Uncle Buck (1989)
Runtime: 100 minutes
Directed by: John Hughes
Starring: John Candy, Jean Louisa Kelly, Macaulay Culkin, Gaby Hoffmann, Amy Madigan
From: Universal
Yes, this will be my last review of 2014. I shall return Thursday afternoon the 1st of next year. I have things to do tonight and tomorrow. So, onto what I wrote about this film on Letterboxd, which includes some details of my vacation:
Finally, after time spent away in another state on a vacation spent with family for the holidays then more time spent resting from said trip and catching up on other websites, I can finally focus on this site, and talk about one of the films I at least got to see parts of while halfway across the country from where I live. It was literally something the whole family watched; we had seen it more than once before in our lives, although me I hadn't watched this in years.
Of course, like many people around my age-I'll be mid 30's pretty soon-I had already seen plenty of John Candy films and thought he was awesome and when he suddenly passed away 20 years ago it was horrible and sad news. I have fond memories of most of those films, including this one. I also have seen my share of John Hughes movies and I was also saddened when I heard about his death. I'll try my best to not let nostalgia cloud my judgment here. While the entire film was watched with a pair of two year old toddlers running around making noise, that was OK as it turns out I remembered the film better than I thought I would.
This comedy with dramatic moments doesn't have too many surprises but it's OK. The plot revolves around an upper middle class family (The Russell family; no relation) who recently moved from Indianapolis to the Chicago suburbs; there's the parents and two elementary school kids (who are unfortunately of the precocious type, but that's just a pet peeve); there's also a 15 year old daughter, Tia, who is a typical moody teenage girl who is still unhappy about the move... and is just unpleasant most of the time. Her typical facial expressions of disgust/incredulity are great. Well, the parents have to be away for a family emergency and the only guy who can babysit them is the title character, a slovenly lower class guy who has issues with his main girl, can't hold a job, makes money from gambling and drives a crappy old car. He still has a good heart and tries his best with his niece and nephews but Tia can't stand him and that provides much of the conflict.
You can probably guess how things are resolved; still, as an adult I was still entertained by the story and how all the characters acted towards each other and how there are memorable bit parts from Laurie Metcalf as a kooky neighbor and Tia's boyfriend being a wannabe art student type who calls himself “Bug” (who Buck can see through and realizes isn't a good dude) to sleazy people at the bowling alley and an alcoholic clown known as Pooter who I just discovered on this viewing was played by the great character actor known as Mike Starr.
Along with some nice heartfelt moments, a good number of serious moments & memorable speeches (I am looking at Buck tearing apart the principal of the school his 6 year old niece goes to because the educator expects 6 year olds to act like adults) there are many funny bits and some of the adult humor finally made sense now. As it's John Candy he played the bumbling yet well-meaning nice guy role to a T and there are definite character arcs with some nice lessons that anyone and everyone should at least keep in mind.
So, it was nice to see this with the family-as just us getting all together is a rare feat, let alone all of us watching something in the same room-and from now until likely next December I'll be here and doing reviews about as often as usual.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Monday, December 29, 2014
I Have Returned, But...
I got back into town early Sunday morning and since then I've tried to recover from the trip as I catch up on Internet sites and do other things. So, tomorrow night I'll do a review of a film I got to see again while I was on vacation.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
The Babadook
The Babadook (2014)
98% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 126 reviews)
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: Jennifer Kent
Starring: Essie Davis, Noah Wiseman, Daniel Henshall, Barbara West
From: Causeway Films/Smoking Gun Productions
Yes, this is the last review I'll be doing until Monday the 29th. I will be leaving on vacation on the 22nd and I won't have time to watch anything between now and then; I will be back next weekend. Now, onto the Letterboxd review of a movie most love... but I don't.
Note 1: This will be my last review for about a week and a half. As most well do, I'll be out of town for the holiday season and I won't have a lot of time to spend on the site.
Note 2: Before I get to talking about this little Australian horror film that has gotten near universal acclaim, let me tell some backstory about my history with it. This past spring it actually played at the local film festival in Orlando. Sad to say due to circumstances beyond my control I wasn't able to attend what was then a little-known movie that sounded interesting. I could have seen it on the big screen last night at the local arthouse joint. But, to save time and money I instead saw this from the comforts of home via Xbox Video; I am pretty sure that I'd still feel the same about this movie if I saw it in a theatre last night... or even in the spring before all the hype and praise appeared.
I presume most know the plot by now of how the film follows single mom Amelia as she raises a 7 year old boy named Samuel. The father died on the day she gave birth via a car accident, and maybe that's why Samuel is a hellacious brat but that kid has massive behavioral problems; I wonder why she doesn't try other methods besides yelling at the kid. I mean, how about spanking or literally whipping his ass with a belt? But I digress. One night a book seems to be placed on the shelf via magic and she starts reading it to the kid. It's actually a terrifying tale about a spooky creature known as The Babadook and from there on the kid believes it's real, which greatly annoys the mom, but, things start happening...
To make it clear right away, I have no problem with the general idea of the story, it being a psychological horror tale and a look at how grief still haunts someone and the horrifying realization that you may not actually like your own child. That sounds like something I'd enjoy The performance from the kid is pretty good but it is the mom who does a fantastic job. There are creepy moments, for sure. Scary ones? Well...
To me, the scariest aspects were how terrible that little brat acted and the poor parenting job the mom did. I know I shouldn't focus on that but I bring it up as this resulted in me hating both lead characters, which is an issue as the main plot point is Amelia changing as she deals with the pressures of her brat kid and now that mysterious entity. The film just never grabbed me even with some effective scenes. I am being vague to avoid spoilers but I had more than a few issues with this. Also, most of the characters you see are pretty terrible, which makes it even worse; the actual nice people are only seen on rare occasions.
Then, the final act happens and to me it flies off the rails by being totally ridiculous and I don't even want to get started on the final 5 or so minutes before the end credits begin, except that I think it's flat-out bad and at best, dopey. That did not help my opinion of the film, which I wish would have remained more psychological and not brought in such goofy elements.
I really do wish I could love this like most do. I imagine that in the future newbie director/writer Jennifer Kent will deliver an effective scary film I will enjoy. If it has the same issues as this does, though... while I have seen some quality films this year, I will forever think of this as a disappointing 2014 for motion pictures as too many just let me down, including this one.
98% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 126 reviews)
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: Jennifer Kent
Starring: Essie Davis, Noah Wiseman, Daniel Henshall, Barbara West
From: Causeway Films/Smoking Gun Productions
Yes, this is the last review I'll be doing until Monday the 29th. I will be leaving on vacation on the 22nd and I won't have time to watch anything between now and then; I will be back next weekend. Now, onto the Letterboxd review of a movie most love... but I don't.
Note 1: This will be my last review for about a week and a half. As most well do, I'll be out of town for the holiday season and I won't have a lot of time to spend on the site.
Note 2: Before I get to talking about this little Australian horror film that has gotten near universal acclaim, let me tell some backstory about my history with it. This past spring it actually played at the local film festival in Orlando. Sad to say due to circumstances beyond my control I wasn't able to attend what was then a little-known movie that sounded interesting. I could have seen it on the big screen last night at the local arthouse joint. But, to save time and money I instead saw this from the comforts of home via Xbox Video; I am pretty sure that I'd still feel the same about this movie if I saw it in a theatre last night... or even in the spring before all the hype and praise appeared.
I presume most know the plot by now of how the film follows single mom Amelia as she raises a 7 year old boy named Samuel. The father died on the day she gave birth via a car accident, and maybe that's why Samuel is a hellacious brat but that kid has massive behavioral problems; I wonder why she doesn't try other methods besides yelling at the kid. I mean, how about spanking or literally whipping his ass with a belt? But I digress. One night a book seems to be placed on the shelf via magic and she starts reading it to the kid. It's actually a terrifying tale about a spooky creature known as The Babadook and from there on the kid believes it's real, which greatly annoys the mom, but, things start happening...
To make it clear right away, I have no problem with the general idea of the story, it being a psychological horror tale and a look at how grief still haunts someone and the horrifying realization that you may not actually like your own child. That sounds like something I'd enjoy The performance from the kid is pretty good but it is the mom who does a fantastic job. There are creepy moments, for sure. Scary ones? Well...
To me, the scariest aspects were how terrible that little brat acted and the poor parenting job the mom did. I know I shouldn't focus on that but I bring it up as this resulted in me hating both lead characters, which is an issue as the main plot point is Amelia changing as she deals with the pressures of her brat kid and now that mysterious entity. The film just never grabbed me even with some effective scenes. I am being vague to avoid spoilers but I had more than a few issues with this. Also, most of the characters you see are pretty terrible, which makes it even worse; the actual nice people are only seen on rare occasions.
Then, the final act happens and to me it flies off the rails by being totally ridiculous and I don't even want to get started on the final 5 or so minutes before the end credits begin, except that I think it's flat-out bad and at best, dopey. That did not help my opinion of the film, which I wish would have remained more psychological and not brought in such goofy elements.
I really do wish I could love this like most do. I imagine that in the future newbie director/writer Jennifer Kent will deliver an effective scary film I will enjoy. If it has the same issues as this does, though... while I have seen some quality films this year, I will forever think of this as a disappointing 2014 for motion pictures as too many just let me down, including this one.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
The Housemaid
The Housemaid (Hanyo) (1960)
Runtime: 111 minutes
Directed by: Kim Ki-Young
Starring: Jin Kyu Kim, Jeung-nyeo Ju, Eun-shim Lee, Aeng-ran Eom
From: Hanguk Munye Yeonghwa
This is a random film likely unknown to most, yet it's worth seeing and it's proof South Korea has had not just a brief history of making challenging intense films. The Letterboxd review is below and I'll return Saturday night.
I picked out this-what is likely an obscure film to most-for a few reasons. In general it's an Asian movie and I haven't watched one of those in a few months. To be specific it is a Korean movie and I haven't seen one of those in many months. It is part of Criterion Collection's Martin Scorsese's World Cinema Project boxset and I have only watched one of six movies from it since I got the set this past summer (Turkey's Dry Summer). I pretty much kill several birds with a shotgun blast by choosing this particular motion picture, one that I understand is regarded by quite a few as one of the best ever to come out of the country.
The plot: an upper middle class family is now in a new house but the wife needs rest due to overwork; thus, the music teacher father asks one of his pupils for help in finding a maid. This was a BIG mistake as that maid turns out to be a very crazy young woman and she doesn't kick over the apple cart that's the happy family of the husband, wife and two young kids (one of whom presumably has polio)... she eats all the apples then lights the car on fire. The family just gets destroyed by that monster of a woman.
I imagine people generally assume it was just in recent times that Korean films were well-made but bold and with some shocking scenes; well, this movie does all that and from 54 years ago when South Korea was a lot different than it is now. There are some jaw-dropping moments, especially considering I wasn't expecting it from a 1960 motion picture. Of course I won't spoil any of it; just note that some mentally cruel and harsh things happen to these characters. It's a melodrama for sure, and it is a proper grandfather to the acclaimed movies from the country that have gotten worldwide attention in the past 15 or so years, what's been called the Korean New Wave.
Most of the film takes place in the two story house the family lives in. You get to see the stars often as they actually factor into the plot. It's quite claustrophobic and unnerving, Grand Guignol entertainment as I saw someone here state. What happens can be rather ludicrous at times and yet because in part the movie's filmed so well in his own style confidently by Kim Ki-Young and the story being strong, it does not veer into being overwrought or comically ridiculous. Instead it's a strong intense film that I was engrossed with, to see what would happen next. The maid (Eun-shim Lee, in her only known credit) is an incredible character and the performance from the actress is astounding.
Additional commendations go to the score, which fits what you see on screen, and the social commentary present where it states how you may not way to aspire to live above your means; the wife stays at home and has to work at a sewing machine to help pay for the house, which leads to the maid's arrival. The ending... I am not sure what to make of it. It's unexpected, and personally I can say you can either ignore it, laugh at how it ends or do both.
I recommend this to everyone, but especially those that enjoy the cinema of the Korean New Wave.
Runtime: 111 minutes
Directed by: Kim Ki-Young
Starring: Jin Kyu Kim, Jeung-nyeo Ju, Eun-shim Lee, Aeng-ran Eom
From: Hanguk Munye Yeonghwa
This is a random film likely unknown to most, yet it's worth seeing and it's proof South Korea has had not just a brief history of making challenging intense films. The Letterboxd review is below and I'll return Saturday night.
