The Endless Summer (1966)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Bruce Brown
Starring: Actual surfers such as Michael Hyson and Robert August, narrated by Bruce Brown
From: Bruce Brown Films
Here’s something a little different from me: a documentary, and something even odder… a surfing film. I briefly reviewed one, which I saw at a screening at Universal Orlando when I was the only person in the auditorium. It’s known as Bustin’ Down The Door, from 2008. I reviewed it many months after I had seen it that one time, so that’s why it wasn’t my best. I’ll have to try and track that down one of these days. I haven’t even found it on the streaming video sites. I mean, to be perfectly honest, that’s how I watched this movie… so sue me!
The aforementioned Bustin’ was about some 70’s surfers whose impact was so great they changed surfing forever, whether or not you consider it to be for better or for worse in that it got commercialized. This movie is different. It’s back in a simpler time where some dudes did it more for fun and that indescribable rush rather than any cash prize. Bruce Brown had done small-time surfing movies before, but this is seen as his best. Accompanied by appropriate groovy surf music and calm narration, you follow some surfers search for “the perfect wave” as they are lucky to travel the entire world looking for one; you also see them interact with the locals.
Given that they are surfers and they have quite the awesome laid-back lifestyle where they live on the beach and whenever they can they can ride the wave (at least that’s the stereotype), it’s no surprise that you have goofy and droll humor. It works perfectly for this, trust me. I wish I had that sort of lifestyle, but as my athletic ability is about 0… sigh. It is a sport that you rarely get to see on TV so I’m sure that’s why there are many different surfing documentaries out there throughout many different decades and this is the second one I’ve seen but I’m sure that all of them look at things in a unique way, so as I possibly watch more and more of them, that will be neat to see how they differ.
If you want to see a quaint and nice movie with some daft humor and of course some pretty scenery, then you should enjoy it. It is also a nice look at how being a surfer is, at least back in the carefree 60's. It’s on YouTube in 10 parts. It’s not difficult to find.
I'll be back Sunday night with a new review.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
A Special Diversion
No movie review tonight. I am too ticked off to do so. Instead I’ll talk about a movie website which stooped to a new low today.
I know I’ve mentioned it before, but for the past few years I’ve looked at the forum at CHUD.com. I don’t really read the articles on the site itself, as it’s mainly stuff written by (and I’m using a quote that was posted anonymously on the bottom of the page of the offending article; you see, stupidly all of the articles have *anonymous* commenting. How asinine is that?) “hip latte-drinking faux intellectual f*******s”. It’s a hipster site with hipster writers that think they’re oh so witty when they’re just pompous assbags that aren’t entertaining to read at all. They think they're great, writing smug articles while listening to awful garbage like Sonic Youth or The Pixies. I've never liked hipsters; I prefer more "real" individuals. The forum itself, I only looked at a few threads at most. Those threads are great, but still most of the board I just ignored.
Well, I’ve been irked by the site as of late. The hipster smugness has increased, there are some stupid hypocritical new rules on the forum, and then today… oh today… I follow CHUD on Twitter. This afternoon I see that they posted an article about a proposed Spiderman musical. That’s not the horrifying part, although the idea of that even taking place is befuddling. Instead, it was what the article was titled. Here it is.
Yes, the title actually is: “The Spiderman Musical: The Worst Thing To Hit NYC Since Flight 175?” Now, I am not an expert on the subject matter but it was easy to infer what it was referencing, and yes, after looking online, Flight 175 was the plane that crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11.
Seriously, CHUD used cheap heat in order to get attention and more page views, since by George the site NEEDS more page views and that is paramount over everything else. They actually thought it was OK to piss on everyone who was affected by September 11th just so that they’d get people to look at one of the vapid and stupid articles. Talk about offensive.
Me, I wasn’t even offended at the joke itself; it wasn’t too funny. It’s the idea that they’d use September 11 for comedy AND the way they used it for attention. Why would you even do such a horrible thing? Thousands of people were affected by what happened. I had relatives who lived now that far from the World Trade Center (one of them worked only a few blocks from there). None of them were harmed when the buildings went down, but Christ, how callous and heartless do you have to be? Why risk offending so many people for something so trite?
