Dr. No (1962)
Runtime: 110 minutes
Directed by: Terence Young
Starring: Sean Connery, Ursula Andress, Joseph Wiseman, Jack Lord, Bernard Lee
From: Eon/United Artists
I know, in an ideal world I’d have a war movie to talk about on Memorial Day, as it makes perfect sense. But due to various reasons that will not be happening. Instead, I will at least talk about a positive movie where you get to see a hero do great things in order to serve and protect his country. In this case that man is Bond… James Bond. It’s better that I talk about this film rather than post a review for a downbeat negative film (I have two of those in the can already; I’ll post them sometime in June).
This is the first movie in the official canon for James Bond films, which there are 22 in all. Technically, Bond the character made his debut in the acting field with a televised play version of Casino Royale where the plot’s so different Bond is “American Jimmy Bond” and the actor who plays him looks just like Pat Sajak! Yes, I’m being serious here. I’ll be ignoring that, though… I don’t know how long it’ll take, but I plan on watching all of the Bond movies in order from here until the latest one, Quantum of Solace, something that I’d rather not watch again after I saw it on the big screen and I got pissed off at how much of a poorly filmed waste of time it was, but I’ll do it anyway. Now, onto this very first Bond movie, from way back in 1962:
This debut in the franchise isn’t as extravagant as the others in the series, but it doesn’t mean it’s no good. It just happened to be the first in the series and no one had any idea it’d be as successful as it was (despite the fact that it was based on a wildly popular series of books by Ian Fleming, which I’ve never read before) so the budget wasn’t that high. It still was a quality film, though, and it still looks nice in this year of 2010.
After some groovy early 60’s credits where you hear the Bond theme and then calypso music, including a cover of the old nursery rhyme Three Blind Mice (which plays into the plot; it wasn’t until the next movie where you got the famed opening credits song), you’re set off to Jamaica where intrigue happens and people get killed, including a British spy. MI6 sends Bond over to Jamaica to see what’s going on. It turns out that MI6 and the CIA are working together on a case where they try to figure out who is jamming signals related to the launch of rockets by NASA from Cape Canaveral. Not to spoil anything, but it leads to the discovery of the title villain (played by Wiseman, who remarkably looks like Dave Meltzer!) and why he’s doing what he’s doing. Hint, it involves the introduction of the rival organization that Bond had to deal with most of the 60’s, known as SPECTRE. Along the way, Bond deals with much intrigue and suspense, including attempts to end his life, and several times, things are not what they seem.
Once I get to finishing all of the Bond movies done by one particular actor, I will rank them from best to worst. I’ll say that while this is not as great as Goldfinger or From Russia With Love, it’s still well worth seeing. It’s where many Bond trademarks are established, you have the famous scene of Andress in a bikini emerging from the water onto the beach, you have fun action stuff and spy intrigue, and even a nice war of words between Bond and No. So, if you’re a Bond fan and you haven’t seen this… well, you should watch all of the movies in the series, including the bad ones (as hey, they’ll make you appreciate the rest of the series and how they mainly got it right) and you won’t regret seeing the very first movie starring 007. It’s mainly set in Jamaica-with the local calypso music and the surrounding islands (a lot of the indoor stuff was filmed in England, though) and while it’s not an epic globe-trotting adventure, there’s still a lot to like.
I'll be back by this time next week with at least one new review.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
[Rec]
[Rec] (2007)
90% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 21 reviews)
Runtime: 78 minutes
Directed by: Jaume Balaguero/Paco Plaza
Starring: Manuela Velasco, Ferran Terraza, Jorge-Yamam Serrano, Pablo Rosso
From: Filmax
For some reviews the next few months, I hope to review a few different horror films from foreign countries. It’s been a hot place for that genre of films for awhile, whether it be those ghost movies from Japan/Far East Asia (although that trend that died down even in that region, let alone it being used for a few movies here, and besides The Ring and The Grudge being a minor success, it didn’t do too much), Argento/Fulci movies from Italy, British faire, or even some recent films from France, of all places. I reviewed a great drama from Sweden with horror elements, known as Let The Right One In.
Here, though, this movie is from Spain. The only Spanish movies I know are the horror ones, so yes, it’s Paul Naschy and films like The Orphanage and The Devil’s Backbone, although I haven’t seen any of those movies yet.
However, you may be familiar with this, even if you don’t know it. If you have seen the late 2008 horror film Quarantine, then that film is a remake of this, and from what I remember of Quarantine (I saw it once on the big screen; it was at a drive-in in Tampa, believe it or not) it was almost identical, except for some minor stuff… and one major plot point, which of course I won’t spoil here. Interestingly enough, not only is there a [Rec 2] that was released on the big screen over in Europe late last year (with at least two sequels to come after that), but there is a Quarantine 2 that will start filming soon.
Anyhow, if you’re not familiar with the movie Quarantine, I’ll tell you the plot of [Rec]. It’s a “found footage” movie (you know, it started with The Blair Witch Project. A person films something and later on, someone else finds the footage and views what happened) where a reporter, Angela Vidal (Velasco), and her cameraman pal Pablo (Rosso) are filming a segment for a local TV show in Barcelona. It’s at a fire station and they show what firemen typically do during an average night. After seeing them do some standard stuff at the firehouse, though, things heat up as they are called out to an apartment building as there was a call of a woman in an apartment who screamed bloody murder about something, and the other residents there can’t get the door to her apartment open. What sounds routine soon proves to be something extraordinary, as the residents of the apartment, Angela, Pablo, two firemen, and a cop all get locked in the building and they are unable to leave, even after some serious injuries happen. That’s when the fit hits the shan, so to speak, and that’s when the pace becomes very quick and you have a lot of stuff happening, some of it absolutely terrifying, and other stuff being some horrific images.
Like I said, I haven’t seen Quarantine in more than a year and a half but I do remember that and this being very similar in many ways, although there’s one big difference and some minor ones. One notable thing (and I remember hearing this at the time Quarantine came out) was that its final 5 or 10 minutes paled in comparison to the ending of [Rec], and I discovered that was exactly the case. Of course I won’t spoil anything, but some of the content was stuff that I’ll never forget.
Overall, this is a short yet effective horror film that is especially unnerving due to the “real” feel it has. I mean, you get to see brief snippets of Angela talking to the residents of the building, so you get to learn about them, and when what happens in the building happens… it’s pretty intense stuff.
Now, eventually I’ll have to watch Quarantine again, but at the time I thought that it was fine-enough. It wasn’t bad by any means, but it was just there. It wasn’t a bad try at all (Lord knows, there’s been some American remakes of foreign horror films that I hear are absolutely atrocious)… it’s just that the original was better, as is almost always the case. At least the remake allowed for the original to be released on DVD in the United States, and I’m glad I was able to see it finally. It’s a pretty great horror film and if you are a fan of the genre and are looking for something new and/or you haven’t been enthralled by the big budget horror movies of the past few years, you really need to check out this well-acted and simple yet effective movie.
Still check back here by Monday night, where I'll post at least one new review.
90% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 21 reviews)
Runtime: 78 minutes
Directed by: Jaume Balaguero/Paco Plaza
Starring: Manuela Velasco, Ferran Terraza, Jorge-Yamam Serrano, Pablo Rosso
From: Filmax
For some reviews the next few months, I hope to review a few different horror films from foreign countries. It’s been a hot place for that genre of films for awhile, whether it be those ghost movies from Japan/Far East Asia (although that trend that died down even in that region, let alone it being used for a few movies here, and besides The Ring and The Grudge being a minor success, it didn’t do too much), Argento/Fulci movies from Italy, British faire, or even some recent films from France, of all places. I reviewed a great drama from Sweden with horror elements, known as Let The Right One In.
Here, though, this movie is from Spain. The only Spanish movies I know are the horror ones, so yes, it’s Paul Naschy and films like The Orphanage and The Devil’s Backbone, although I haven’t seen any of those movies yet.
However, you may be familiar with this, even if you don’t know it. If you have seen the late 2008 horror film Quarantine, then that film is a remake of this, and from what I remember of Quarantine (I saw it once on the big screen; it was at a drive-in in Tampa, believe it or not) it was almost identical, except for some minor stuff… and one major plot point, which of course I won’t spoil here. Interestingly enough, not only is there a [Rec 2] that was released on the big screen over in Europe late last year (with at least two sequels to come after that), but there is a Quarantine 2 that will start filming soon.
Anyhow, if you’re not familiar with the movie Quarantine, I’ll tell you the plot of [Rec]. It’s a “found footage” movie (you know, it started with The Blair Witch Project. A person films something and later on, someone else finds the footage and views what happened) where a reporter, Angela Vidal (Velasco), and her cameraman pal Pablo (Rosso) are filming a segment for a local TV show in Barcelona. It’s at a fire station and they show what firemen typically do during an average night. After seeing them do some standard stuff at the firehouse, though, things heat up as they are called out to an apartment building as there was a call of a woman in an apartment who screamed bloody murder about something, and the other residents there can’t get the door to her apartment open. What sounds routine soon proves to be something extraordinary, as the residents of the apartment, Angela, Pablo, two firemen, and a cop all get locked in the building and they are unable to leave, even after some serious injuries happen. That’s when the fit hits the shan, so to speak, and that’s when the pace becomes very quick and you have a lot of stuff happening, some of it absolutely terrifying, and other stuff being some horrific images.
Like I said, I haven’t seen Quarantine in more than a year and a half but I do remember that and this being very similar in many ways, although there’s one big difference and some minor ones. One notable thing (and I remember hearing this at the time Quarantine came out) was that its final 5 or 10 minutes paled in comparison to the ending of [Rec], and I discovered that was exactly the case. Of course I won’t spoil anything, but some of the content was stuff that I’ll never forget.
Overall, this is a short yet effective horror film that is especially unnerving due to the “real” feel it has. I mean, you get to see brief snippets of Angela talking to the residents of the building, so you get to learn about them, and when what happens in the building happens… it’s pretty intense stuff.
Now, eventually I’ll have to watch Quarantine again, but at the time I thought that it was fine-enough. It wasn’t bad by any means, but it was just there. It wasn’t a bad try at all (Lord knows, there’s been some American remakes of foreign horror films that I hear are absolutely atrocious)… it’s just that the original was better, as is almost always the case. At least the remake allowed for the original to be released on DVD in the United States, and I’m glad I was able to see it finally. It’s a pretty great horror film and if you are a fan of the genre and are looking for something new and/or you haven’t been enthralled by the big budget horror movies of the past few years, you really need to check out this well-acted and simple yet effective movie.
Still check back here by Monday night, where I'll post at least one new review.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Total Recall
Total Recall (1990)
Runtime: 113 minutes
Directed by: Paul Verhoeven
Starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sharon Stone, Ronny Cox, Michael Ironside, Rachel Ticotin
From: Carolco/Tristar
I know, this is up later than I had planned. But, I was out and about Monday afternoon and decided to visit the local Blockbuster. I decided to rent the Avatar Blu-Ray, as not only had I heard that the picture/sound were great, but I saw it myself when I was at a Best Buy recently (on a fancy LED TV, too) and I was astounded by the picture/sound. So, I brought it home for the night and watched it on the big screen. Even though the Blu-Ray player was a cheap one from Wal-Mart, it did its job, as it always has done for any DVD/Blu-Ray disc. I ended up seeing it with my dad, and he enjoyed it more than I thought he would; he can be a tough critic… maybe that’s where I get it from…
Anyhow, he asked an all-time great question when he first saw star Sam Worthington, bathed in blue and in extreme close-up. He asked if he was Jean-Claude Van Damme! I swear, it’s true. Could you even being to imagine JCVD being the lead in THAT movie? That’s mind-blowing.
By the way, I finally created an Excel list of all the movies that I’ve reviewed on this site, which is pretty handy. This happens to be the 69th movie I will review here.
This movie I first saw at a pal’s place at NIU during my college days. I had a car at the time at ISU in Normal and I drove up to DeKalb for the night. It was an apartment party and it was the morning after. I didn’t feel the best but I still saw the first part of the movie, and I enjoyed it but I wasn’t able to see it all. That came a little later back in Normal when I rented it for the day.
This science-fiction tale is certainly not your typical run of the mill yarn. A typical run of the mill guy, Douglas Quaid (Arnold; well, a typical guy except for his incredibly large muscular physique) with an attractive wife (Stone) starts having dreams about going to Mars as he lives on a futuristic Earth, where not only is it possible to go to Mars, but colonies of people live there. His wife doesn’t want him to go there, but Quaid gets around it by finding out about a place called Rekall, where you get “false memories” implanted in your brain where you are convinced that you went somewhere but you actually didn’t. He has a specific trip in mind on Mars (it’s customizable) and right before the trip happens, Douglas freaks out and he is medicated and sent home. Suddenly, things go to hell and his wife is actually a spy who tries to kill him, and then people come out of the woodwork to try and kill him, and it turns out that he’s actually a spy on Mars named Hauser who had his memory wiped out and sent to Earth; he was working for the main corporation on the red planet, run by Cox and employing henchmen like Ironside. Hauser ended up working for the resistance on Mars; it’s people who wish for more rights and privileges on the planet and respect an unseen figure called Kuato (wait until you see what Kuato looks like; what a bizarre idea it was for the character to turn out like he did). With clues that Hauser himself provided via video before he “vanished”, Quaid/Hauser gets caught up on things and he has adventures on Mars. Now, is that what really happened, or…
This movie, which more than held up at the time I saw it back in like 2003, still holds up today. It’s not filled with fancy computer graphics but the sets and miniature models are great for the time and they flat-out work. The biggest hook for the movie and what makes it stand out is the theme of what is real vs. what is imagined. Is what I typed up above what really happened, or was it that Quaid’s Hauser adventures are the memories that he was given by Rekall, but an accident made things haywire? Or, is it another interpretation? As you see the movie, there are a number of different possibilities as for what exactly is real and what is just a memory, and the film never explains which interpretation is correct. No matter how you view the movie (your viewpoint can differ from each different viewing of it), it’s great fun and considering director Verhoeven (who did Robocop, after all), the action is as bloody and violent as you might expect. This is one of Arnold’s best and it’s not “another dumb action film” in the very least. If you haven’t seen it, you should, although note that both the DVD version and the Blu-Ray versions have crappy pictures, sad to say. You’ll still love the film but the image itself will be rather poor. At least the DVD (the version that was put out with some nice special features, at least) is better than the Blu-Ray in that it barely has any special features to speak of; why the DVD special features weren’t ported over I have no comprehension, but sad to say that is more common and happens with many different studios than you’d think.