I picked out this-what is likely an obscure film to most-for a few reasons. In general it's an Asian movie and I haven't watched one of those in a few months. To be specific it is a Korean movie and I haven't seen one of those in many months. It is part of Criterion Collection's Martin Scorsese's World Cinema Project boxset and I have only watched one of six movies from it since I got the set this past summer (Turkey's Dry Summer). I pretty much kill several birds with a shotgun blast by choosing this particular motion picture, one that I understand is regarded by quite a few as one of the best ever to come out of the country.
The plot: an upper middle class family is now in a new house but the wife needs rest due to overwork; thus, the music teacher father asks one of his pupils for help in finding a maid. This was a BIG mistake as that maid turns out to be a very crazy young woman and she doesn't kick over the apple cart that's the happy family of the husband, wife and two young kids (one of whom presumably has polio)... she eats all the apples then lights the car on fire. The family just gets destroyed by that monster of a woman.
I imagine people generally assume it was just in recent times that Korean films were well-made but bold and with some shocking scenes; well, this movie does all that and from 54 years ago when South Korea was a lot different than it is now. There are some jaw-dropping moments, especially considering I wasn't expecting it from a 1960 motion picture. Of course I won't spoil any of it; just note that some mentally cruel and harsh things happen to these characters. It's a melodrama for sure, and it is a proper grandfather to the acclaimed movies from the country that have gotten worldwide attention in the past 15 or so years, what's been called the Korean New Wave.
Most of the film takes place in the two story house the family lives in. You get to see the stars often as they actually factor into the plot. It's quite claustrophobic and unnerving, Grand Guignol entertainment as I saw someone here state. What happens can be rather ludicrous at times and yet because in part the movie's filmed so well in his own style confidently by Kim Ki-Young and the story being strong, it does not veer into being overwrought or comically ridiculous. Instead it's a strong intense film that I was engrossed with, to see what would happen next. The maid (Eun-shim Lee, in her only known credit) is an incredible character and the performance from the actress is astounding.
Additional commendations go to the score, which fits what you see on screen, and the social commentary present where it states how you may not way to aspire to live above your means; the wife stays at home and has to work at a sewing machine to help pay for the house, which leads to the maid's arrival. The ending... I am not sure what to make of it. It's unexpected, and personally I can say you can either ignore it, laugh at how it ends or do both.
I recommend this to everyone, but especially those that enjoy the cinema of the Korean New Wave.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
I Talk About The Interview
I didn't see anything last night or today but I at least have this whole crappy situation to talk about.
No matter the reason for Sony getting hacked, their entertainment division looks rather terrible with all the bad info that's come out about them, with executives arguing with each other and such idiocy; although, I do realize that all big corporations have similar stupid things happen. I bet that Sony wishes their Internet security was better... not to mention not move the movie from October to December for no reason at all. Maybe this wouldn't have happened.
As for the movie, I never thought it looked really all that funny and even then, I think it's crappy what happened with the movie, misguided as it may be from the very beginning and no matter who it was that hacked them then made those disgusting threats. As others have said, Sony bowing to pressure due to the theatres being afraid to show it... it has set a dangerous precedent for what could happen in the future for theatrical films that are “controversial”. This situation just sucks all around.
I will return tomorrow night and it will be a review.
No matter the reason for Sony getting hacked, their entertainment division looks rather terrible with all the bad info that's come out about them, with executives arguing with each other and such idiocy; although, I do realize that all big corporations have similar stupid things happen. I bet that Sony wishes their Internet security was better... not to mention not move the movie from October to December for no reason at all. Maybe this wouldn't have happened.
As for the movie, I never thought it looked really all that funny and even then, I think it's crappy what happened with the movie, misguided as it may be from the very beginning and no matter who it was that hacked them then made those disgusting threats. As others have said, Sony bowing to pressure due to the theatres being afraid to show it... it has set a dangerous precedent for what could happen in the future for theatrical films that are “controversial”. This situation just sucks all around.
I will return tomorrow night and it will be a review.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Gunga Din
Gunga Din (1939)
Runtime: 117 minutes
Directed by: George Stevens
Starring: Cary Grant, Victor McLagen, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Sam Jaffe, Joan Fontaine
From: RKO
This was a random watch on TCM and I am glad I finally sat down and checked this out after having the desire to see this for a long while. I'll be back tomorrow night but I don't know what I'll be reviewing or even if I'll be reviewing anything; plans for tonight changed due to exhaustion from me but I still have a few things in mind to watch the next few days. Now, onto the Letterboxd review:
This film was on last night on TCM and as I've been interested in the film for years I figured it was about damn time I checked it out. It was a good move on my part.
I haven't read the poem from Rudyard Kipling but I understand that isn't so important for watching this movie as it's rather loosely based at best. What you get here is an adventure tale where three young soldiers in the British Army in Colonial India during the 19th century (Cary Grant, Victor McLagen and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.) enjoy having a good time but are good soldiers also. They have to do with the Thugee cult, a real-life group of assassins who terrorized India for a few hundred years but were eradicated by the late 1800's but here they have returned so the troops have to deal with that. Also, one of the three men is going to get married soon and settle down and as they're stereotypical men, the other two think that is awful. Along for the ride is the titular Gunga Din, who is a water-bearer for their regiment.
The movie is just an entertaining old romp. You have entertaining action scenes but the focus is on the three leads and Din and how they interact with each other. What really gets things set in motion is the search for a temple made of gold. It's a rousing adventure and I had heard it was an obvious influence on Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom; this belief is not in error.
All across the Internet (including this site) I've seen arguments and conflicting claims about how the movie supports imperialism and colonialism. I won't step on that hornet's nest and get into that whole debate. All I'll say is that while it's true “the white men” were trumpeted as the heroes at the end and you have several egregious examples of “brownface” (Din and the main villain of the film), I wasn't too offended by such elements and at least Din (who wishes to be a soldier) is portrayed in a positive light and he does get his moment to shine.
In short, I ignored the stuff that doesn't look so good today and I was able to enjoy the movie and what it presents, which includes a good amount of comedy, a cute elephant and getting to see Grant play not a suave romantic ladies man but rather a boisterous and sometimes silly character.
Runtime: 117 minutes
Directed by: George Stevens
Starring: Cary Grant, Victor McLagen, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Sam Jaffe, Joan Fontaine
From: RKO
This was a random watch on TCM and I am glad I finally sat down and checked this out after having the desire to see this for a long while. I'll be back tomorrow night but I don't know what I'll be reviewing or even if I'll be reviewing anything; plans for tonight changed due to exhaustion from me but I still have a few things in mind to watch the next few days. Now, onto the Letterboxd review:
This film was on last night on TCM and as I've been interested in the film for years I figured it was about damn time I checked it out. It was a good move on my part.