After I saw that garbage, it makes me not want to look at the site ever again. As is, I don’t feel like looking at the site anytime soon and if you decide to look at the link I provided, I hope it’s the last time you look at it yourself. Don’t support sites that think it’s acceptable to act this way. Hell, I even made a post on the forum and used my birth name (my handle on there isn’t my birth name) in a post where I got pretty mad and stated the obvious of it being offensive crap. Amazingly, I seem to be the only one on the forum who at least is willing to state the truth about it being tasteless. Everyone else is either complacent with it, or in some cases, the asshole who came up with the article and headline (some douche whose name doesn’t even deserve to be mentioned) actually got praised for being so “edgy” or what have you. I spit upon that guy and anyone who defends him! And I’m happy to do so to honor all of those who lost their lives in 9/11 or anyone who was affected by the tragedy.
That REALLY has left me in a bad mood for the rest of the day. Even now, hours after I first saw the headline, my blood is boiling. So, my next review will be up on Thursday and I should be in a better mood then. But until then, here’s a middle finger, directed straight at CHUD.com.
I know I’ve mentioned it before, but for the past few years I’ve looked at the forum at CHUD.com. I don’t really read the articles on the site itself, as it’s mainly stuff written by (and I’m using a quote that was posted anonymously on the bottom of the page of the offending article; you see, stupidly all of the articles have *anonymous* commenting. How asinine is that?) “hip latte-drinking faux intellectual f*******s”. It’s a hipster site with hipster writers that think they’re oh so witty when they’re just pompous assbags that aren’t entertaining to read at all. They think they're great, writing smug articles while listening to awful garbage like Sonic Youth or The Pixies. I've never liked hipsters; I prefer more "real" individuals. The forum itself, I only looked at a few threads at most. Those threads are great, but still most of the board I just ignored.
Well, I’ve been irked by the site as of late. The hipster smugness has increased, there are some stupid hypocritical new rules on the forum, and then today… oh today… I follow CHUD on Twitter. This afternoon I see that they posted an article about a proposed Spiderman musical. That’s not the horrifying part, although the idea of that even taking place is befuddling. Instead, it was what the article was titled. Here it is.
Yes, the title actually is: “The Spiderman Musical: The Worst Thing To Hit NYC Since Flight 175?” Now, I am not an expert on the subject matter but it was easy to infer what it was referencing, and yes, after looking online, Flight 175 was the plane that crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11.
Seriously, CHUD used cheap heat in order to get attention and more page views, since by George the site NEEDS more page views and that is paramount over everything else. They actually thought it was OK to piss on everyone who was affected by September 11th just so that they’d get people to look at one of the vapid and stupid articles. Talk about offensive.
Me, I wasn’t even offended at the joke itself; it wasn’t too funny. It’s the idea that they’d use September 11 for comedy AND the way they used it for attention. Why would you even do such a horrible thing? Thousands of people were affected by what happened. I had relatives who lived now that far from the World Trade Center (one of them worked only a few blocks from there). None of them were harmed when the buildings went down, but Christ, how callous and heartless do you have to be? Why risk offending so many people for something so trite?
After I saw that garbage, it makes me not want to look at the site ever again. As is, I don’t feel like looking at the site anytime soon and if you decide to look at the link I provided, I hope it’s the last time you look at it yourself. Don’t support sites that think it’s acceptable to act this way. Hell, I even made a post on the forum and used my birth name (my handle on there isn’t my birth name) in a post where I got pretty mad and stated the obvious of it being offensive crap. Amazingly, I seem to be the only one on the forum who at least is willing to state the truth about it being tasteless. Everyone else is either complacent with it, or in some cases, the asshole who came up with the article and headline (some douche whose name doesn’t even deserve to be mentioned) actually got praised for being so “edgy” or what have you. I spit upon that guy and anyone who defends him! And I’m happy to do so to honor all of those who lost their lives in 9/11 or anyone who was affected by the tragedy.