Also unfortunate are the rumors (going on for the past few years now) that this is going to be remade. Why? It wasn't even 20 years old when the rumors first started! There's no way to improve the movie; it's perfect as it is and adding fancy CGI effects (which may end up looking hokey and fake compared to the original film) doesn't justify the remake route. Sigh...
I’ll be back Memorial Day with at least one new review.
Runtime: 113 minutes
Directed by: Paul Verhoeven
Starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sharon Stone, Ronny Cox, Michael Ironside, Rachel Ticotin
From: Carolco/Tristar
I know, this is up later than I had planned. But, I was out and about Monday afternoon and decided to visit the local Blockbuster. I decided to rent the Avatar Blu-Ray, as not only had I heard that the picture/sound were great, but I saw it myself when I was at a Best Buy recently (on a fancy LED TV, too) and I was astounded by the picture/sound. So, I brought it home for the night and watched it on the big screen. Even though the Blu-Ray player was a cheap one from Wal-Mart, it did its job, as it always has done for any DVD/Blu-Ray disc. I ended up seeing it with my dad, and he enjoyed it more than I thought he would; he can be a tough critic… maybe that’s where I get it from…
Anyhow, he asked an all-time great question when he first saw star Sam Worthington, bathed in blue and in extreme close-up. He asked if he was Jean-Claude Van Damme! I swear, it’s true. Could you even being to imagine JCVD being the lead in THAT movie? That’s mind-blowing.
By the way, I finally created an Excel list of all the movies that I’ve reviewed on this site, which is pretty handy. This happens to be the 69th movie I will review here.
This movie I first saw at a pal’s place at NIU during my college days. I had a car at the time at ISU in Normal and I drove up to DeKalb for the night. It was an apartment party and it was the morning after. I didn’t feel the best but I still saw the first part of the movie, and I enjoyed it but I wasn’t able to see it all. That came a little later back in Normal when I rented it for the day.
This science-fiction tale is certainly not your typical run of the mill yarn. A typical run of the mill guy, Douglas Quaid (Arnold; well, a typical guy except for his incredibly large muscular physique) with an attractive wife (Stone) starts having dreams about going to Mars as he lives on a futuristic Earth, where not only is it possible to go to Mars, but colonies of people live there. His wife doesn’t want him to go there, but Quaid gets around it by finding out about a place called Rekall, where you get “false memories” implanted in your brain where you are convinced that you went somewhere but you actually didn’t. He has a specific trip in mind on Mars (it’s customizable) and right before the trip happens, Douglas freaks out and he is medicated and sent home. Suddenly, things go to hell and his wife is actually a spy who tries to kill him, and then people come out of the woodwork to try and kill him, and it turns out that he’s actually a spy on Mars named Hauser who had his memory wiped out and sent to Earth; he was working for the main corporation on the red planet, run by Cox and employing henchmen like Ironside. Hauser ended up working for the resistance on Mars; it’s people who wish for more rights and privileges on the planet and respect an unseen figure called Kuato (wait until you see what Kuato looks like; what a bizarre idea it was for the character to turn out like he did). With clues that Hauser himself provided via video before he “vanished”, Quaid/Hauser gets caught up on things and he has adventures on Mars. Now, is that what really happened, or…
This movie, which more than held up at the time I saw it back in like 2003, still holds up today. It’s not filled with fancy computer graphics but the sets and miniature models are great for the time and they flat-out work. The biggest hook for the movie and what makes it stand out is the theme of what is real vs. what is imagined. Is what I typed up above what really happened, or was it that Quaid’s Hauser adventures are the memories that he was given by Rekall, but an accident made things haywire? Or, is it another interpretation? As you see the movie, there are a number of different possibilities as for what exactly is real and what is just a memory, and the film never explains which interpretation is correct. No matter how you view the movie (your viewpoint can differ from each different viewing of it), it’s great fun and considering director Verhoeven (who did Robocop, after all), the action is as bloody and violent as you might expect. This is one of Arnold’s best and it’s not “another dumb action film” in the very least. If you haven’t seen it, you should, although note that both the DVD version and the Blu-Ray versions have crappy pictures, sad to say. You’ll still love the film but the image itself will be rather poor. At least the DVD (the version that was put out with some nice special features, at least) is better than the Blu-Ray in that it barely has any special features to speak of; why the DVD special features weren’t ported over I have no comprehension, but sad to say that is more common and happens with many different studios than you’d think.
Also unfortunate are the rumors (going on for the past few years now) that this is going to be remade. Why? It wasn't even 20 years old when the rumors first started! There's no way to improve the movie; it's perfect as it is and adding fancy CGI effects (which may end up looking hokey and fake compared to the original film) doesn't justify the remake route. Sigh...
I’ll be back Memorial Day with at least one new review.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
The Descent
The Descent (2005)
84% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 164 reviews)
Runtime: 100 minutes
Directed by: Neil Marshall
Starring: Shauna Macdonald, Natalie Mendoza, Alex Reid, Saskia Mulder, MyAnna Buring
From: Celador Films
Back in December I reviewed Doomsday from Neil Marshall, which is a goofy yet fun movie that is styled like a film from the good old 80’s. This film from Scotland was where director Marshall got a lot of attention. Now, I saw it back a few years ago, and I was less than impressed with it, to be honest. I thought the opening was pretty crap and I couldn’t get past that. But, I decided to give it another chance, this time on Blu-Ray via a Blockbuster rental.
While some parts of the opening few minutes I didn’t really care for, overall I enjoyed it much more this time around, and I wonder if it was just the wrong day for me to watch the movie the first time around or what, as I’m not sure how I developed a somewhat negative view on it initially.
This 2005 movie-released in the US in 2006-is about a group of ladies, both British and American (how they all know each other is unclear, but forget about that, along with much of the opening few minutes; that’s just me, though) who are thrill-seekers. First, we see them white-water rafting in Scotland. After that, a traumatic event happens to one of the characters. A year later, they all meet up again, this time in the Appalachian area of the United States, in the fictitious Chatooga National Park*. They go exploring a cave, and it’s not exactly like Mammoth Cave or one of those commercial places. Rather, it’s hardcore caving, where you crawl through small passages and it’s a lot of work. You at first see glimpses of something, but then you realize that yes, someone… or is it something… else is down there with the ladies… something happens down there and that’s when the shit hits the fan.
• Although there IS a Chatooga River that’s in the area. It’s where Deliverance was filmed, actually, and that movie was a clear influence on this one. Deliverance is more than just strange-looking people playing the banjo and “Squeal like a pig!” and possibly the most terrifying villains in motion picture history. Believe it or not, my dad and some of his friends actually went rafting on that river back in the 90’s. No, they did not meet any hillbillies or have to squeal like a pig.
