror magazine) talked about guys bringing girls to see a genre movie at the multiplex so that “she'd get wet” and “he'd get some nookie”... some things should have been left on the figurative cutting room floor.
I wish this would have been done in a different way or different format, as it could have been more interesting and I wanted more of the historical stuff and less of the obvious nonsense; I don't know if this will even have much to offer for those that are not genre fans and have questioned its popularity. I suppose it was nice to hear that-for example-Don Coscarelli was real impressed when he first viewed the original The Ring, but otherwise I do get why some hated this even more than I did.
Night Of The Living Dead (The Remake)
Night of the Living Dead (1990)
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Tom Savini
Starring: Tony Todd, Patricia Tallman, Tom Towles, McKee Anderson, William Butler
From: 21st Century Film Corporation/Columbia
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Tom Savini
Starring: Tony Todd, Patricia Tallman, Tom Towles, McKee Anderson, William Butler
From: 21st Century Film Corporation/Columbia
Technically this isn't the only remake of Dead, but I understand there's one made in 2006 (in 3D) that is a travesty:
You yo-yo's!
As I have done in previous years, when it is time for “Hoop-tober” around Letterboxd I don't officially participate, although it is nice to look at the lists of those that do. I instead watch whatever the hell I want and thus I know there will be a wide variety from many decades; I just have no idea now what those motion pictures will be. Early in November I'll post the full list of what I'll view the next two months. It won't strictly be horror for me the next two months although that should be the majority of what I talk about here.
A few years ago I reviewed the OG Night of the Living Dead, and aside from it being a horror classic that is still influential today, it's a haunting downbeat movie that has lost none of its power, whether it comes to the frightening moments or the social commentary. I am not sure if it needed a remake but it happened and at least there is talent present, from behind the camera (Tom Savini directed this) or the cast members that I'll mention later. A big asset is that key cogs from the original (Romero, John A. Russo, Russell Streiner) worked on this behind the scenes. That helped make it not disrespectful to '68.
Those that remember the original's plot, I don't need to dwell on that here as much of this follows the 1968 picture rather closely. Barbara and Ben end up in that farmhouse in the middle of nowhere (Johnny here-played by Bill Moseley!-was even more of an A-hole, making his death a welcomed moment), only to discover some others hiding in the cellar. Speaking of A-holes, Harry here was even more of a boor and a jerk than in the original, making it clear that everyone in the house should follow Ben's plans, as would you want to be locked in a cellar with a loud and obnoxious tool who calls people “yo-yo's”?
This has far less social commentary, which probably explains why the ending is different; I am not sure it is “better” but different it sure is. While not very good like the original, this is not a shameful remake by any means. Following the original story closely and not screwing it up helps, along with nice gore effects when they do occasionally appear, a creepy score that sometimes gets synth-heavy, and talented leads. Some of the acting isn't spectacular but at least the leads do deliver. Tom Towles was swell as that weasel Harry and Patricia Tallman helped make Barbara much more an active participant and a much stronger character than the OG film. Duane Jones was the highlight in '68 as Ben, the strongest and most logical character who happened to be black because Romero thought he delivered the best audition, and Tony Todd's version of Ben is just about as solid a lead and he was great in the role.
I understand that Savini himself hated working on the film as Romero was away working on The Dark Half and some of the producers (he did not specify who) interfered so he wasn't even able to do half of what he had planned, then like with the third Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the MPAA did rear its ugly head... a shame, as Savini (who would have worked on the original if not for Vietnam) could have made a classic. As is, I still enjoyed the finished product for what it was. Oh, and I don't know which print it was that Amazon used and I streamed this afternoon, except that thankfully it wasn't from Twilight Time. It being a limited release made the horror fans pretty mad before it even came out, then the cinematographer being involved with the process of restoring the print and deciding for some reason to make the print really dark... I am just glad it wasn't what I streamed.
Sunday, September 1, 2019
The Matrix
The Matrix (1999)
Runtime: 136 minutes
Directed by: Formerly the Wachowski Brothers, now known as the Wachowski Sisters
Starring: A quality cast
From: Warner Bros.
On another day I'll talk about what I saw on Friday night; for now, I finally got to see this theatrically:
Now it is September 2019... would people believe that I STILL have never seen Reloaded or Revolutions?
I better explain: until last night I had never seen this on the big screen, and I enjoyed it at home although it was not a love. When the sequels came out in '03, I was in college at the time and I rarely went to movie theatres at the time; plus, when I heard all those bad things about Reloaded and especially Revolutions, I had no motivation to ever see them. For comedy's sake perhaps I should do that late in 2019 to see if it's aged poorly or not. I got to see this theatrically last night as this upcoming week if you have a Dolby Cinema at AMC near you, The Matrix is playing there.