That REALLY has left me in a bad mood for the rest of the day. Even now, hours after I first saw the headline, my blood is boiling. So, my next review will be up on Thursday and I should be in a better mood then. But until then, here’s a middle finger, directed straight at CHUD.com.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex * But Were Afraid To Ask
Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex * But Were Afraid To Ask (1972)
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: Woody Allen
Starring: Woody Allen (but of course), Gene Wilder, Burt Reynolds, Tony Randall, Lynn Redgrave
From: United Artists
Here is something interesting: an anthology film from Woody Allen where you not only get his trademark “unique” humor but also vulgarity, and while it’s based on a nonfiction book of the same name, it’s only in the loosest sense. Instead of a “sex manual” that the book was, the movie was a series of sketches that not only talked about such things as transvestites, flashers, bestiality (!), and S&M, but also spoofs Italian new wave movies, horror flicks, and more. It’s a movie I’ve seen a few times and I’m always amused by it, even though it certainly is uneven at times. It’s easiest to break down what the seven segments are:
1. Do Aphrodisiacs Work? Woody plays a court jester and he gives an aphrodisiac to the Queen (the late Redgrave), with comic results.
2. What Is Sodomy? Gene Wilder plays a doctor who falls in love with an Armenian patient he meets one day. Problem is, the partner… is a sheep!
3. Why Do Some Women Have Trouble Reaching An Orgasm? This is the spoof of Italian movies of the time period. I mean, from the way it’s shot to the fact that all the dialogue is in Italian. Woody plays a smooth lover (or at least a character that wants to be smooth) who can’t get his wife off, to be blunt. The solution to the problem is rather interesting.
4. Are All Transvestites Homosexuals? A middle-aged guy experiments with wearing women’s clothes… but it turns out much worse for him than he could have imagined.
5. What Are Sex Perverts? It’s a spoof of a 50’s era game show, where a panel has to guess what a guest’s sexual perversion is. Would you believe that one of the guys on the panel is REGIS PHILBIN? It’s true. Since the movie came out, his appearance in that role takes on great humor in of itself. Sure, he was known at the time for being a TV host, but not like in his Live With Regis and whoever days.
6. Are the Findings of Doctors and Clinics Who Do Sexual Research and Experiments Accurate? Woody and a young blonde meet up with a crazy mad scientist (played by veteran horror movie actor John Carradine, part of the ill-fated Carradine acting family), and things get really loony from there.
7. What Happens During Ejaculation? The last-and arguably-the best segment, you see what happens in the human body during a night of romance. You see what happens in the brain, with it being controlled by Randall and one of the operators is good old Burt. You also see some sperm getting ready for “deployment”, including Allen.
Like I said, it’s uneven, but if you think you would enjoy a quirky take on adult subject matter, then track this down. I'll be back Monday night.
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: Woody Allen
Starring: Woody Allen (but of course), Gene Wilder, Burt Reynolds, Tony Randall, Lynn Redgrave
From: United Artists
Here is something interesting: an anthology film from Woody Allen where you not only get his trademark “unique” humor but also vulgarity, and while it’s based on a nonfiction book of the same name, it’s only in the loosest sense. Instead of a “sex manual” that the book was, the movie was a series of sketches that not only talked about such things as transvestites, flashers, bestiality (!), and S&M, but also spoofs Italian new wave movies, horror flicks, and more. It’s a movie I’ve seen a few times and I’m always amused by it, even though it certainly is uneven at times. It’s easiest to break down what the seven segments are:
1. Do Aphrodisiacs Work? Woody plays a court jester and he gives an aphrodisiac to the Queen (the late Redgrave), with comic results.
2. What Is Sodomy? Gene Wilder plays a doctor who falls in love with an Armenian patient he meets one day. Problem is, the partner… is a sheep!
3. Why Do Some Women Have Trouble Reaching An Orgasm? This is the spoof of Italian movies of the time period. I mean, from the way it’s shot to the fact that all the dialogue is in Italian. Woody plays a smooth lover (or at least a character that wants to be smooth) who can’t get his wife off, to be blunt. The solution to the problem is rather interesting.
4. Are All Transvestites Homosexuals? A middle-aged guy experiments with wearing women’s clothes… but it turns out much worse for him than he could have imagined.
5. What Are Sex Perverts? It’s a spoof of a 50’s era game show, where a panel has to guess what a guest’s sexual perversion is. Would you believe that one of the guys on the panel is REGIS PHILBIN? It’s true. Since the movie came out, his appearance in that role takes on great humor in of itself. Sure, he was known at the time for being a TV host, but not like in his Live With Regis and whoever days.