The movie isn’t scares per minute; rather, it takes it time to allow you to get to know the ladies and see how they interact with one another. Like I said, though, at times you see glimpses of something and you wonder what it was or even if you saw it, which is always freaky. Also, all of the ladies are nicely written and there’s not a case where you end up hating a character, not because it was written that way but rather because poor writing created a character that’s just aggravating and you can’t wait to see them die a horrible death. To me that’s a problem that happens way too often but thankfully it’s avoided here. Anyhow, when the shit hits the fan, it doesn’t let up (it’s a very fun ride from that point to the very end) and what’s down there is quite the foe, and if something like that could be possible, it’s not that far-fetched if you know about organisms living in caves. The setting adds claustrophobia and hopelessness, and what ends up happening causes problems with the ladies and some surprising things end up happening because of that.
If you enjoy slow-build horror movies that happen to have a good amount of gore to it, then this is something that you need to see. I am very glad I gave it a second chance as I appreciated it much more this time around.
By the way, I’ve never seen the similar film known as The Cave, but I’ve heard mainly bad things about it. Speaking of that, the movie actually has a sequel that came out recently to DVD. Talk about a total cash-in, as whether or not you like or have seen “The American Ending” or “The Original Ending” (basically, the American one stops at a point and doesn’t show the very last scene), it is totally not needed for the characters in the story and it doesn’t make much sense either. The villains in the first movie look different from the second movie, which doesn’t make much sense as it’s supposed to be in the same cave! I’ve heard some VERY heated critiques of it, and from reading the basic plot on Wikipedia, I doubt I’ll ever see the movie, as there’s no need to.
I'll still be back on Monday night with a new review.
84% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 164 reviews)
Runtime: 100 minutes
Directed by: Neil Marshall
Starring: Shauna Macdonald, Natalie Mendoza, Alex Reid, Saskia Mulder, MyAnna Buring
From: Celador Films
Back in December I reviewed Doomsday from Neil Marshall, which is a goofy yet fun movie that is styled like a film from the good old 80’s. This film from Scotland was where director Marshall got a lot of attention. Now, I saw it back a few years ago, and I was less than impressed with it, to be honest. I thought the opening was pretty crap and I couldn’t get past that. But, I decided to give it another chance, this time on Blu-Ray via a Blockbuster rental.
While some parts of the opening few minutes I didn’t really care for, overall I enjoyed it much more this time around, and I wonder if it was just the wrong day for me to watch the movie the first time around or what, as I’m not sure how I developed a somewhat negative view on it initially.
This 2005 movie-released in the US in 2006-is about a group of ladies, both British and American (how they all know each other is unclear, but forget about that, along with much of the opening few minutes; that’s just me, though) who are thrill-seekers. First, we see them white-water rafting in Scotland. After that, a traumatic event happens to one of the characters. A year later, they all meet up again, this time in the Appalachian area of the United States, in the fictitious Chatooga National Park*. They go exploring a cave, and it’s not exactly like Mammoth Cave or one of those commercial places. Rather, it’s hardcore caving, where you crawl through small passages and it’s a lot of work. You at first see glimpses of something, but then you realize that yes, someone… or is it something… else is down there with the ladies… something happens down there and that’s when the shit hits the fan.
• Although there IS a Chatooga River that’s in the area. It’s where Deliverance was filmed, actually, and that movie was a clear influence on this one. Deliverance is more than just strange-looking people playing the banjo and “Squeal like a pig!” and possibly the most terrifying villains in motion picture history. Believe it or not, my dad and some of his friends actually went rafting on that river back in the 90’s. No, they did not meet any hillbillies or have to squeal like a pig.
The movie isn’t scares per minute; rather, it takes it time to allow you to get to know the ladies and see how they interact with one another. Like I said, though, at times you see glimpses of something and you wonder what it was or even if you saw it, which is always freaky. Also, all of the ladies are nicely written and there’s not a case where you end up hating a character, not because it was written that way but rather because poor writing created a character that’s just aggravating and you can’t wait to see them die a horrible death. To me that’s a problem that happens way too often but thankfully it’s avoided here. Anyhow, when the shit hits the fan, it doesn’t let up (it’s a very fun ride from that point to the very end) and what’s down there is quite the foe, and if something like that could be possible, it’s not that far-fetched if you know about organisms living in caves. The setting adds claustrophobia and hopelessness, and what ends up happening causes problems with the ladies and some surprising things end up happening because of that.
If you enjoy slow-build horror movies that happen to have a good amount of gore to it, then this is something that you need to see. I am very glad I gave it a second chance as I appreciated it much more this time around.
By the way, I’ve never seen the similar film known as The Cave, but I’ve heard mainly bad things about it. Speaking of that, the movie actually has a sequel that came out recently to DVD. Talk about a total cash-in, as whether or not you like or have seen “The American Ending” or “The Original Ending” (basically, the American one stops at a point and doesn’t show the very last scene), it is totally not needed for the characters in the story and it doesn’t make much sense either. The villains in the first movie look different from the second movie, which doesn’t make much sense as it’s supposed to be in the same cave! I’ve heard some VERY heated critiques of it, and from reading the basic plot on Wikipedia, I doubt I’ll ever see the movie, as there’s no need to.
I'll still be back on Monday night with a new review.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Some Links
Alright, I had some computer issues last night but things are fine now. So, I'll just present some random links, in a quickie post.
I once reviewed a film from El Santo. Well, recently, from a Twitter account of someone I know, I found this blog post from a Mexican wrestling (Lucha Libre) fan. That's right, you can download Rapidshare files of all of Santo's movies, and with an .rar extractor (like this one, for example) you can watch it that way, if you wish to see any of his films.
Here is a review of Kick-Ass that does a very good job of mirroring my opinions on the story issues with that film. Unlike me, it's from a famous person from the otherwise God-awful Ain't It Cool News website who reviews stuff, has a lot of fans, and he has released books on the likes of Steven Seagal and bad-ass films. I've read the Seagal book and believe it or not, it's really entertaining. Outlaw Vern is a cool dude in my eyes.
Finally, if you're wondering how I came up with the title of this blog, no I didn't take it from a Yo La Tengo song. Rather, read this link. In short, it's from an old MGM saying in the 1930's, bragging about the old studio way and how they had many stars under contract.
I'll be back this upcoming Monday night (barring any issues with computer/Internet) with a new review.
I once reviewed a film from El Santo. Well, recently, from a Twitter account of someone I know, I found this blog post from a Mexican wrestling (Lucha Libre) fan. That's right, you can download Rapidshare files of all of Santo's movies, and with an .rar extractor (like this one, for example) you can watch it that way, if you wish to see any of his films.
Here is a review of Kick-Ass that does a very good job of mirroring my opinions on the story issues with that film. Unlike me, it's from a famous person from the otherwise God-awful Ain't It Cool News website who reviews stuff, has a lot of fans, and he has released books on the likes of Steven Seagal and bad-ass films. I've read the Seagal book and believe it or not, it's really entertaining. Outlaw Vern is a cool dude in my eyes.
Finally, if you're wondering how I came up with the title of this blog, no I didn't take it from a Yo La Tengo song. Rather, read this link. In short, it's from an old MGM saying in the 1930's, bragging about the old studio way and how they had many stars under contract.
