The Crowd Roars (1932)
Runtime: 70 minutes (at least that's the version available on disc and shown on TCM; apparently there's an 85 minute version but who knows how that could be seen, if it's even possible to see now)
Directed by: Howard Hawks
Starring: James Cagney, Joan Blondell, Ann Dvorak, Eric Linden, Guy Kibbee
From: Warner Bros.
I watched this random movie yesterday. It's not a must-see and yet it was still fine. I talk about it below:
This is a film I watched on TCM early yesterday evening. The cast and plot did intrigue me so I decided to give it a lap around the track, metaphorically speaking.
James Cagney is famous racecar driver Joe Greer. He returns to his hometown for an exhibition race, where he discovers that his younger brother Eddie (Eric Linden) has also entered the profession; Joe is not happy due to how dangerous racing a car is... understandable, as they are far different from any sort of racecar people would know today. It is an open-air vehicle where people have to wear goggles. It's far from F-1, NASCAR, or anything else. Unfortunately, Joe also has misogynistic views; he does not always treat his gal Lee (Ann Dvorak) well and he interferes in Eddie's budding relationship with Lee's pal Anne (Joan Blondell). “Overly protective” is the phrase to use here.
There aren't too many surprises in this film; I was able to look over the predictable nature of it all due to the fact that the cast was nice (Guy Kibbee also has a supporting role), it was a typical solid Warner Brothers production from the era, and the director was Howard Hawks. The fact that you get some very exciting race footage (filmed with actual drivers from the era) also helps quite a bit. The most memorable moment was rather ghoulish; someone gets into a wreck during a race. The car explodes and is a veritable fireball. As drivers go by the wreck, they plug their noses, and I don't think it's because of the strong gasoline smell or the stench of the car burning up... yeah, yikes. You can understand why this would haunt Joe Greer and have a negative impact on his career.
Anyway, this ended up being a fine watch-despite the story not being the most original-due to the people involved.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
The Sorrow And The Pity
The Sorrow and the Pity (Le Chagrin Et La Pitie) (1969)
Runtime: 251 minutes (that's right)
Directed by: Marcel Ophuls
Starring: This is a documentary
From: Several French TV stations
I have known of this for years, so I am glad I finally was able to see this last night, via TCM. The four hour length did not bother me. Read all about this great documentary below:
I've been busy with various things the past few days but things have calmed down now and I definitely could not turn down the rare opportunity to see this famous documentary; the main thing discussed is the collaboration between the French government and the Nazi government during World War II, which was denied at the time but after seeing this and hearing all those people interviewed, it's pretty conclusive.
That's not what the movie is all about, though. Many different people are interviewed, from French to German to Englishmen that tried to assist the Resistance, and many different viewpoints are presented as this is a complex topic. You see some enlist in the German army and help fight their fights, while others were part of the Resistance and others simply tried to keep the status quo despite the big change with their country. A lot of the action is focused on those who lived in and around the city of Clermont-Ferrand, in the middle of France. There, a wide variety are interviewed; rich, poor and everyone else... Communists, soldiers, regular folk, etc. Fear of Communism is a reason why some people performed the actions they did, and yet some in the Resistance had to fight alongside Communists. Sadly, Antisemitism is also part of the equation. Between that and talk of how the Nazi ideology could return in the future under that name or another name... sadly, such talk is still relevant today in late 2016.
This is an excellent documentary. Besides presenting a lot of information about the war and showing how things were back then (plenty of stock footage augments what the interviewees are saying), you get to understand why everyone acted the way they do... even the Waffen SS people. It is not only educational in understanding what the scene was in France during those dark days, you also get to learn some things about humanity in general as you follow these interesting people. If you are a history nerd, this is a must-see.
Runtime: 251 minutes (that's right)
Directed by: Marcel Ophuls
Starring: This is a documentary
From: Several French TV stations
I have known of this for years, so I am glad I finally was able to see this last night, via TCM. The four hour length did not bother me. Read all about this great documentary below:
I've been busy with various things the past few days but things have calmed down now and I definitely could not turn down the rare opportunity to see this famous documentary; the main thing discussed is the collaboration between the French government and the Nazi government during World War II, which was denied at the time but after seeing this and hearing all those people interviewed, it's pretty conclusive.