6. Are the Findings of Doctors and Clinics Who Do Sexual Research and Experiments Accurate? Woody and a young blonde meet up with a crazy mad scientist (played by veteran horror movie actor John Carradine, part of the ill-fated Carradine acting family), and things get really loony from there.
7. What Happens During Ejaculation? The last-and arguably-the best segment, you see what happens in the human body during a night of romance. You see what happens in the brain, with it being controlled by Randall and one of the operators is good old Burt. You also see some sperm getting ready for “deployment”, including Allen.
Like I said, it’s uneven, but if you think you would enjoy a quirky take on adult subject matter, then track this down. I'll be back Monday night.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
The Magnificent Seven
The Magnificent Seven (1960)
Runtime: 128 minutes
Directed by: John Sturges
Starring: Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, Eli Wallach, Charles Bronson, James Coburn, etc.
From: MGM
My apologies for this being a few hours late. I was busy today.
Here is a movie in a genre I haven’t really talked about before, the western. The only serious western I’ve talked about so far is The War Wagon, starring John Wayne and Kirk Douglas. This movie, though, is one that I’ve seen a few times before, as it’s great stuff. I just now need to see the movie it’s a remake of, Akira Kurosawa’s 1954 movie The Seven Samurai. I have it on a VHS tape, taped off of a Turner Classic Movies broadcast taped months ago, but as it’s a 3 ½ hour movie, I need a free afternoon and the motivation to watch it.
This movie can be found online but the version on Google Video appears to be a few minutes short; besides, you’re better off viewing it on a nice TV, between the nice Mexican scenery and the great score from Elmer Bernstein.
The plot is pretty simple but there’s more to it than meets the eye. People in a small Mexican town are harassed by Calvera (Wallach) and his bandits for supplies such as food; this happens a good amount of times throughout the years. Finally, the people of the town get fed up and some of the guys volunteer to go up north to the United States for help. They meet up with a cowboy named Chris (Brynner) and their plan is for Chris to get six other men to go down to Mexico to protect them from the bandits and to train the citizens to fight. He recruits a manly bunch of men, including Vin (McQueen), Bernardo (Bronson), Britt (Coburn), and a few others.
All of them have their own issues and problems and you get to experience that throughout. Sure, there’s fun and well-done action but a lot of it is getting to know the characters and their problems and why they are in the position they are. They don’t find the position of “gunslinger” being as honorable or cool as it may sound. Can they get it together to fight off against the bandits in a struggle that turns out to be more of a hassle than they first expected?
The movie is great stuff. It’s great old-fashioned entertainment with a lot of cool lines and snappy dialogue throughout, with enough time given to all of the seven to show off that while they’re cool, they also have foibles and difficulties. A few of the people in the cast ended up becoming big stars, and for good reason. What an awesome cast of many men… guys that you can idolize. Many of the big stars of today just don’t compare. They’d get their asses kicked in a brawl, I swear!
If you enjoy movies with manly men, westerns, and/or want to see some famous names from the past early in their careers, this is a must-see. I’ll be back Friday night with a new review.
Runtime: 128 minutes
Directed by: John Sturges
Starring: Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, Eli Wallach, Charles Bronson, James Coburn, etc.
From: MGM
My apologies for this being a few hours late. I was busy today.
Here is a movie in a genre I haven’t really talked about before, the western. The only serious western I’ve talked about so far is The War Wagon, starring John Wayne and Kirk Douglas. This movie, though, is one that I’ve seen a few times before, as it’s great stuff. I just now need to see the movie it’s a remake of, Akira Kurosawa’s 1954 movie The Seven Samurai. I have it on a VHS tape, taped off of a Turner Classic Movies broadcast taped months ago, but as it’s a 3 ½ hour movie, I need a free afternoon and the motivation to watch it.
This movie can be found online but the version on Google Video appears to be a few minutes short; besides, you’re better off viewing it on a nice TV, between the nice Mexican scenery and the great score from Elmer Bernstein.