I don't need to extol its virtues for paragraph after paragraph; I can say that perhaps it is me watching a few thousand movies between now and then, or maybe it's because Hollywood is worse now when it comes to quality in the 21st century, but this was better than I gave it credit for at the time. While the idea of our world being a simulation was not new even then (look at Fassbinder's World on a Wire) the idea was well-realized here; I had forgotten just how horrifying the “real world” was with the sun being blotted out of the sky and machines ruling the roost. It was great production design of how The Matrix looked compared to the grungy and dirty real world, down to food and dress. It was also interesting philosophically and was not a shallow look at such complex ideas. Of course there are still some corny moments (love saving the day at the end is a key example) but I was glad nothing took me out of the plot.
Another relief was that most of the effects still look fine 20 years later; it was only random things that reminded me of the late 90's that this was filmed in: the cell phones and the great moment in the first act where MiniDiscs were briefly seen. Those around the world may be surprised to hear this but those were never popular in the United States. Except for a few tracks, the soundtrack and score don't seem too terribly old. The Matrix also managed to be well-cast, even if-for example-they wanted Johnny Depp to be Neo. Keanu is great in the role; I agree with Will Smith that him turning down the role was right as he probably wouldn't have been mature enough for it. Of course, now Keanu as a big action star is not as absurd as it was back then. Much effort and months of training was done for the action scenes, and those still are a stand-out now.
I remember how old and hackneyed bullet-time became in the first few years after this came out between all the movies using it and it being parodied to death. In 2019, that suddenly seems fresh again as I haven't seen it be used in ages. Lana and Lily have never reached these heights again and wow have their subsequent movies received a mixed reception... that does not diminish how this surprisingly became a hit and quite influential. Now they said there will be a 4th one and I hope that isn't a cash-grab as Hollywood has fallen in love with in recent years. Again, that doesn't affect how I feel about the original film.
Runtime: 136 minutes
Directed by: Formerly the Wachowski Brothers, now known as the Wachowski Sisters
Starring: A quality cast
From: Warner Bros.
On another day I'll talk about what I saw on Friday night; for now, I finally got to see this theatrically:
Now it is September 2019... would people believe that I STILL have never seen Reloaded or Revolutions?
I better explain: until last night I had never seen this on the big screen, and I enjoyed it at home although it was not a love. When the sequels came out in '03, I was in college at the time and I rarely went to movie theatres at the time; plus, when I heard all those bad things about Reloaded and especially Revolutions, I had no motivation to ever see them. For comedy's sake perhaps I should do that late in 2019 to see if it's aged poorly or not. I got to see this theatrically last night as this upcoming week if you have a Dolby Cinema at AMC near you, The Matrix is playing there.
I don't need to extol its virtues for paragraph after paragraph; I can say that perhaps it is me watching a few thousand movies between now and then, or maybe it's because Hollywood is worse now when it comes to quality in the 21st century, but this was better than I gave it credit for at the time. While the idea of our world being a simulation was not new even then (look at Fassbinder's World on a Wire) the idea was well-realized here; I had forgotten just how horrifying the “real world” was with the sun being blotted out of the sky and machines ruling the roost. It was great production design of how The Matrix looked compared to the grungy and dirty real world, down to food and dress. It was also interesting philosophically and was not a shallow look at such complex ideas. Of course there are still some corny moments (love saving the day at the end is a key example) but I was glad nothing took me out of the plot.
Another relief was that most of the effects still look fine 20 years later; it was only random things that reminded me of the late 90's that this was filmed in: the cell phones and the great moment in the first act where MiniDiscs were briefly seen. Those around the world may be surprised to hear this but those were never popular in the United States. Except for a few tracks, the soundtrack and score don't seem too terribly old. The Matrix also managed to be well-cast, even if-for example-they wanted Johnny Depp to be Neo. Keanu is great in the role; I agree with Will Smith that him turning down the role was right as he probably wouldn't have been mature enough for it. Of course, now Keanu as a big action star is not as absurd as it was back then. Much effort and months of training was done for the action scenes, and those still are a stand-out now.
I remember how old and hackneyed bullet-time became in the first few years after this came out between all the movies using it and it being parodied to death. In 2019, that suddenly seems fresh again as I haven't seen it be used in ages. Lana and Lily have never reached these heights again and wow have their subsequent movies received a mixed reception... that does not diminish how this surprisingly became a hit and quite influential. Now they said there will be a 4th one and I hope that isn't a cash-grab as Hollywood has fallen in love with in recent years. Again, that doesn't affect how I feel about the original film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)