That's not what the movie is all about, though. Many different people are interviewed, from French to German to Englishmen that tried to assist the Resistance, and many different viewpoints are presented as this is a complex topic. You see some enlist in the German army and help fight their fights, while others were part of the Resistance and others simply tried to keep the status quo despite the big change with their country. A lot of the action is focused on those who lived in and around the city of Clermont-Ferrand, in the middle of France. There, a wide variety are interviewed; rich, poor and everyone else... Communists, soldiers, regular folk, etc. Fear of Communism is a reason why some people performed the actions they did, and yet some in the Resistance had to fight alongside Communists. Sadly, Antisemitism is also part of the equation. Between that and talk of how the Nazi ideology could return in the future under that name or another name... sadly, such talk is still relevant today in late 2016.
This is an excellent documentary. Besides presenting a lot of information about the war and showing how things were back then (plenty of stock footage augments what the interviewees are saying), you get to understand why everyone acted the way they do... even the Waffen SS people. It is not only educational in understanding what the scene was in France during those dark days, you also get to learn some things about humanity in general as you follow these interesting people. If you are a history nerd, this is a must-see.
Saturday, November 12, 2016
Alive
Alive (1993)
Runtime: 122 minutes
Directed by: Frank Marshall
Starring: Ethan Hawke, Vincent Spano, Josh Hamilton, Bruce Ramsay, John Newton
From: Touchstone/Paramount
This is a film I don't have too much to say about. At least this is fine and it is more than just “that one movie based on a true story where some people became cannibals, but only to survive”. I talk all about it below:
I saw this recently on Netflix Instant; it belongs in the category of “movies I hadn't seen in at least 20 years”. I mean, the only time was shortly after it came out on VHS, so it's been like 23 years. The only thing I remembered was the most infamous aspect of the movie, and one that got a lot of buzz at the time, which was how cannibalism became part of the plot. The true story aspect of how a Uruguayan rugby team crashed in the Andes Mountains and how some of them were able to survive for so long before being rescued is harrowing... but the fact that the survivors had to eat the dead bodies or else they'd die of starvation, that is why the story became so renowned.
I haven't seen the Mexican exploitation film Survive! It was also based on this true story but I understand it was more exploitative, which understandably made some people quite upset. The movie starts off on a pretty good note as the plane crash is still pretty horrifying, as is seeing the immediate aftermath with all those people killed or seriously hurt, and how the survivors had to deal with such a difficult situation. Indeed, different people reacted in different ways. You felt bad when various people died, then there was the horrifying decision to become cannibals in order to not die.
Unfortunately, the movie starts to run out of steam in the second half and it is not as strong as the first half. At least I can say it is fine overall. Of course, not everyone in the movie who was Hispanic (i.e. much of the cast) was actually played by a Hispanic person, but that's Hollywood for you. I know some noted that the cast did not look like they were nearly starved to death by the time that they were rescued... I am OK with them not being so realistic there. They did not need to be like Christian Bale in The Machinist, after all. "Chapped lips" is fine enough by my tastes. At least the film is more than just a shocking plot point.
Runtime: 122 minutes
Directed by: Frank Marshall
Starring: Ethan Hawke, Vincent Spano, Josh Hamilton, Bruce Ramsay, John Newton
From: Touchstone/Paramount
This is a film I don't have too much to say about. At least this is fine and it is more than just “that one movie based on a true story where some people became cannibals, but only to survive”. I talk all about it below:
I saw this recently on Netflix Instant; it belongs in the category of “movies I hadn't seen in at least 20 years”. I mean, the only time was shortly after it came out on VHS, so it's been like 23 years. The only thing I remembered was the most infamous aspect of the movie, and one that got a lot of buzz at the time, which was how cannibalism became part of the plot. The true story aspect of how a Uruguayan rugby team crashed in the Andes Mountains and how some of them were able to survive for so long before being rescued is harrowing... but the fact that the survivors had to eat the dead bodies or else they'd die of starvation, that is why the story became so renowned.