I'll be back this upcoming Monday night (barring any issues with computer/Internet) with a new review.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Rear Window
Rear Window (1954)
Runtime: 112 minutes
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock (of course)
Starring: James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Thelma Ritter, Raymond Burr, Ross Bagdasarian (yes, the guy behind Alvin & The Chipmunks)
From: Paramount
Here is something that is related to the last review I posted. When I went to school at ISU in Normal, Illinois, there’s a tremendous videostore located downtown known as The Movie Fan, which has a very liberal and eclectic collection of movies (that’s where I first saw the original Pelham movie, as a matter of fact). I saw a good amount of them but I wish I would have seen much more, or started going there much sooner. Among the large collection of films was a pretty extensive series of Hitchcock movies, and now I wish I would have delved into that much deeper than I did. In fact, I had to see this movie, rated as Hitch’s best by many, on the big screen at Universal Studios in Orlando. That was awhile ago but I remember this pretty well, and this is a must-see, especially if you’re into mysteries.
The basic plot has been modified many times since then, from episodes of The Simpsons to the recent movie Disturbia. A photographer (Stewart) gets injured at an auto race, so he’s confined to a wheelchair and he’s stuck in his apartment. He gets visited by his nurse (Ritter) and his girlfriend (Kelly). He gets bored so he starts spying on his neighbors. He thinks that he sees one of his neighbors (Burr) murder someone. But, in his position he can’t do too much to try and solve it, and he can’t exactly go to the cops with the circumstantial evidence. How can he solve the problem? Did Burr even commit any crime?
This page provides a detailed review/synopsis of the movie, but you can just read the opening to get a spoiler-free introduction to why the movie’s so highly regarded. Besides the mystery of whether or not his neighbor committed any murder, there’s the story of whether or not Stewart is going to marry his girl, and if it’s a good idea for him to marry or not. Also, there’s the whole voyeuristic angle to it and how what he sees from his apartment may not actually be what’s going on.
This is pretty great; besides the quality of the film, the way that it was put together... very suspenseful, especially the final half hour or so. It was filmed only on one giant set and much of the action is in one apartment building. Almost all of the shots outside of the apartment are from Stewart's point of view. That sounds rather claustrophobic and confining. Well, that is part of the plot, but it's all cinematic and engrossing due to the always great directing job by Hitchcock and the performances of the quality actors; they make it work and it's a classic piece of cinema. I am so glad I got to see it on the big screen, but even on the small screen, it's stupendous and a must-see. I dare not spoil any more of the film if you haven't seen it yet; otherwise I'd heap a lot of praise on it, but I think I've said enough to convince you to check this out.
I'll be back tomorrow night with something a little different.
Runtime: 112 minutes
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock (of course)
Starring: James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Thelma Ritter, Raymond Burr, Ross Bagdasarian (yes, the guy behind Alvin & The Chipmunks)
From: Paramount
Here is something that is related to the last review I posted. When I went to school at ISU in Normal, Illinois, there’s a tremendous videostore located downtown known as The Movie Fan, which has a very liberal and eclectic collection of movies (that’s where I first saw the original Pelham movie, as a matter of fact). I saw a good amount of them but I wish I would have seen much more, or started going there much sooner. Among the large collection of films was a pretty extensive series of Hitchcock movies, and now I wish I would have delved into that much deeper than I did. In fact, I had to see this movie, rated as Hitch’s best by many, on the big screen at Universal Studios in Orlando. That was awhile ago but I remember this pretty well, and this is a must-see, especially if you’re into mysteries.
The basic plot has been modified many times since then, from episodes of The Simpsons to the recent movie Disturbia. A photographer (Stewart) gets injured at an auto race, so he’s confined to a wheelchair and he’s stuck in his apartment. He gets visited by his nurse (Ritter) and his girlfriend (Kelly). He gets bored so he starts spying on his neighbors. He thinks that he sees one of his neighbors (Burr) murder someone. But, in his position he can’t do too much to try and solve it, and he can’t exactly go to the cops with the circumstantial evidence. How can he solve the problem? Did Burr even commit any crime?
This page provides a detailed review/synopsis of the movie, but you can just read the opening to get a spoiler-free introduction to why the movie’s so highly regarded. Besides the mystery of whether or not his neighbor committed any murder, there’s the story of whether or not Stewart is going to marry his girl, and if it’s a good idea for him to marry or not. Also, there’s the whole voyeuristic angle to it and how what he sees from his apartment may not actually be what’s going on.
This is pretty great; besides the quality of the film, the way that it was put together... very suspenseful, especially the final half hour or so. It was filmed only on one giant set and much of the action is in one apartment building. Almost all of the shots outside of the apartment are from Stewart's point of view. That sounds rather claustrophobic and confining. Well, that is part of the plot, but it's all cinematic and engrossing due to the always great directing job by Hitchcock and the performances of the quality actors; they make it work and it's a classic piece of cinema. I am so glad I got to see it on the big screen, but even on the small screen, it's stupendous and a must-see. I dare not spoil any more of the film if you haven't seen it yet; otherwise I'd heap a lot of praise on it, but I think I've said enough to convince you to check this out.
I'll be back tomorrow night with something a little different.
Friday, May 14, 2010
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974)
Runtime: 104 minutes (not 124 minutes, as listed on the 2009 DVD release of this film)
Directed by: Joseph Sargent
Starring: Walter Matthau, Robert Shaw, Martin Balsam, Hector Elizondo, Jerry Stiller
From: United Artists
Here’s a movie you’ll be familiar with… well, at least it’s title, as just last summer there was The Taking of Pelham 123 remake, which I still haven’t seen yet but I’ve heard mixed reviews on. I at least can tell you that this film, the original (based off of a popular novel at the time) is worth seeing.
A quartet of bandits (Shaw, Balsam, Elizondo, and Earl Hindman; yes, he was Mr. Wilson on Home Improvement; they go by the code names of Green, Grey, Blue, and Brown; if that sounds familiar, yes it should; Quentin Tarantino is obviously a big fan of the film) hijack a subway car in New York City, and they gather up hostages and their demands are that they must receive one million dollars in an hour, or else they start killing hostages one per minute. But how will they escape once they do get the money… combating them is a force that includes transit authority cops (Matthau, Stiller) and a cast of characters, mainly cynical.
This is a very tense thriller where no time is wasted and it moves very economically. You may be surprised to hear that usually comic actors like Walter and Jerry are in a “very tense thriller”, but they equate themselves quite well. I mean, Matthau the previous year was in a film called Charley Varrick, and I say that was even better than this movie (Varrick is about a gang of thieves who unknowingly rob a bank that secretly stores cash from the Mob), and he did fine in another dramatic/action role. Here, he and the rest of the cast often cast little quips and barbs at each other. If there’s one thing to carp about, it’s that there are quite a lot of bitching and whining that goes on, especially from one character in particular, but if you can tolerate that (I normally have a low threshold for it, but the rest of this is so good…) then you should enjoy this breezy ride. Like I say, it runs pretty fast through its 104 minute (not 124 minute runtime, as it says on the box for the 2009 DVD release; I rented it from Blockbuster, by the way) runtime and you get to see quality actors at work. The final scene in particular is pretty memorable, especially the last shot. One of these days I’ll probably see the 2009 remake, but who knows when that’ll be, and I’ll probably prefer the original anyhow.
I'll be back Monday night with a new review.