The plot is pretty simple but there’s more to it than meets the eye. People in a small Mexican town are harassed by Calvera (Wallach) and his bandits for supplies such as food; this happens a good amount of times throughout the years. Finally, the people of the town get fed up and some of the guys volunteer to go up north to the United States for help. They meet up with a cowboy named Chris (Brynner) and their plan is for Chris to get six other men to go down to Mexico to protect them from the bandits and to train the citizens to fight. He recruits a manly bunch of men, including Vin (McQueen), Bernardo (Bronson), Britt (Coburn), and a few others.
All of them have their own issues and problems and you get to experience that throughout. Sure, there’s fun and well-done action but a lot of it is getting to know the characters and their problems and why they are in the position they are. They don’t find the position of “gunslinger” being as honorable or cool as it may sound. Can they get it together to fight off against the bandits in a struggle that turns out to be more of a hassle than they first expected?
The movie is great stuff. It’s great old-fashioned entertainment with a lot of cool lines and snappy dialogue throughout, with enough time given to all of the seven to show off that while they’re cool, they also have foibles and difficulties. A few of the people in the cast ended up becoming big stars, and for good reason. What an awesome cast of many men… guys that you can idolize. Many of the big stars of today just don’t compare. They’d get their asses kicked in a brawl, I swear!
If you enjoy movies with manly men, westerns, and/or want to see some famous names from the past early in their careers, this is a must-see. I’ll be back Friday night with a new review.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Tango & Cash
Tango & Cash (1989)
Runtime: 104 minutes
Directed by: Andrey Konchalovskiy
Starring: Sly Stallone, Kurt Russell (no relation, I swear), Jack Palance, Teri Hatcher
From: Warner Brothers
First off, I have to mention that my November movie plans have changed already. The movie that I was going to review next… I’ll wait for that to either hit the dollar theatre joints or I’ll just wait for it to come on DVD. I won’t get into why; it’s just better that way. The next movie I’ll review will be in a genre I haven’t really talked about on here before: the western. This movie, though, is an action/comedy buddy movie, but with an emphasis on the humor.
Tango & Cash is a movie I’ve known about for years but I didn’t feel like watching until a few minutes ago when I bought the DVD used. I watched it and was amused by it, even though it was in widescreen and not anamorphic. Basically, on one of those old TV’s it just looks bad and the black bars dominate things. Then it was released on Blu-Ray and as of course that is anamorphic, things are greatly improved. However, I didn’t rush out and buy it, as I wanted to save my money and there were more important things to purchase. One day, though, at Target it was on sale for real cheap so I finally got the Blu-Ray and last month I watched it.
This is a movie that had a troubled history (the director listed here did most of it, but due to the usual “creative differences”, was replaced) and there were squabbling about how it should turn out… while it is evident while watching it that there are times where things are rushed or just doesn’t seem quite right, somehow the movie works with its goofiness, charm, and near-constant one-liners, something that I usually would detest but for some reason it happens to work with this film.
The plot is that Stallone is Ray Tango, a prim and proper cop who dresses in suits and often checks his stocks. Russell is Gabe Cash, a gruff cop who enjoys wearing blue jeans. They both on their own go after drug dealers. Yves Perret (Palance, overacting in a delicious manner) is a major drug dealer and he’s upset at both cops for ruining his business. So he comes up with quite the plan. Instead of killing them and making them martyrs, they get set up to look like dirty cops that killed an FBI agent, necessitating them going to jail. That’s exactly what happens and it takes some help, but they escape and despite their many differences they have to work together to try and bring him down. Sly’s lady friend Kiki (Hatcher) gets involved too.
As I mentioned, the movie is more comedy than action, although the action you do see is entertaining and not poorly done. Some familiar faces from 80 genre movies appear, such as James Hong, Brion James, and the unique-looking Robert Z’Dar, possessor of a one of a kind face. The plot moves along pretty quickly. There’s a great-looking proto-SUV assault vehicle that gets used by the heroes, to great effect. And, the one-liners come often. If you don’t like that sort of thing, the movie may not be for you. Then again, that sort of thing isn’t always for me either and yet whether it be due to the stars or because the majority of them are actually amusing, it worked for me. So, if you can see it in Blu-Ray and you enjoy action comedies with the emphasis on the latter, check this out.
I'll be back Monday night with a new review.