I haven't seen the Mexican exploitation film Survive! It was also based on this true story but I understand it was more exploitative, which understandably made some people quite upset. The movie starts off on a pretty good note as the plane crash is still pretty horrifying, as is seeing the immediate aftermath with all those people killed or seriously hurt, and how the survivors had to deal with such a difficult situation. Indeed, different people reacted in different ways. You felt bad when various people died, then there was the horrifying decision to become cannibals in order to not die.
Unfortunately, the movie starts to run out of steam in the second half and it is not as strong as the first half. At least I can say it is fine overall. Of course, not everyone in the movie who was Hispanic (i.e. much of the cast) was actually played by a Hispanic person, but that's Hollywood for you. I know some noted that the cast did not look like they were nearly starved to death by the time that they were rescued... I am OK with them not being so realistic there. They did not need to be like Christian Bale in The Machinist, after all. "Chapped lips" is fine enough by my tastes. At least the film is more than just a shocking plot point.
Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Oh, you should know all the details by now.
A few days ago I got a region free Blu set of all the Indiana Jones pictures. I saw Raiders again-which I reviewed here before-and it's still awesome. After that, I finally recently revisited this film. I hadn't seen it in a long while. I still think it's pretty good. I give the deets below:
This is another movie that I saw a decent amount of times in my youth, but the last time I saw it in full was way back in 2008; a screen in Orlando was showing it. While a beat-up original film print, in these days of digital, I can remember such things through the lens of nostalgia.
This is not as great as Raiders or The Last Crusade (which followed the general blueprint of Raiders) but I can still say that this prequel is pretty good. The wacky trio of Indy, annoying shrill lady singer Willie and young Chinese boy Short Round end up in rural India and end up trying to help a small village which was devastated by a Thuggee cult taking their children and a sacred stone.
I admit that it has its faults. Willie is an aggravating character; I know that being a carbon copy of Marion wouldn't have worked either, but I imagine that her demeanor had something to do with how both Spielberg and Lucas were going through divorces when they came up with this script. There aren't always flattering stereotypes of Indian people; aside from the whole “ripping the beating hearts out of someone, who somehow then stays alive” thing, why were they portrayed as people who ate really gross and bizarre things, such as monkey's brains? This has some weird humor that does not always work. Let's not even get into the whole “white savior” thing. Also, personally... as a kid, the stuff with all those bugs was a giant NOPE; admittedly, even as an adult now, it is still a giant NOPE.
All that said, it's still a pretty entertaining picture. It is a grand adventure which also visits Shanghai; the cast does a swell job and there are still great action setpieces, especially the mine cart chase, as improbable as it may be. Because of what I mentioned about the life problems of the screenwriters, this has a rather dark tone; as an adult I appreciate it more now than I did as a kid. Plus, while I imagine some could be annoyed by Short Round also, I never thought that way. Thus, that is why I say that this is still pretty good despite some valid complaints.
Oh, you should know all the details by now.
A few days ago I got a region free Blu set of all the Indiana Jones pictures. I saw Raiders again-which I reviewed here before-and it's still awesome. After that, I finally recently revisited this film. I hadn't seen it in a long while. I still think it's pretty good. I give the deets below:
This is another movie that I saw a decent amount of times in my youth, but the last time I saw it in full was way back in 2008; a screen in Orlando was showing it. While a beat-up original film print, in these days of digital, I can remember such things through the lens of nostalgia.
This is not as great as Raiders or The Last Crusade (which followed the general blueprint of Raiders) but I can still say that this prequel is pretty good. The wacky trio of Indy, annoying shrill lady singer Willie and young Chinese boy Short Round end up in rural India and end up trying to help a small village which was devastated by a Thuggee cult taking their children and a sacred stone.