Runtime: 104 minutes (not 124 minutes, as listed on the 2009 DVD release of this film)
Directed by: Joseph Sargent
Starring: Walter Matthau, Robert Shaw, Martin Balsam, Hector Elizondo, Jerry Stiller
From: United Artists
Here’s a movie you’ll be familiar with… well, at least it’s title, as just last summer there was The Taking of Pelham 123 remake, which I still haven’t seen yet but I’ve heard mixed reviews on. I at least can tell you that this film, the original (based off of a popular novel at the time) is worth seeing.
A quartet of bandits (Shaw, Balsam, Elizondo, and Earl Hindman; yes, he was Mr. Wilson on Home Improvement; they go by the code names of Green, Grey, Blue, and Brown; if that sounds familiar, yes it should; Quentin Tarantino is obviously a big fan of the film) hijack a subway car in New York City, and they gather up hostages and their demands are that they must receive one million dollars in an hour, or else they start killing hostages one per minute. But how will they escape once they do get the money… combating them is a force that includes transit authority cops (Matthau, Stiller) and a cast of characters, mainly cynical.
This is a very tense thriller where no time is wasted and it moves very economically. You may be surprised to hear that usually comic actors like Walter and Jerry are in a “very tense thriller”, but they equate themselves quite well. I mean, Matthau the previous year was in a film called Charley Varrick, and I say that was even better than this movie (Varrick is about a gang of thieves who unknowingly rob a bank that secretly stores cash from the Mob), and he did fine in another dramatic/action role. Here, he and the rest of the cast often cast little quips and barbs at each other. If there’s one thing to carp about, it’s that there are quite a lot of bitching and whining that goes on, especially from one character in particular, but if you can tolerate that (I normally have a low threshold for it, but the rest of this is so good…) then you should enjoy this breezy ride. Like I say, it runs pretty fast through its 104 minute (not 124 minute runtime, as it says on the box for the 2009 DVD release; I rented it from Blockbuster, by the way) runtime and you get to see quality actors at work. The final scene in particular is pretty memorable, especially the last shot. One of these days I’ll probably see the 2009 remake, but who knows when that’ll be, and I’ll probably prefer the original anyhow.
I'll be back Monday night with a new review.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Iron Man 2
Iron Man 2 (2010)
74% On Rotten Tomatoes (out of 210 reviews)
Runtime: 124 minutes
Directed by: John Favreau
Starring: Robert Downey, Jr., Mickey Rourke, Don Cheadle, Gwyneth Paltrow, Sam Rockwell
From Paramount/Marvel
I mentioned on my personal profiles (and also a messageboard) late Thursday night after I got back from seeing the doubleheader of Iron Man/Iron Man 2 that I didn’t care for the second one at all, and some people raised some hell about it, but que sera sera, I say. I will at least explain here (without giving away too much of the film) why I rated it the way I did.
The plot was much more busy than the first one. Here, Tony Stark (Downey) has a litany of things to deal with. The contraption that is keeping him alive is also killing him due to blood poisoning-although it doesn’t really affect him physically-, he has a rival (Whiplash, played by Rourke) from Russia whose family has a connection with his family, and Whiplash having similar technology causes problems with Stark and the U.S. Government, who wish to have their own Iron Man suits; that brings in James Rhodes (Cheadle, replacing Terrence Howard). There’s a new assistant for Tony (Scarlett Johansson) as he inexplicably promotes Pepper Potts to CEO of Stark Industries. And, there is Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) who pops up and represents S.H.I.E.L.D. Then, there’s a Stark Expo in New York… see what I mean about it being cluttered?
THE main problem with the movie is the script. Besides there being way too much on the plate, the plot is all over the place and there are way too many obvious plotholes. I mean, for no reason, when Stark is in Monaco he decides to race his own racecar in a Formula 1 contest! That allows for Whiplash to arrive and there’s a big showdown, but it doesn’t make too much sense. You have Tony, confined to his house by S.H.I.E.L.D. and threatened by a goon from the organization that he can’t leave the house until he accomplishes something… easily able to leave his house, with no explanation as to how he got around the goon. It gets way more preposterous than that; with some assistance from Fury, Tony is able to get around the blood poisoning issue, and the steps he took to accomplish this are SO beyond any sort of logical possibility it totally insults your intelligence. Even in a movie-and a comic book/action one like this-there’s no rational way Tony figures out the problem and then sets it up to where the solution happens, especially in the timeframe it takes place in.
Then, there’s Tony being an unlikeable ass for just about all of this, with no real likeable moments from him at all. The entertaining relationship he had with Potts in the first movie is now constant bickering and sniping in this one.
I can’t forget to mention either some rather bizarre lines that aren’t funny at all (apparently, seals eat grapes, and it’s ok to use the phrase “Hammer-hoids”, and in fact it’s supposed to be gut-busting hilarious), and speaking of Hammer, there’s Justin Hammer (Rockwell), a rival to Stark, and it’s no slight to Rockwell as an actor, but the type of sniveling weasel character he played was SO grating and aggravating… he was a villain, sure, but I hated him NOT in a villain way but rather in the wrong way by despising everything about the character and how over the top ridiculous he was… I don’t know if I’ve ever hated a character with such a passion in my entire life, no exaggeration. So of course you see much more of him than you do Whiplash. Poor Rourke (he of a similar career path to Downey; at least like RDJ, he’s experienced recent success), he’s not given much to do, really. Sorry to spoil that, but if you were looking forward to a huge role from him, prepare to be disappointed.
Speaking of disappointing, the action scenes here are more hard to follow than in the first film, and I didn’t really care about most of the action at all. I mean, one big battle takes place at Tony’s estate and it’s scored to songs from DJ AM (who appears in the movie!) and what sounds like songs from the DJ Hero videogame from last year! There’s also a cameo appearance from a political pundit (not Ann Coulter, but close to her) and Lord knows why they thought it’d be a wise idea to have them appear, and it has nothing to do with their or my political views. The only action stuff that was satisfying to me was with Iron Man (who doesn’t appear in that guise all that much, believe it or not; it reminds me of the third Pirates of the Caribbean film, where there’s not a lot of Captain Jack Sparrow; at least here Tony Stark doesn’t spend scenes talking to multiple versions of himself or moving around white stones in a totally white world… what an awful film that was, and I think that’s the last time I got as mad with a movie as I did with this film) vs. Whiplash, but due to various reasons, even that proved to be a letdown. How there are many people giving rave reviews to this movie, I have zero comprehension as to why; even those people that say they liked it despite the story problems deserve a dope slap across the head for having low standards and being so willing to accept substandard product like this.
Oh, there’s way more I could rant and rave about, but then I’d really spoil the film, so I better not. I can say, though, that if you guys didn’t see the after-credits brief clip from the first movie, where Jackson is introduced as being Nick Fury from S.H.I.E.L.D., then you’re SOL here. Even if you saw that and don’t know much about what he or the group is or why you should care about it… well, the movie sure as hell believes that you have vast knowledge of it, which is one of the thousands of mistakes they made. They needed to explain that to the average person in order to note how important it is; I mean, not everyone realizes that Marvel is trying to create a huge movie universe of characters that will come together in a few years for an Avengers movie; speaking of that, I guess you’re not supposed to wonder either where those other heroes, like Hulk, Thor, or Captain America, have been while the world was threatened in the universe of the two Iron Man films. Instead, they go in with the thought that everyone saw the introduction to Fury at the end of the first movie and know everything about S.H.I.E.L.D., and I’m sure that stuff left a lot of people baffled.