I haven't read the poem from Rudyard Kipling but I understand that isn't so important for watching this movie as it's rather loosely based at best. What you get here is an adventure tale where three young soldiers in the British Army in Colonial India during the 19th century (Cary Grant, Victor McLagen and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.) enjoy having a good time but are good soldiers also. They have to do with the Thugee cult, a real-life group of assassins who terrorized India for a few hundred years but were eradicated by the late 1800's but here they have returned so the troops have to deal with that. Also, one of the three men is going to get married soon and settle down and as they're stereotypical men, the other two think that is awful. Along for the ride is the titular Gunga Din, who is a water-bearer for their regiment.
The movie is just an entertaining old romp. You have entertaining action scenes but the focus is on the three leads and Din and how they interact with each other. What really gets things set in motion is the search for a temple made of gold. It's a rousing adventure and I had heard it was an obvious influence on Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom; this belief is not in error.
All across the Internet (including this site) I've seen arguments and conflicting claims about how the movie supports imperialism and colonialism. I won't step on that hornet's nest and get into that whole debate. All I'll say is that while it's true “the white men” were trumpeted as the heroes at the end and you have several egregious examples of “brownface” (Din and the main villain of the film), I wasn't too offended by such elements and at least Din (who wishes to be a soldier) is portrayed in a positive light and he does get his moment to shine.
In short, I ignored the stuff that doesn't look so good today and I was able to enjoy the movie and what it presents, which includes a good amount of comedy, a cute elephant and getting to see Grant play not a suave romantic ladies man but rather a boisterous and sometimes silly character.
Monday, December 15, 2014
The Thin Man Goes Home
The Thin Man Goes Home (1945)
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Richard Thorpe
Starring: William Powell, Myrna Loy, Lucile Watson, Harry Davenport, Gloria DeHaven
From: MGM
Yes, I changed my mind and I actually only watched this last night; why did I do this? I explained it all in the Letterboxd review I have below but basically it's “audience fatigue” with me. I will eventually watch that last movie in the series but it will be sometime next year. I'll be back tomorrow night but for now, the Letterboxd review:
It looks like I will have to be different from the norm in that I am not as big a fan of this as many seem to be. I will explain.
In this entry things are noticeably different. The director was not the same from the first four (W.S. Van Dyke, who unfortunately had passed away) and I don't know if that was the main reason or not but it isn't the same old same old. Trying to freshen the formula is one thing; when Nick and Nora seem like entirely different characters more often than not... Nick spanking his wife in front of his parents and then dad making a joke about domestic violence? What is this?
The plot is that Nick & Nora (the kid is written out with the excuse that he's “at school”, which is fine by me) go to Nick's old bucolic hometown to visit his parents; father-a doctor-and son don't always see eye to eye for various reasons. As joked about in the movie, murder seems to follow the couple and indeed that's what happens. This case involves such things as paintings, a fancy ball (as in a party at a ballroom), and people snooping around in bushes. It does in fact end the same as the previous four, something that was joked about in a meta way; I don't think the odd editing in the climax was a meta thing too, though.
Like I said the two leads don't seem the same as the characters you've seen in the previous films; they come across as clowns too often and there was definitely plenty of comedy... not all of which works. The story and the mystery also comes across as slight compared to the previous four, even if the family stuff was a nice idea and did provide some decent moments. Personally I don't rate it as high as many others, although I still say that it's average overall and your mileage may vary. At least there is some amusing physical humor and Loy does get more to do than the past few movies. The charm of those two is a big help.
I just wouldn't have minded if-for example-they went more in-depth on the idea of that idyllic little town actually holding many dark secrets and they don't like an outsider snooping about; they only skimmed the surface there and it wasn't a harsh look like you'd expect from, say, Hitchcock.
Anyhow, I was thinking about also watching the last film in the series-Song of the Thin Man-but I'll wait to do that until sometime next year; maybe watching all the sequels in a few days wasn't the best idea, even if overall the series I would still rate pretty highly.
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Richard Thorpe
Starring: William Powell, Myrna Loy, Lucile Watson, Harry Davenport, Gloria DeHaven
From: MGM
Yes, I changed my mind and I actually only watched this last night; why did I do this? I explained it all in the Letterboxd review I have below but basically it's “audience fatigue” with me. I will eventually watch that last movie in the series but it will be sometime next year. I'll be back tomorrow night but for now, the Letterboxd review:
It looks like I will have to be different from the norm in that I am not as big a fan of this as many seem to be. I will explain.
In this entry things are noticeably different. The director was not the same from the first four (W.S. Van Dyke, who unfortunately had passed away) and I don't know if that was the main reason or not but it isn't the same old same old. Trying to freshen the formula is one thing; when Nick and Nora seem like entirely different characters more often than not... Nick spanking his wife in front of his parents and then dad making a joke about domestic violence? What is this?
The plot is that Nick & Nora (the kid is written out with the excuse that he's “at school”, which is fine by me) go to Nick's old bucolic hometown to visit his parents; father-a doctor-and son don't always see eye to eye for various reasons. As joked about in the movie, murder seems to follow the couple and indeed that's what happens. This case involves such things as paintings, a fancy ball (as in a party at a ballroom), and people snooping around in bushes. It does in fact end the same as the previous four, something that was joked about in a meta way; I don't think the odd editing in the climax was a meta thing too, though.
Like I said the two leads don't seem the same as the characters you've seen in the previous films; they come across as clowns too often and there was definitely plenty of comedy... not all of which works. The story and the mystery also comes across as slight compared to the previous four, even if the family stuff was a nice idea and did provide some decent moments. Personally I don't rate it as high as many others, although I still say that it's average overall and your mileage may vary. At least there is some amusing physical humor and Loy does get more to do than the past few movies. The charm of those two is a big help.
I just wouldn't have minded if-for example-they went more in-depth on the idea of that idyllic little town actually holding many dark secrets and they don't like an outsider snooping about; they only skimmed the surface there and it wasn't a harsh look like you'd expect from, say, Hitchcock.