I admit that it has its faults. Willie is an aggravating character; I know that being a carbon copy of Marion wouldn't have worked either, but I imagine that her demeanor had something to do with how both Spielberg and Lucas were going through divorces when they came up with this script. There aren't always flattering stereotypes of Indian people; aside from the whole “ripping the beating hearts out of someone, who somehow then stays alive” thing, why were they portrayed as people who ate really gross and bizarre things, such as monkey's brains? This has some weird humor that does not always work. Let's not even get into the whole “white savior” thing. Also, personally... as a kid, the stuff with all those bugs was a giant NOPE; admittedly, even as an adult now, it is still a giant NOPE.
All that said, it's still a pretty entertaining picture. It is a grand adventure which also visits Shanghai; the cast does a swell job and there are still great action setpieces, especially the mine cart chase, as improbable as it may be. Because of what I mentioned about the life problems of the screenwriters, this has a rather dark tone; as an adult I appreciate it more now than I did as a kid. Plus, while I imagine some could be annoyed by Short Round also, I never thought that way. Thus, that is why I say that this is still pretty good despite some valid complaints.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
Timecop
Timecop (1994)
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Peter Hyams
Starring: Jean-Claude Van Damme, Mia Sara, Ron Silver, Bruce McGill, Gloria Reuben
From: Largo Entertainment
What a day yesterday was... I'll leave it at that. Let me direct you to my review of this movie, which is below:
So yeah, yesterday's United States Presidential Election...
I won't get into my political views as that can only lead to trouble. I will just say for the people around the world who may possibly read this, it was an ugly election cycle and with this result, a lot of Americans are shocked and also petrified at what may happen with President Trump, a Republican-controlled legislature and a Republican-dominated Supreme Court. If Hillary won things probably would be heated the other way as you can argue about various controversies she's been a part of, but as things are now... like I said, many Americans are feeling scared at what potentially could happen. I hope the United States doesn't tear itself apart.
This is yet another movie I had watched before, but the last viewing was a long while ago (I think around 8 or so years) so when I saw that the El Rey Network was (appropriately) playing this on the night before the Presidential Election, I had to check it out. Now, I realize that plenty of people wish they had a time machine so they could go back and... well, do things to try and get a different result. Either that, or try and figure out where the Butterfly Effect happened that allowed it to happen.
The plot: in 1994, time travel is invented, and a committee (the Time Enforcement Commission, or TEC for short) is established to try and control it and prevent catastrophe from happening. Jean-Claude Van Damme is Max Walker. In '94 he is a cop, but after his wife is killed by mysterious figures. In 2004, Walker (w/ an amazing head of hair) is now part of the TEC. Turns out, there's an evil senator (imagine that) who is trying to change time in order to get enough money to participate in a Presidential Campaign-sad to say, someone actually does need a lot of dough to even try and make a run at the White House-and it's up to Van Damme to stop him.
It's a time travel movie so you don't want to think too hard about it, lest you get a headache. At least the rules here are simple enough to understand and are in general what you expect from the genre. It is important to know that multiple versions of yourself can't touch, or else it creates something quite gruesome. Van Damme is his usual self meaning that his performance was acceptable and his martial arts was entertaining to watch, with the highlight being the splits he did in the kitchen. It helps that there are more established actors who round out the main cast, such as Mia Sara, Bruce McGill, and the true highlight as the evil senator McComb, Ron Silver. He was great at being an awful human being. It also does help that this is directed by a veteran in Peter Hyams.
As I've seen others mention in the past, it is interesting how there are several films where JCVD plays twins and in this movie, you get to see both '94 and '04 Van Damme at the same time. It's an interesting trope. Anyway, if you want to see a random JCVD movie, you might as well check this out as it's one of the better ones.
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Peter Hyams
Starring: Jean-Claude Van Damme, Mia Sara, Ron Silver, Bruce McGill, Gloria Reuben
From: Largo Entertainment
What a day yesterday was... I'll leave it at that. Let me direct you to my review of this movie, which is below:
So yeah, yesterday's United States Presidential Election...