Runtime: 104 minutes
Directed by: Andrey Konchalovskiy
Starring: Sly Stallone, Kurt Russell (no relation, I swear), Jack Palance, Teri Hatcher
From: Warner Brothers
First off, I have to mention that my November movie plans have changed already. The movie that I was going to review next… I’ll wait for that to either hit the dollar theatre joints or I’ll just wait for it to come on DVD. I won’t get into why; it’s just better that way. The next movie I’ll review will be in a genre I haven’t really talked about on here before: the western. This movie, though, is an action/comedy buddy movie, but with an emphasis on the humor.
Tango & Cash is a movie I’ve known about for years but I didn’t feel like watching until a few minutes ago when I bought the DVD used. I watched it and was amused by it, even though it was in widescreen and not anamorphic. Basically, on one of those old TV’s it just looks bad and the black bars dominate things. Then it was released on Blu-Ray and as of course that is anamorphic, things are greatly improved. However, I didn’t rush out and buy it, as I wanted to save my money and there were more important things to purchase. One day, though, at Target it was on sale for real cheap so I finally got the Blu-Ray and last month I watched it.
This is a movie that had a troubled history (the director listed here did most of it, but due to the usual “creative differences”, was replaced) and there were squabbling about how it should turn out… while it is evident while watching it that there are times where things are rushed or just doesn’t seem quite right, somehow the movie works with its goofiness, charm, and near-constant one-liners, something that I usually would detest but for some reason it happens to work with this film.
The plot is that Stallone is Ray Tango, a prim and proper cop who dresses in suits and often checks his stocks. Russell is Gabe Cash, a gruff cop who enjoys wearing blue jeans. They both on their own go after drug dealers. Yves Perret (Palance, overacting in a delicious manner) is a major drug dealer and he’s upset at both cops for ruining his business. So he comes up with quite the plan. Instead of killing them and making them martyrs, they get set up to look like dirty cops that killed an FBI agent, necessitating them going to jail. That’s exactly what happens and it takes some help, but they escape and despite their many differences they have to work together to try and bring him down. Sly’s lady friend Kiki (Hatcher) gets involved too.
As I mentioned, the movie is more comedy than action, although the action you do see is entertaining and not poorly done. Some familiar faces from 80 genre movies appear, such as James Hong, Brion James, and the unique-looking Robert Z’Dar, possessor of a one of a kind face. The plot moves along pretty quickly. There’s a great-looking proto-SUV assault vehicle that gets used by the heroes, to great effect. And, the one-liners come often. If you don’t like that sort of thing, the movie may not be for you. Then again, that sort of thing isn’t always for me either and yet whether it be due to the stars or because the majority of them are actually amusing, it worked for me. So, if you can see it in Blu-Ray and you enjoy action comedies with the emphasis on the latter, check this out.
I'll be back Monday night with a new review.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
House on Haunted Hill
House on Haunted Hill (1959)
Runtime: 75 minutes
Directed by: William Castle
Starring: The Great Vincent Price, Elisha Cook, Jr., Carol Ohmart, Richard Long
From: William Castle Productions
To end this month of talking about horror movies, it is appropriate to talk about a classic haunted house film that I just finished watching on Turner Classic Movies. I had seen it once before but that was many years ago. My plans are that I’ll talk about something in another genre and then after that I’ll talk about another horror movie, but one that was on the big screen. No, not a Saw movie. I’ve never seen any of them, believe it or not.
This was from master showman William Castle, who was great at coming up with gimmicks to promote his movies, such as with this, theatres could have a skeleton come flying out and about during a certain point in the movie. He was quite the interesting guy and I wish there were more wacky characters like him in the film business now. At least it would make things more fun. His Wikipedia page has some info about him.
The movie is simple yet effective. Floating heads (literally) start off the movie right away and explain what the plot it. I mean, the pace is pretty quick and like with the last movie I reviewed, for its short runtime a lot is packed in. Five random people are chosen by a wacky couple (Price and Ohmart; Price is a huge reason why this movie is as fun as it is) to spend the night in a haunted house. They end up getting locked in there and each have a gun. If they can survive until sun up, each person gets 10 thousand dollars. It’s so simple and yet it manages to work. It sure as hell didn’t work with the 1999 remake of this, though. Just take my word for it: that movie is just awful and unpleasant, while the original is fun and entertaining. It’s not blood-curdling horror by any means but if you enjoy something that’s a little goofy (I mean, a house has a random pit of acid?) then this is not a bad way to spend 75 minutes. It’s always nice to watch Vincent Price in action and as usual he delivered a memorable performance. Also, the performance of the skeleton (billed as "himself") was memorable.