Anyhow, I was thinking about also watching the last film in the series-Song of the Thin Man-but I'll wait to do that until sometime next year; maybe watching all the sequels in a few days wasn't the best idea, even if overall the series I would still rate pretty highly.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Shadow Of The Thin Man
Shadow of the Thin Man (1941)
Runtime: 97 minutes
Directed by: W.S. Van Dyke II
Starring: William Powell, Myrna Loy, Barry Nelson, Donna Reed, Sam Levene
From: MGM
I'll cut to the chase: last night I watched this film and tomorrow night I'll return with a review of the last two movies in The Thin Man series. After that, it'll be a variety before I leave on vacation Monday the 22nd. Now, the Letterboxd review:
Last night I watched the fourth film in The Thin Man series and it was largely what I expected. It's fine as I enjoy its formula and while it may not be as great as the first three it's still a nice 3 star movie. This time the family's back home in California (which allows for the grumpy police Lieutenant known as Abrams from the second film to appear here) and the case revolves around a murder that happens at the racetrack and from there you get such things as professional wrestling, racketeering/gambling, feuding newspapermen and characters with such names as Rainbow Benny & Whitey Barrow.
The movie is pretty much what you expect from the series, including the trademark ending where all the suspects are gathered together in a room and Nick explains the case and who the culprit or culprits are. The one different thing is that their son Nick Jr. is a toddler now and at first I thought he was going to be an annoying precocious kid (for example, referring to your dad by his first name) but after that first scene he acted more like a normal kid and he only appeared in a few scenes anyhow.
I mentioned that the last film was more on the serious side and maybe because of that this entry leaned more towards the comedy, which was fine; there were such things as dizziness on a merry-go-round and a brawl in a restaurant. Why there were two moments where their dog Asta moved in slow motion... that I cannot explain. I unfortunately can explain why there's a black maid character and she is made to look dumb by not knowing the right words to say, and that's the racism of the time period but at least that was a minor character so you don't have to do too much cringing.
Runtime: 97 minutes
Directed by: W.S. Van Dyke II
Starring: William Powell, Myrna Loy, Barry Nelson, Donna Reed, Sam Levene
From: MGM
I'll cut to the chase: last night I watched this film and tomorrow night I'll return with a review of the last two movies in The Thin Man series. After that, it'll be a variety before I leave on vacation Monday the 22nd. Now, the Letterboxd review:
Last night I watched the fourth film in The Thin Man series and it was largely what I expected. It's fine as I enjoy its formula and while it may not be as great as the first three it's still a nice 3 star movie. This time the family's back home in California (which allows for the grumpy police Lieutenant known as Abrams from the second film to appear here) and the case revolves around a murder that happens at the racetrack and from there you get such things as professional wrestling, racketeering/gambling, feuding newspapermen and characters with such names as Rainbow Benny & Whitey Barrow.
The movie is pretty much what you expect from the series, including the trademark ending where all the suspects are gathered together in a room and Nick explains the case and who the culprit or culprits are. The one different thing is that their son Nick Jr. is a toddler now and at first I thought he was going to be an annoying precocious kid (for example, referring to your dad by his first name) but after that first scene he acted more like a normal kid and he only appeared in a few scenes anyhow.
I mentioned that the last film was more on the serious side and maybe because of that this entry leaned more towards the comedy, which was fine; there were such things as dizziness on a merry-go-round and a brawl in a restaurant. Why there were two moments where their dog Asta moved in slow motion... that I cannot explain. I unfortunately can explain why there's a black maid character and she is made to look dumb by not knowing the right words to say, and that's the racism of the time period but at least that was a minor character so you don't have to do too much cringing.
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Another Thin Man
Another Thin Man (1939)
Runtime: 103 minutes
Directed by: W.S. Van Dyke II
Starring: William Powell, Myrna Loy, Virginia Grey, Otto Kruger, C. Aubrey Smith
From: MGM
I soldier on going through this franchise by watching the third in the series. The Letterboxd review is below and I will return tomorrow night, with the fourth movie.
I continued my journey in The Thin Man series by watching the third film, one that is most noteworthy as it introduces a kid, Nick Jr. I was hoping that isn't a bad sign as I have heard more than one person note that a kid appearing in a movie can be trouble. I'll have to wait until the later films to find out as here he was just a one year old infant and really, you only saw him a few times throughout.
This movie is set once again in the New York City area (which allowed them to bring back a character from the original, Detective Guild) and this time Nick and Nora are wrapped up in a case involving the estate of Nora's father and the exectuor of the estate is an old man who is threatened by an old partner. Of course he's killed and once again the happy couple are dragged into yet another murder case (something that is brought up at one point, how they seemingly often stumble into such situations) and it's as complex as the first two and has various twists & turns and the big reveal is of a suspect you may not have, well, suspected... but here it's even wackier than the first two.
The movie is more serious than the first two; sure, there are jokes but not as many; the same goes with the drinking that you see. There are wisecracks about such things as infidelity and yet there are some rough moments too, one of which isn't for the dog lovers. Oh don't worry, it isn't the beloved terrier known as Asta. There's such things as a baby party for Nick Jr.-which involves a bunch of shady characters-and a memorable scene at a “Latin” nightclub which includes a nice rumba routine.
While it's not the first two in the series it's still a satisfactory entry; the chemistry between the two stars and how they play off each other is always a treat. Plus, I did not look deep into the cast listing so as a Three Stooges fan I was quite delighted to see Shemp Howard in a small role.
Runtime: 103 minutes
Directed by: W.S. Van Dyke II
Starring: William Powell, Myrna Loy, Virginia Grey, Otto Kruger, C. Aubrey Smith
From: MGM
I soldier on going through this franchise by watching the third in the series. The Letterboxd review is below and I will return tomorrow night, with the fourth movie.
I continued my journey in The Thin Man series by watching the third film, one that is most noteworthy as it introduces a kid, Nick Jr. I was hoping that isn't a bad sign as I have heard more than one person note that a kid appearing in a movie can be trouble. I'll have to wait until the later films to find out as here he was just a one year old infant and really, you only saw him a few times throughout.
This movie is set once again in the New York City area (which allowed them to bring back a character from the original, Detective Guild) and this time Nick and Nora are wrapped up in a case involving the estate of Nora's father and the exectuor of the estate is an old man who is threatened by an old partner. Of course he's killed and once again the happy couple are dragged into yet another murder case (something that is brought up at one point, how they seemingly often stumble into such situations) and it's as complex as the first two and has various twists & turns and the big reveal is of a suspect you may not have, well, suspected... but here it's even wackier than the first two.