I won't get into my political views as that can only lead to trouble. I will just say for the people around the world who may possibly read this, it was an ugly election cycle and with this result, a lot of Americans are shocked and also petrified at what may happen with President Trump, a Republican-controlled legislature and a Republican-dominated Supreme Court. If Hillary won things probably would be heated the other way as you can argue about various controversies she's been a part of, but as things are now... like I said, many Americans are feeling scared at what potentially could happen. I hope the United States doesn't tear itself apart.
This is yet another movie I had watched before, but the last viewing was a long while ago (I think around 8 or so years) so when I saw that the El Rey Network was (appropriately) playing this on the night before the Presidential Election, I had to check it out. Now, I realize that plenty of people wish they had a time machine so they could go back and... well, do things to try and get a different result. Either that, or try and figure out where the Butterfly Effect happened that allowed it to happen.
The plot: in 1994, time travel is invented, and a committee (the Time Enforcement Commission, or TEC for short) is established to try and control it and prevent catastrophe from happening. Jean-Claude Van Damme is Max Walker. In '94 he is a cop, but after his wife is killed by mysterious figures. In 2004, Walker (w/ an amazing head of hair) is now part of the TEC. Turns out, there's an evil senator (imagine that) who is trying to change time in order to get enough money to participate in a Presidential Campaign-sad to say, someone actually does need a lot of dough to even try and make a run at the White House-and it's up to Van Damme to stop him.
It's a time travel movie so you don't want to think too hard about it, lest you get a headache. At least the rules here are simple enough to understand and are in general what you expect from the genre. It is important to know that multiple versions of yourself can't touch, or else it creates something quite gruesome. Van Damme is his usual self meaning that his performance was acceptable and his martial arts was entertaining to watch, with the highlight being the splits he did in the kitchen. It helps that there are more established actors who round out the main cast, such as Mia Sara, Bruce McGill, and the true highlight as the evil senator McComb, Ron Silver. He was great at being an awful human being. It also does help that this is directed by a veteran in Peter Hyams.
As I've seen others mention in the past, it is interesting how there are several films where JCVD plays twins and in this movie, you get to see both '94 and '04 Van Damme at the same time. It's an interesting trope. Anyway, if you want to see a random JCVD movie, you might as well check this out as it's one of the better ones.
Anita: Swedish Nymphet
Anita: Swedish Nymphet (1973)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Torgny Wickman
Starring: Christina Lindberg, Stellan Skarsgard, Daniele Vlaminck, Michel David, Erika Wickman
From: Alpha France/Swedish Film Production (SFP)
So, about that election... but let's not talk politics here, as that can only lead to trouble. Instead, let me mention that I was inspired to watch this softcore film from Sweden not just because I find the lead to be rather attractive, but also because she was brought up on a messageboard I frequent a few days ago. It was better than I expected. Read all about it below:
It was a messageboard conversation that inspired me to see another Christina Lindberg movie... then again, you don't need to twist my arm too hard to see one of her movies. This one happens to have an English subtitled print on Amazon Instant so it is quite easy to track down. To give some sort of idea on what this movie is about, let me list some of its alternate titles:
Anita: Swedish Nymphet (as it's known on IMDb)
Anita: The Shocking Account of a Young Nymphomaniac (its DVD title)
Anita: The True Story of a 17 Year Old Nymphomaniac (the translated title given on the print I watched)
Yep, she plays a nymphomaniac who sleeps around with guys (and sometimes with girls) and her parents not only do not understand, they treat her awfully and make her feel stupid; you do have sympathy for poor Anita and wish she could be cured. A young college student accidentally runs into her (literally) and they become pals. He resists her advances, realizes what her problem is, and reasons that she needs an orgasm to cure her affliction... really. I am not sure if that's a legit cure for the problem, but let's go with it. As she wants nothing to do with the people she makes it with, this young student Erik just can't try the obvious and attempt the cure himself.