The plot is actually not as straightforward as it may first sound; Price’s old lady is his fourth wife and he apparently wants her killed. So, that adds some drama to things. Then, there are various twists and turns so things aren’t as they first appear to be. Things pop out suddenly and while it’s light in tone it doesn’t mean it’s not suspenseful or dread-filled, as it is if you go with it. That is why the movie is pretty famous in some circles.
I hope that everyone had a nice Halloween. I’ll be back Wednesday night with a new review.
Runtime: 75 minutes
Directed by: William Castle
Starring: The Great Vincent Price, Elisha Cook, Jr., Carol Ohmart, Richard Long
From: William Castle Productions
To end this month of talking about horror movies, it is appropriate to talk about a classic haunted house film that I just finished watching on Turner Classic Movies. I had seen it once before but that was many years ago. My plans are that I’ll talk about something in another genre and then after that I’ll talk about another horror movie, but one that was on the big screen. No, not a Saw movie. I’ve never seen any of them, believe it or not.
This was from master showman William Castle, who was great at coming up with gimmicks to promote his movies, such as with this, theatres could have a skeleton come flying out and about during a certain point in the movie. He was quite the interesting guy and I wish there were more wacky characters like him in the film business now. At least it would make things more fun. His Wikipedia page has some info about him.
The movie is simple yet effective. Floating heads (literally) start off the movie right away and explain what the plot it. I mean, the pace is pretty quick and like with the last movie I reviewed, for its short runtime a lot is packed in. Five random people are chosen by a wacky couple (Price and Ohmart; Price is a huge reason why this movie is as fun as it is) to spend the night in a haunted house. They end up getting locked in there and each have a gun. If they can survive until sun up, each person gets 10 thousand dollars. It’s so simple and yet it manages to work. It sure as hell didn’t work with the 1999 remake of this, though. Just take my word for it: that movie is just awful and unpleasant, while the original is fun and entertaining. It’s not blood-curdling horror by any means but if you enjoy something that’s a little goofy (I mean, a house has a random pit of acid?) then this is not a bad way to spend 75 minutes. It’s always nice to watch Vincent Price in action and as usual he delivered a memorable performance. Also, the performance of the skeleton (billed as "himself") was memorable.
The plot is actually not as straightforward as it may first sound; Price’s old lady is his fourth wife and he apparently wants her killed. So, that adds some drama to things. Then, there are various twists and turns so things aren’t as they first appear to be. Things pop out suddenly and while it’s light in tone it doesn’t mean it’s not suspenseful or dread-filled, as it is if you go with it. That is why the movie is pretty famous in some circles.
I hope that everyone had a nice Halloween. I’ll be back Wednesday night with a new review.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Horror of Dracula
Horror of Dracula (1958)
Runtime: 82 minutes
Directed by: Terence Fisher
Starring: Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Michael Gough, Melissa Stribling
From: Hammer
Here’s the classic horror movie I mentioned at the end of my last post. It’s from the great British film studio Hammer, which became famous starting in the 50’s for their horror movies, doing stuff in color, being sexually charged and not being afraid of showing blood, which was quite different from the usual horror flick back in the time period. Wikipedia has a nice article about the history of the film studio, which had laid dormant for many years but recently returned, basically in name only but still…
I managed to pick this movie basically at random and thankfully, a random Chinese streaming video website (of all things) had it up in 2 parts so I watched it that way. I know, not the most ethical thing to do, but it’s not like I’m the only one who does things like this!
I’ve never read the Bram Stoker novel so I can’t really compare the book to the movie, but I know that a lot of things were changed… not that it means a whole lot to me. The story-set in Germany-revolves around vampire hunters trying to track down the famed Dracula (Lee, who was totally awesome in this role). One guy, a Mr. Harker, tries to do so but only stakes the “bride”; it is up to Dr. Van Helsing (Cushing, also awesome in his role) to do so, while having to deal with the bloodsucker now getting his revenge against the Harker family.