The movie is more serious than the first two; sure, there are jokes but not as many; the same goes with the drinking that you see. There are wisecracks about such things as infidelity and yet there are some rough moments too, one of which isn't for the dog lovers. Oh don't worry, it isn't the beloved terrier known as Asta. There's such things as a baby party for Nick Jr.-which involves a bunch of shady characters-and a memorable scene at a “Latin” nightclub which includes a nice rumba routine.
While it's not the first two in the series it's still a satisfactory entry; the chemistry between the two stars and how they play off each other is always a treat. Plus, I did not look deep into the cast listing so as a Three Stooges fan I was quite delighted to see Shemp Howard in a small role.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
After The Thin Man
After the Thin Man (1936)
Runtime: 112 minutes
Directed by: W.S. Van Dyke II
Starring: William Powell, Myrna Loy, James Stewart, Elissa Landi, Joseph Calleia
From: MGM
I have finally watched the second film in this franchise and it will only be a few days until I am done watching all the films. As I am able to I figure it's best if I get them all done with in one shot. The Letterboxd review is below and I'll return Saturday night.
"You see, when it comes to words like that, an illiterate person..."
"What do you mean 'illiterate'? My father and mother were married right here in the city hall!"
To get to the point, my local library has all of The Thin Man films on DVD and as I rate the first one real highly I figured I should watch the five sequels in the next few days, starting with the second film, which begins right after the first one ends.
This time the setting is California as Nick & Nora Charles (also their cute terrier dog Asta) return home from a New York vacation that proved to be a murder investigation. Unfortunately for them they immediately end up in another homicide case; it starts off as Nick looks into the case of the missing husband of Nora's cousin but it turns into much more and has as many twists & turns as the original film.
While this was the longest in the series and at times felt like it, otherwise this is another delightful comedy/mystery with many humorous moments & one-liners to go with the sleuthing. As before, Nick and Nora are equals and both deliver sharp barbs to each other but it is clear they do love each other. The case involves such things as old in-laws that despise Nick, a grumpy police investigator, a Chinese nightclub, and a young James Stewart. There's also the expected alcohol consumption and even Asta as a brief subplot with the love of his life, a “Mrs. Asta”.
Thankfully the movie is more of what I dug about the original, which was great chemistry between the two leads and their charming repartee along with colorful characters and an interesting investigation where you don't know for sure what's going on until it's helpfully explained and you do understand the motive; it's pleasant entertainment.
Runtime: 112 minutes
Directed by: W.S. Van Dyke II
Starring: William Powell, Myrna Loy, James Stewart, Elissa Landi, Joseph Calleia
From: MGM
I have finally watched the second film in this franchise and it will only be a few days until I am done watching all the films. As I am able to I figure it's best if I get them all done with in one shot. The Letterboxd review is below and I'll return Saturday night.
"You see, when it comes to words like that, an illiterate person..."
"What do you mean 'illiterate'? My father and mother were married right here in the city hall!"
To get to the point, my local library has all of The Thin Man films on DVD and as I rate the first one real highly I figured I should watch the five sequels in the next few days, starting with the second film, which begins right after the first one ends.
This time the setting is California as Nick & Nora Charles (also their cute terrier dog Asta) return home from a New York vacation that proved to be a murder investigation. Unfortunately for them they immediately end up in another homicide case; it starts off as Nick looks into the case of the missing husband of Nora's cousin but it turns into much more and has as many twists & turns as the original film.
While this was the longest in the series and at times felt like it, otherwise this is another delightful comedy/mystery with many humorous moments & one-liners to go with the sleuthing. As before, Nick and Nora are equals and both deliver sharp barbs to each other but it is clear they do love each other. The case involves such things as old in-laws that despise Nick, a grumpy police investigator, a Chinese nightclub, and a young James Stewart. There's also the expected alcohol consumption and even Asta as a brief subplot with the love of his life, a “Mrs. Asta”.
Thankfully the movie is more of what I dug about the original, which was great chemistry between the two leads and their charming repartee along with colorful characters and an interesting investigation where you don't know for sure what's going on until it's helpfully explained and you do understand the motive; it's pleasant entertainment.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Blair Re-Reviews: Rare Exports
Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale (2010)
Runtime: 84 minutes
Directed by: Jalmari Helander
Starring: Onni Tommila, Jorma Tommila, Tommi Korpela, Per Christian Ellefsen
From: Cinet
Here's something I did once before but that was a long while ago; I decided to do over a review after seeing a film for a second time. In this case it was the strange Finnish movie known as Rare Exports, which is an alternate take on the Santa Claus mythos. Time hasn't been kind to it. The Letterboxd review is below and I'll be back tomorrow night:
This is another review I am doing over; originally I had something up but it was short and put up in the first few days I was a member of this site. I've been wanting to rewatch this film as it left me disappointed but yet I still gave it an average rating; viewing it again, why did I even rate it that high?
This is what I originally wrote: "This movie went in directions I was not expecting. I was hoping for more with the kids hanging out with each other and less of the boy and his father doing the tired cliched arguing with each other thing, and the ending also doesn't really work. It isn't bad by any means but it is overrated compared to all the praise this has attached to it."
Seeing it for a second (and for sure final) time, why do so many people give this good-or better-reviews? I just don't get it. Sure, I see that more people-at least here-are noting how it's “boring” and that's certainly a valid complaint but there's still too many positive reviews and I don't get it.
I should start at the beginning and explain what this is if you are unaware: the movie is set in northern Finland right by the Russian border, and the focus is on a young boy known as Pietari and his father; Pie also has a friend who's a few years older named Juuso. Basically, the grave of Santa Claus is discovered and he's dug up, only he's not jolly old Saint Nick; rather, he's like the old Krampus legend of Central Europe and he's actually evil.
That story on paper sounds interesting, seeing an evil Santa slaughter people. How they did it, though... blah. As mentioned already it can be argued that there are many dull moments in a film less than 90 minutes long. The big issue is that the story and the way it's presented is not what you'd expect, and that is unfortunate as they did it in a dumb and unexciting and disappointing way. I won't get into spoilers but I really wish the story would have actually been fun.
The fact that the stuff with the two boys was cool but you get so little of it and instead the focus is on the cliché story of the father and son and the dad is a dick who never listens to his kid and always treats him like crap... I really didn't like that. Then when things finally get going, it just ends up with a whimper and it feels like the cool concept they presented here got totally wasted and it should have been much more. Oh, and the majority of the characters here act really stupid most of the time, just because the script tells them so.