To me it's hilarious who Erik is played by; it is someone who became much more famous later and is still someone we all know: STELLAN SKARSGARD. Yes, he went on from this softcore picture to appear in Disney and Marvel movies. I've never seen the movie Nymphomaniac, but everything I know, it definitely seems to be inspired by Anita, as much as von Trier apparently tries to deny it. Stellan even plays almost a carbon copy of the character in the 2013 movie, so you can decide on your own how valid his denials really are. I am also amused that a respected director like him took inspiration from a Christina Lindberg movie where you see and hear a trumpet player walk into a room she's in and from sound only, you know that he just started receiving “oral gratification”.
It's about what you expect but it is watchable. While there's plenty of titillation, the story was interesting to me and as I understand, another similarity with the von Trier movie is that both are told in a non-linear fashion. I was entertained even without the T&A and over the top moments. While not wild and a cult classic like Thriller: A Cruel Picture, I still thought it was fine, w/ both leads putting in respectable performances. Also, it's more of a drama-which examines the ramifications of the affliction on a young lady who had no idea why she was so sex crazed-than a comedy, although there's both intentional and unintentional humor.
If you enjoy seeing the lead-both dressed and undressed-or want to be amused at what a famous actor did early in his career, like I said it's on Amazon where it can be rented for only a few bucks.
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Torgny Wickman
Starring: Christina Lindberg, Stellan Skarsgard, Daniele Vlaminck, Michel David, Erika Wickman
From: Alpha France/Swedish Film Production (SFP)
So, about that election... but let's not talk politics here, as that can only lead to trouble. Instead, let me mention that I was inspired to watch this softcore film from Sweden not just because I find the lead to be rather attractive, but also because she was brought up on a messageboard I frequent a few days ago. It was better than I expected. Read all about it below:
It was a messageboard conversation that inspired me to see another Christina Lindberg movie... then again, you don't need to twist my arm too hard to see one of her movies. This one happens to have an English subtitled print on Amazon Instant so it is quite easy to track down. To give some sort of idea on what this movie is about, let me list some of its alternate titles:
Anita: Swedish Nymphet (as it's known on IMDb)
Anita: The Shocking Account of a Young Nymphomaniac (its DVD title)
Anita: The True Story of a 17 Year Old Nymphomaniac (the translated title given on the print I watched)
Yep, she plays a nymphomaniac who sleeps around with guys (and sometimes with girls) and her parents not only do not understand, they treat her awfully and make her feel stupid; you do have sympathy for poor Anita and wish she could be cured. A young college student accidentally runs into her (literally) and they become pals. He resists her advances, realizes what her problem is, and reasons that she needs an orgasm to cure her affliction... really. I am not sure if that's a legit cure for the problem, but let's go with it. As she wants nothing to do with the people she makes it with, this young student Erik just can't try the obvious and attempt the cure himself.
To me it's hilarious who Erik is played by; it is someone who became much more famous later and is still someone we all know: STELLAN SKARSGARD. Yes, he went on from this softcore picture to appear in Disney and Marvel movies. I've never seen the movie Nymphomaniac, but everything I know, it definitely seems to be inspired by Anita, as much as von Trier apparently tries to deny it. Stellan even plays almost a carbon copy of the character in the 2013 movie, so you can decide on your own how valid his denials really are. I am also amused that a respected director like him took inspiration from a Christina Lindberg movie where you see and hear a trumpet player walk into a room she's in and from sound only, you know that he just started receiving “oral gratification”.
It's about what you expect but it is watchable. While there's plenty of titillation, the story was interesting to me and as I understand, another similarity with the von Trier movie is that both are told in a non-linear fashion. I was entertained even without the T&A and over the top moments. While not wild and a cult classic like Thriller: A Cruel Picture, I still thought it was fine, w/ both leads putting in respectable performances. Also, it's more of a drama-which examines the ramifications of the affliction on a young lady who had no idea why she was so sex crazed-than a comedy, although there's both intentional and unintentional humor.
If you enjoy seeing the lead-both dressed and undressed-or want to be amused at what a famous actor did early in his career, like I said it's on Amazon where it can be rented for only a few bucks.