This movie is a great yarn and it moves very quickly. It’s not that long but a lot of stuff is packed into it. Besides the great performances by the two leads, the movie is moody and atmospheric (another Hammer trademark) and the sets all look very well-done. The German setting-yes, not Transylvania-provides some nice scenery. They aren’t afraid to show blood or the effects of someone getting staked in the heart (hint, a lot of blood will come out). Van Helsing can be nice to someone like a little kid but he otherwise is very serious and can be rather blunt and direct when it comes to eradicating the famed vampire. Meanwhile, Dracula is of course menacing and yet can be suave and charming too. What is important to note is that he is NOT a Edward Cullen wussy sparkling vampire sort of crap; when he gets his revenge on the Harker family, he does so ruthlessly, not messing around at all. He’s a real bastard, in other words. I much prefer this sort of vampire to the type that come in nonsense like Twilight or The Vampire Diaries!
By the way, here is a page from another Blogpost site which shows some random stills from the movie; you can see how nice the sets are, for example.
It all comes together to create a fun package and if you enjoy horror movies and want to see something different from the usual stuff in the genre that is dominant in recent years, this is something worth seeing. Like I said, it’s not difficult to find online. If you search for “Dracula 1958” (its original title; the new title was for the U.S. so that people wouldn’t confuse it with the Bela Lugosi classic) on Google Video, you’ll find it in 2 parts.
I’ll be back Halloween night, and I have no idea what film in the genre I’ll review, but I’ll try to make it a good one.
Runtime: 82 minutes
Directed by: Terence Fisher
Starring: Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Michael Gough, Melissa Stribling
From: Hammer
Here’s the classic horror movie I mentioned at the end of my last post. It’s from the great British film studio Hammer, which became famous starting in the 50’s for their horror movies, doing stuff in color, being sexually charged and not being afraid of showing blood, which was quite different from the usual horror flick back in the time period. Wikipedia has a nice article about the history of the film studio, which had laid dormant for many years but recently returned, basically in name only but still…
I managed to pick this movie basically at random and thankfully, a random Chinese streaming video website (of all things) had it up in 2 parts so I watched it that way. I know, not the most ethical thing to do, but it’s not like I’m the only one who does things like this!
I’ve never read the Bram Stoker novel so I can’t really compare the book to the movie, but I know that a lot of things were changed… not that it means a whole lot to me. The story-set in Germany-revolves around vampire hunters trying to track down the famed Dracula (Lee, who was totally awesome in this role). One guy, a Mr. Harker, tries to do so but only stakes the “bride”; it is up to Dr. Van Helsing (Cushing, also awesome in his role) to do so, while having to deal with the bloodsucker now getting his revenge against the Harker family.
This movie is a great yarn and it moves very quickly. It’s not that long but a lot of stuff is packed into it. Besides the great performances by the two leads, the movie is moody and atmospheric (another Hammer trademark) and the sets all look very well-done. The German setting-yes, not Transylvania-provides some nice scenery. They aren’t afraid to show blood or the effects of someone getting staked in the heart (hint, a lot of blood will come out). Van Helsing can be nice to someone like a little kid but he otherwise is very serious and can be rather blunt and direct when it comes to eradicating the famed vampire. Meanwhile, Dracula is of course menacing and yet can be suave and charming too. What is important to note is that he is NOT a Edward Cullen wussy sparkling vampire sort of crap; when he gets his revenge on the Harker family, he does so ruthlessly, not messing around at all. He’s a real bastard, in other words. I much prefer this sort of vampire to the type that come in nonsense like Twilight or The Vampire Diaries!
By the way, here is a page from another Blogpost site which shows some random stills from the movie; you can see how nice the sets are, for example.
It all comes together to create a fun package and if you enjoy horror movies and want to see something different from the usual stuff in the genre that is dominant in recent years, this is something worth seeing. Like I said, it’s not difficult to find online. If you search for “Dracula 1958” (its original title; the new title was for the U.S. so that people wouldn’t confuse it with the Bela Lugosi classic) on Google Video, you’ll find it in 2 parts.
I’ll be back Halloween night, and I have no idea what film in the genre I’ll review, but I’ll try to make it a good one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)