So, this was a big letdown, and I’m saddened that the second movie in a row released this year that I was looking forward to proved to be something that many people are creaming their jeans over, but sane people like myself realize that it’s substandard product and with only some work it could have been much much better. This made around 135 million dollars at the box office this weekend, and that leaves me shaking my head.
I’ll be back by the 14th with a new review.
74% On Rotten Tomatoes (out of 210 reviews)
Runtime: 124 minutes
Directed by: John Favreau
Starring: Robert Downey, Jr., Mickey Rourke, Don Cheadle, Gwyneth Paltrow, Sam Rockwell
From Paramount/Marvel
I mentioned on my personal profiles (and also a messageboard) late Thursday night after I got back from seeing the doubleheader of Iron Man/Iron Man 2 that I didn’t care for the second one at all, and some people raised some hell about it, but que sera sera, I say. I will at least explain here (without giving away too much of the film) why I rated it the way I did.
The plot was much more busy than the first one. Here, Tony Stark (Downey) has a litany of things to deal with. The contraption that is keeping him alive is also killing him due to blood poisoning-although it doesn’t really affect him physically-, he has a rival (Whiplash, played by Rourke) from Russia whose family has a connection with his family, and Whiplash having similar technology causes problems with Stark and the U.S. Government, who wish to have their own Iron Man suits; that brings in James Rhodes (Cheadle, replacing Terrence Howard). There’s a new assistant for Tony (Scarlett Johansson) as he inexplicably promotes Pepper Potts to CEO of Stark Industries. And, there is Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) who pops up and represents S.H.I.E.L.D. Then, there’s a Stark Expo in New York… see what I mean about it being cluttered?
THE main problem with the movie is the script. Besides there being way too much on the plate, the plot is all over the place and there are way too many obvious plotholes. I mean, for no reason, when Stark is in Monaco he decides to race his own racecar in a Formula 1 contest! That allows for Whiplash to arrive and there’s a big showdown, but it doesn’t make too much sense. You have Tony, confined to his house by S.H.I.E.L.D. and threatened by a goon from the organization that he can’t leave the house until he accomplishes something… easily able to leave his house, with no explanation as to how he got around the goon. It gets way more preposterous than that; with some assistance from Fury, Tony is able to get around the blood poisoning issue, and the steps he took to accomplish this are SO beyond any sort of logical possibility it totally insults your intelligence. Even in a movie-and a comic book/action one like this-there’s no rational way Tony figures out the problem and then sets it up to where the solution happens, especially in the timeframe it takes place in.
Then, there’s Tony being an unlikeable ass for just about all of this, with no real likeable moments from him at all. The entertaining relationship he had with Potts in the first movie is now constant bickering and sniping in this one.
I can’t forget to mention either some rather bizarre lines that aren’t funny at all (apparently, seals eat grapes, and it’s ok to use the phrase “Hammer-hoids”, and in fact it’s supposed to be gut-busting hilarious), and speaking of Hammer, there’s Justin Hammer (Rockwell), a rival to Stark, and it’s no slight to Rockwell as an actor, but the type of sniveling weasel character he played was SO grating and aggravating… he was a villain, sure, but I hated him NOT in a villain way but rather in the wrong way by despising everything about the character and how over the top ridiculous he was… I don’t know if I’ve ever hated a character with such a passion in my entire life, no exaggeration. So of course you see much more of him than you do Whiplash. Poor Rourke (he of a similar career path to Downey; at least like RDJ, he’s experienced recent success), he’s not given much to do, really. Sorry to spoil that, but if you were looking forward to a huge role from him, prepare to be disappointed.
Speaking of disappointing, the action scenes here are more hard to follow than in the first film, and I didn’t really care about most of the action at all. I mean, one big battle takes place at Tony’s estate and it’s scored to songs from DJ AM (who appears in the movie!) and what sounds like songs from the DJ Hero videogame from last year! There’s also a cameo appearance from a political pundit (not Ann Coulter, but close to her) and Lord knows why they thought it’d be a wise idea to have them appear, and it has nothing to do with their or my political views. The only action stuff that was satisfying to me was with Iron Man (who doesn’t appear in that guise all that much, believe it or not; it reminds me of the third Pirates of the Caribbean film, where there’s not a lot of Captain Jack Sparrow; at least here Tony Stark doesn’t spend scenes talking to multiple versions of himself or moving around white stones in a totally white world… what an awful film that was, and I think that’s the last time I got as mad with a movie as I did with this film) vs. Whiplash, but due to various reasons, even that proved to be a letdown. How there are many people giving rave reviews to this movie, I have zero comprehension as to why; even those people that say they liked it despite the story problems deserve a dope slap across the head for having low standards and being so willing to accept substandard product like this.
Oh, there’s way more I could rant and rave about, but then I’d really spoil the film, so I better not. I can say, though, that if you guys didn’t see the after-credits brief clip from the first movie, where Jackson is introduced as being Nick Fury from S.H.I.E.L.D., then you’re SOL here. Even if you saw that and don’t know much about what he or the group is or why you should care about it… well, the movie sure as hell believes that you have vast knowledge of it, which is one of the thousands of mistakes they made. They needed to explain that to the average person in order to note how important it is; I mean, not everyone realizes that Marvel is trying to create a huge movie universe of characters that will come together in a few years for an Avengers movie; speaking of that, I guess you’re not supposed to wonder either where those other heroes, like Hulk, Thor, or Captain America, have been while the world was threatened in the universe of the two Iron Man films. Instead, they go in with the thought that everyone saw the introduction to Fury at the end of the first movie and know everything about S.H.I.E.L.D., and I’m sure that stuff left a lot of people baffled.
So, this was a big letdown, and I’m saddened that the second movie in a row released this year that I was looking forward to proved to be something that many people are creaming their jeans over, but sane people like myself realize that it’s substandard product and with only some work it could have been much much better. This made around 135 million dollars at the box office this weekend, and that leaves me shaking my head.
I’ll be back by the 14th with a new review.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Iron Man
Iron Man (2008)
93% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 226 reviews)
Runtime: 126 minutes
Directed by: John Favreau
Starring: Robert Downey, Jr., Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow, Terrence Howard
From: Paramount/Marvel
Here is a movie that I’ve seen only two times, but the circumstances were interesting both times.
The first time was in late May of 2008, when I was up in the Midwest as a close family member had a wedding and I had some free time before the day of marriage. I was in the Chicago-area one night and my plans went totally awry, so I had free time and I decided to see this and then the midnight debut of the new Indiana Jones film (which I didn’t really care for, but that’s another topic for another day). This turned out to be better than I thought it would, given my thoughts on comic books in general and all that. The second time was just on Thursday night, when I saw this and then the midnight debut of the sequel. More on that tomorrow. I only found out by happenstance that theatres were showing the first film one time only on Thursday.