Monday, November 7, 2016
Son In Law
Son in Law (1993)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Steve Rash
Starring: Pauly Shore, Carla Gugino, Lane Smith, Cindy Pickett, Mason Adams
From: Hollywood Pictures
Yep, this is something I watched as a kid. I hadn't seen it in many years. Netflix Instant fixed that problem last night. Thankfully it wasn't as bad as I feared. Peep all the details below... dude:
This is yet another one of those films in the category of “things I haven't watched in at least 20 years”; yeah, when I was a kid I did see this film, more than once. While my tastes are different now than they were back then, I can say that this is at least fine.
Pauly Shore is definitely best in small doses-if you even want to see anything by him-but this may be him at his most tolerable. Sure, he's a weirdo who speaks surfer lingo but for the most part his character is a nice guy. It's a standard fish out of water tale where we first see farmer's daughter Rebecca (the always lovely and talented Carla Gugino) leave her small South Dakota town to attend a Southern California university and there's a natural culture clash, until a guy known as Crawl (who else but Shore could play a character with such a name?) helps her out and gets her acclimated to her surroundings. For Thanksgiving he has nowhere to go so she takes him and general wackiness happens, and of course things go sour with the boyfriend she left behind in South Dakota.
While this is full of cliches and does not have a surplus of surprises, I have to say that it made me laugh often enough where I can give it a fair grade. There are also some basic lessons that are learned which are nice for the audience, as both parties learn from one another; it also shows that farming is not an easy job and those fine bucolic folk deserve a tip of my cap. It helps that you have fine actors in the film, from Gugino and Lane Smith to Mason Adams and Cindy Pickett. I was also pretty amused by Patrick Renna as the stereotypical “smartass little brother”. I was also amused thinking that in several ways, Smith as the patriarch of the family reminded me of my own dad; we didn't grow up on the farm but my parents were on the conservative side, would have been horrified too at the sites they saw in California and they definitely would not have liked Crawl either, at least at first.
It is pretty silly and goofy, admittedly. While nostalgia may be part of it, I do think that is is an acceptable watch and may not be as painful as some thing it would be given the star (who was a real product of his time during the height of his popularity) and the premise.
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Steve Rash
Starring: Pauly Shore, Carla Gugino, Lane Smith, Cindy Pickett, Mason Adams
From: Hollywood Pictures
Yep, this is something I watched as a kid. I hadn't seen it in many years. Netflix Instant fixed that problem last night. Thankfully it wasn't as bad as I feared. Peep all the details below... dude:
This is yet another one of those films in the category of “things I haven't watched in at least 20 years”; yeah, when I was a kid I did see this film, more than once. While my tastes are different now than they were back then, I can say that this is at least fine.
Pauly Shore is definitely best in small doses-if you even want to see anything by him-but this may be him at his most tolerable. Sure, he's a weirdo who speaks surfer lingo but for the most part his character is a nice guy. It's a standard fish out of water tale where we first see farmer's daughter Rebecca (the always lovely and talented Carla Gugino) leave her small South Dakota town to attend a Southern California university and there's a natural culture clash, until a guy known as Crawl (who else but Shore could play a character with such a name?) helps her out and gets her acclimated to her surroundings. For Thanksgiving he has nowhere to go so she takes him and general wackiness happens, and of course things go sour with the boyfriend she left behind in South Dakota.
While this is full of cliches and does not have a surplus of surprises, I have to say that it made me laugh often enough where I can give it a fair grade. There are also some basic lessons that are learned which are nice for the audience, as both parties learn from one another; it also shows that farming is not an easy job and those fine bucolic folk deserve a tip of my cap. It helps that you have fine actors in the film, from Gugino and Lane Smith to Mason Adams and Cindy Pickett. I was also pretty amused by Patrick Renna as the stereotypical “smartass little brother”. I was also amused thinking that in several ways, Smith as the patriarch of the family reminded me of my own dad; we didn't grow up on the farm but my parents were on the conservative side, would have been horrified too at the sites they saw in California and they definitely would not have liked Crawl either, at least at first.
It is pretty silly and goofy, admittedly. While nostalgia may be part of it, I do think that is is an acceptable watch and may not be as painful as some thing it would be given the star (who was a real product of his time during the height of his popularity) and the premise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)