I don't plan on seeing too many holiday-related films this month but when I do I'll try for them to be better or at least more interesting than this overrated dreck.
Runtime: 84 minutes
Directed by: Jalmari Helander
Starring: Onni Tommila, Jorma Tommila, Tommi Korpela, Per Christian Ellefsen
From: Cinet
Here's something I did once before but that was a long while ago; I decided to do over a review after seeing a film for a second time. In this case it was the strange Finnish movie known as Rare Exports, which is an alternate take on the Santa Claus mythos. Time hasn't been kind to it. The Letterboxd review is below and I'll be back tomorrow night:
This is another review I am doing over; originally I had something up but it was short and put up in the first few days I was a member of this site. I've been wanting to rewatch this film as it left me disappointed but yet I still gave it an average rating; viewing it again, why did I even rate it that high?
This is what I originally wrote: "This movie went in directions I was not expecting. I was hoping for more with the kids hanging out with each other and less of the boy and his father doing the tired cliched arguing with each other thing, and the ending also doesn't really work. It isn't bad by any means but it is overrated compared to all the praise this has attached to it."
Seeing it for a second (and for sure final) time, why do so many people give this good-or better-reviews? I just don't get it. Sure, I see that more people-at least here-are noting how it's “boring” and that's certainly a valid complaint but there's still too many positive reviews and I don't get it.
I should start at the beginning and explain what this is if you are unaware: the movie is set in northern Finland right by the Russian border, and the focus is on a young boy known as Pietari and his father; Pie also has a friend who's a few years older named Juuso. Basically, the grave of Santa Claus is discovered and he's dug up, only he's not jolly old Saint Nick; rather, he's like the old Krampus legend of Central Europe and he's actually evil.
That story on paper sounds interesting, seeing an evil Santa slaughter people. How they did it, though... blah. As mentioned already it can be argued that there are many dull moments in a film less than 90 minutes long. The big issue is that the story and the way it's presented is not what you'd expect, and that is unfortunate as they did it in a dumb and unexciting and disappointing way. I won't get into spoilers but I really wish the story would have actually been fun.
The fact that the stuff with the two boys was cool but you get so little of it and instead the focus is on the cliché story of the father and son and the dad is a dick who never listens to his kid and always treats him like crap... I really didn't like that. Then when things finally get going, it just ends up with a whimper and it feels like the cool concept they presented here got totally wasted and it should have been much more. Oh, and the majority of the characters here act really stupid most of the time, just because the script tells them so.
I don't plan on seeing too many holiday-related films this month but when I do I'll try for them to be better or at least more interesting than this overrated dreck.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Sleep > Watching Movies
I was thinking of watching something last night but suddenly I was felt with a wave of exhaustion so I decided to relax and then get a good night's sleep instead. But, I have a good idea of the films I'll be watching for the next week so there shouldn't be further issues like this before I leave on vacation in about 2 weeks time.
Monday, December 8, 2014
Leonard Part 6
Leonard Part 6 (1987)
Runtime: 85 minutes
Directed by: Paul Weiland
Starring: The wonderful human being known as Bill Cosby, Tom Courtenay, Gloria Foster, Moses Gunn, Joe Don Baker
From: Columbia
Yes, I watched this infamous film; actually, it's for the second time in my life, and I likely won't ever see it a third time. I'll explain it all in a lengthy Letterboxd review below and I'll return tomorrow night with a review of a movie I promise will be better than this, something I gave the lowest possible rating to on Letterboxd:
Yep, before I get to reviewing this movie I have to address the gigantic elephant in the room. After all it plays a factor into why I watched this now, it being that I found the DVD for this buried under a pile of junk while looking for something else and due to recent news this likely will be the last time I'll ever want to see the film.
While as of this time he hasn't addressed all the accusations, it certainly appears from just the sheer amount of people who have stepped forward that Bill Cosby has assaulted who knows how many women for at least the past few decades, and that is awful news all around. As a kid I saw episodes of Fat Albert and The Cosby Show and saw some of his movies; hell, I saw Ghost Dad on the big screen! As an adult I listened to some of his stand-up and enjoyed it. Now, it's all changed and I don't know if I can enjoy it anymore. It's very sad that such an important figure for African-Americans is actually a terrible person and a predator. Lord knows there are plenty of entertainers I enjoy who weren't saints and did some quite unfortunate things, but something like this... I can never forget such a horrific act and how it was repeated who knows how many times.
Now, onto the film; despite knowing its toxic reputation for years I never actually saw it until I was an adult and I saw that yep, it was terrible. It was actually via VHS tape. I later got the DVD, for laughs and to remember how the old rumor of how Cosby and his wealth prevented a DVD release... well, that wasn't true, but apparently he has the TV rights, not that any serious network would actually want to ever show it.
Now, having seen this for what is likely the last time ever, I know I'll never have several questions answered, such as:
Why does the movie start off with some clips from the movie's climax?
Why does the killer rainbow trout bark like a dog? I know that this movie is pretty weird overall and has various things that are stupid-likely because it's supposed to be a family film-but that left me befuddled.
Why does Leonard wear a helmet that says Ipso Facto on the front? It's Latin for “By the fact itself” so I have no idea.
Why is Leonard so against going back to work to save the world from a crazy woman that can control animals and is killing his fellow CIA agents? That is never explained.
Why does his daughter date someone really old? It was a plot point that was just puzzling.
Why are there uncomfortable parallels to Troll 2?
Why does a guy in a car that ends up in a body of water never try to escape? It was his car and it shouldn't have been locked.
Why does Cosby looked bored out of his skull for most of the film... actually, I can probably answer that!
Is it just me that thinks Joe Don Baker's character here of CIA agent Nick Snyderburn is the same guy that's the CIA agent in the Brosnan Bond films and the Jack Wade name he uses there is just a cover? Probably so. Believe me I have more but I'll stop there.
If you don't know the plot, Cosby is Leonard Parker, a retired spy who is asked to return to the CIA to stop a crazy woman named Medusa Johnson who wants to kill everyone and have animals rule the world, and does so via “a formula” that causes animals to follow her bidding. So, PETA: The Movie is what this is... after a lot of convincing he finally does so. A lot of weird things happen after that.