I’m sure that by now you’re familiar with the plot of this film; still, I’ll explain that this is about Tony Stark (Downey, Jr.), a billionaire playboy type who is the figurehead of Stark Industries, a military contract company, which he inherited from his deceased father. Obadiah Stane (Bridges) actually runs the day to day operations of the company. He’s in Afghanistan with his buddy James Rhodes (Howard) to show off some hardware, when he gets attacked and kidnapped. A scientist he’s imprisoned with comes up with a contraption that prevents fragments from entering his heart and killing him. He’s supposed to build a WMD for the terrorists imprisoning him; instead, he and the scientist create an iron suit that allows him to escape; the scientist is killed in the midst of all that action. He manages to teach Tony an important lesson, and that is to leave a great legacy behind him. So, once he gets back to the states, he changes his ways and he announces that Stark Industries will no longer build weapons, which greatly upsets Stane. He builds a better Iron Man suit using some rather fantastical technology at his palatial home, and adds a different dynamic to his long-time relationship with his assistant, Pepper Pots (Paltrow). I won’t give away more.
I enjoyed this more than I thought I would. It was a great story that not only introduced the character to the people who have not read the comic (or hell, only knew the name from the unrelated Black Sabbath song), but also told a story of how an unlikeable ass in Stark turned into a more likeable ass (it reminded me of how Downey acted in Sherlock Holmes, except that I always thought that Holmes was an unlikeable ass, but I talked about that movie already late last year). The performances of the main cast (especially Downey, but also Bridges) was a big asset, along with some nice action scenes that are actually easy to follow and aren’t frustrating to watch. So, it was a very enjoyable comic book film that worked for everyone, and that’s why it made so much money at the box office. I enjoyed seeing it for a second time on the big screen, as it held up pretty well. The sequel, though… it’s not a film I particularly enjoyed, and I was quite disappointed with it. The reasons why will be explained tomorrow.
93% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 226 reviews)
Runtime: 126 minutes
Directed by: John Favreau
Starring: Robert Downey, Jr., Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow, Terrence Howard
From: Paramount/Marvel
Here is a movie that I’ve seen only two times, but the circumstances were interesting both times.
The first time was in late May of 2008, when I was up in the Midwest as a close family member had a wedding and I had some free time before the day of marriage. I was in the Chicago-area one night and my plans went totally awry, so I had free time and I decided to see this and then the midnight debut of the new Indiana Jones film (which I didn’t really care for, but that’s another topic for another day). This turned out to be better than I thought it would, given my thoughts on comic books in general and all that. The second time was just on Thursday night, when I saw this and then the midnight debut of the sequel. More on that tomorrow. I only found out by happenstance that theatres were showing the first film one time only on Thursday.
I’m sure that by now you’re familiar with the plot of this film; still, I’ll explain that this is about Tony Stark (Downey, Jr.), a billionaire playboy type who is the figurehead of Stark Industries, a military contract company, which he inherited from his deceased father. Obadiah Stane (Bridges) actually runs the day to day operations of the company. He’s in Afghanistan with his buddy James Rhodes (Howard) to show off some hardware, when he gets attacked and kidnapped. A scientist he’s imprisoned with comes up with a contraption that prevents fragments from entering his heart and killing him. He’s supposed to build a WMD for the terrorists imprisoning him; instead, he and the scientist create an iron suit that allows him to escape; the scientist is killed in the midst of all that action. He manages to teach Tony an important lesson, and that is to leave a great legacy behind him. So, once he gets back to the states, he changes his ways and he announces that Stark Industries will no longer build weapons, which greatly upsets Stane. He builds a better Iron Man suit using some rather fantastical technology at his palatial home, and adds a different dynamic to his long-time relationship with his assistant, Pepper Pots (Paltrow). I won’t give away more.
I enjoyed this more than I thought I would. It was a great story that not only introduced the character to the people who have not read the comic (or hell, only knew the name from the unrelated Black Sabbath song), but also told a story of how an unlikeable ass in Stark turned into a more likeable ass (it reminded me of how Downey acted in Sherlock Holmes, except that I always thought that Holmes was an unlikeable ass, but I talked about that movie already late last year). The performances of the main cast (especially Downey, but also Bridges) was a big asset, along with some nice action scenes that are actually easy to follow and aren’t frustrating to watch. So, it was a very enjoyable comic book film that worked for everyone, and that’s why it made so much money at the box office. I enjoyed seeing it for a second time on the big screen, as it held up pretty well. The sequel, though… it’s not a film I particularly enjoyed, and I was quite disappointed with it. The reasons why will be explained tomorrow.
Monday, May 3, 2010
The Terror of Tiny Town
Terror of Tiny Town (1938)
Directed by: Sam Newfield
Runtime: 62 minutes
Starring: Billy Curtis, Yvonne Moray, “Little Billy” Rhodes, Billy Platt
From: Jed Buell Productions
Here is a movie that is in the public domain (although oddly enough, the full movie can’t easily be found online, as many public domain flicks are) and it’s something that you may have heard of, due to its rather bizarre nature. You see, it’s a musical western… and the cast is full of midgets! No kidding. By the way, I mean no offense by using that term rather than “little people”, as that was the term used back then. It’s a standard plot where a villain (Rhodes) plays two sides against each other for his own gain, and the hero (Curtis) also has a thing for the girl in the family that his family is feuding against (Moray).
The main thing to note is that while a few things is sized for the small cast, such as the Shetland ponies (!) that they ride, it’s otherwise a normal-sized world they populate, so it just looks so strange seeing them walk around and look so tiny and fire revolvers that are huge for their stature*. That makes it so surreal to watch. Then, the acting and songs are average at best, to be kind. So, it was a rather strange movie-I mean, I swear to God, you briefly get to see A PENGUIN... a penguin, in the Old West!-to watch and I can’t say it was “good” by any means, but it was something I’ve heard about for years so I’m glad I finally got to see it; it was part of this DVD collection I purchased awhile back. I found it at a store and believe me, it was far less than the price Amazon is offering!
* It wasn't in any "midget town", that's for sure.
By the way, this link has some more info on the film, and this link offers a full plot review.
I'll be back next Monday with at least one new review.
Directed by: Sam Newfield
Runtime: 62 minutes
Starring: Billy Curtis, Yvonne Moray, “Little Billy” Rhodes, Billy Platt
From: Jed Buell Productions
Here is a movie that is in the public domain (although oddly enough, the full movie can’t easily be found online, as many public domain flicks are) and it’s something that you may have heard of, due to its rather bizarre nature. You see, it’s a musical western… and the cast is full of midgets! No kidding. By the way, I mean no offense by using that term rather than “little people”, as that was the term used back then. It’s a standard plot where a villain (Rhodes) plays two sides against each other for his own gain, and the hero (Curtis) also has a thing for the girl in the family that his family is feuding against (Moray).
The main thing to note is that while a few things is sized for the small cast, such as the Shetland ponies (!) that they ride, it’s otherwise a normal-sized world they populate, so it just looks so strange seeing them walk around and look so tiny and fire revolvers that are huge for their stature*. That makes it so surreal to watch. Then, the acting and songs are average at best, to be kind. So, it was a rather strange movie-I mean, I swear to God, you briefly get to see A PENGUIN... a penguin, in the Old West!-to watch and I can’t say it was “good” by any means, but it was something I’ve heard about for years so I’m glad I finally got to see it; it was part of this DVD collection I purchased awhile back. I found it at a store and believe me, it was far less than the price Amazon is offering!
* It wasn't in any "midget town", that's for sure.
By the way, this link has some more info on the film, and this link offers a full plot review.
I'll be back next Monday with at least one new review.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)