There's such a thing as “dancing vegetarians” who are weird dudes that wear costumes and are the henchman of Medusa... yes, weird and I suppose it's interesting and bold that a big family film like this was supposed to be is so damn strange, but it doesn't mean it's good, that is for sure. An ostrich is ridden by Leonard in the climax and there's an exploding head apparently filled with sawdust; need I say more?
The biggest sin of the movie is that most of it is brutally unfunny; I mean, painfully bad stuff. Even if you enjoy weird absurd Dadaist movies I have a feeling you wouldn't enjoy all the failed comedy. Also, unfortunately there is a moment where current events creep in. Another plot point is that Leonard is estranged from his old lady; that is because he did something or another with a 19 year old and they were both naked but he says it was innocent and Bill... uh I mean Leonard implies it was consensual; yeah, it's incredibly creepy now.
Really, most people shouldn't even bother watching this now with all the controversy surrounding the star. Just know that its reputation is deserved.
Runtime: 85 minutes
Directed by: Paul Weiland
Starring: The wonderful human being known as Bill Cosby, Tom Courtenay, Gloria Foster, Moses Gunn, Joe Don Baker
From: Columbia
Yes, I watched this infamous film; actually, it's for the second time in my life, and I likely won't ever see it a third time. I'll explain it all in a lengthy Letterboxd review below and I'll return tomorrow night with a review of a movie I promise will be better than this, something I gave the lowest possible rating to on Letterboxd:
Yep, before I get to reviewing this movie I have to address the gigantic elephant in the room. After all it plays a factor into why I watched this now, it being that I found the DVD for this buried under a pile of junk while looking for something else and due to recent news this likely will be the last time I'll ever want to see the film.
While as of this time he hasn't addressed all the accusations, it certainly appears from just the sheer amount of people who have stepped forward that Bill Cosby has assaulted who knows how many women for at least the past few decades, and that is awful news all around. As a kid I saw episodes of Fat Albert and The Cosby Show and saw some of his movies; hell, I saw Ghost Dad on the big screen! As an adult I listened to some of his stand-up and enjoyed it. Now, it's all changed and I don't know if I can enjoy it anymore. It's very sad that such an important figure for African-Americans is actually a terrible person and a predator. Lord knows there are plenty of entertainers I enjoy who weren't saints and did some quite unfortunate things, but something like this... I can never forget such a horrific act and how it was repeated who knows how many times.
Now, onto the film; despite knowing its toxic reputation for years I never actually saw it until I was an adult and I saw that yep, it was terrible. It was actually via VHS tape. I later got the DVD, for laughs and to remember how the old rumor of how Cosby and his wealth prevented a DVD release... well, that wasn't true, but apparently he has the TV rights, not that any serious network would actually want to ever show it.
Now, having seen this for what is likely the last time ever, I know I'll never have several questions answered, such as:
Why does the movie start off with some clips from the movie's climax?
Why does the killer rainbow trout bark like a dog? I know that this movie is pretty weird overall and has various things that are stupid-likely because it's supposed to be a family film-but that left me befuddled.
Why does Leonard wear a helmet that says Ipso Facto on the front? It's Latin for “By the fact itself” so I have no idea.
Why is Leonard so against going back to work to save the world from a crazy woman that can control animals and is killing his fellow CIA agents? That is never explained.
Why does his daughter date someone really old? It was a plot point that was just puzzling.
Why are there uncomfortable parallels to Troll 2?
Why does a guy in a car that ends up in a body of water never try to escape? It was his car and it shouldn't have been locked.
Why does Cosby looked bored out of his skull for most of the film... actually, I can probably answer that!
Is it just me that thinks Joe Don Baker's character here of CIA agent Nick Snyderburn is the same guy that's the CIA agent in the Brosnan Bond films and the Jack Wade name he uses there is just a cover? Probably so. Believe me I have more but I'll stop there.
If you don't know the plot, Cosby is Leonard Parker, a retired spy who is asked to return to the CIA to stop a crazy woman named Medusa Johnson who wants to kill everyone and have animals rule the world, and does so via “a formula” that causes animals to follow her bidding. So, PETA: The Movie is what this is... after a lot of convincing he finally does so. A lot of weird things happen after that.
There's such a thing as “dancing vegetarians” who are weird dudes that wear costumes and are the henchman of Medusa... yes, weird and I suppose it's interesting and bold that a big family film like this was supposed to be is so damn strange, but it doesn't mean it's good, that is for sure. An ostrich is ridden by Leonard in the climax and there's an exploding head apparently filled with sawdust; need I say more?
The biggest sin of the movie is that most of it is brutally unfunny; I mean, painfully bad stuff. Even if you enjoy weird absurd Dadaist movies I have a feeling you wouldn't enjoy all the failed comedy. Also, unfortunately there is a moment where current events creep in. Another plot point is that Leonard is estranged from his old lady; that is because he did something or another with a 19 year old and they were both naked but he says it was innocent and Bill... uh I mean Leonard implies it was consensual; yeah, it's incredibly creepy now.
Really, most people shouldn't even bother watching this now with all the controversy surrounding the star. Just know that its reputation is deserved.
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Roller Boogie
Roller Boogie (1979)
Runtime: 103 minutes
Directed by: Mark L. Lester
Starring: Linda Blair, Jim Bray, Kimberly Beck, James Van Patten
From: United Artists
After seeing some quality films I decided to go this route; I'll explain why in the Letterboxd review below. I'll be back tomorrow night.
I guess I've been watching too many quality films as of late... this was on TCM Underground last night and as I had never seen it and yet it looked hilarious 35 years after the fact, I knew this was finally the time to watch it.
You can probably guess that a movie about rollerskating disco dancers starring Linda Blair wouldn't technically be good and that was indeed the case. But Lord is it amusing. Blair is Terry, a teen daughter to rich inattentive parents who enjoys being on skates and prefers hanging out with the common folk at Venice Beach to her similarly wealthy peers. There eventually is both a “let's save the rec center” plot involving the local roller rink and “a big competition for a finale” & that's about it for the plot, aside from seeing friendships and budding romances, and Terry learning to become a better rollerskater dancer from a love interest.
Rather, let me mention such things as the clothing (constantly hilarious; e.g., guys in short shorts and striped socks) or how there are characters named PHONES, HOPPY, or JAMMER DELANEY, or how there are many leering close-up shots of women throughout or how a key character was played by Trish from Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter or how Dean Cundey did the cinematography or how it was directed by the guy that gave us Commando and Showdown in Little Tokyo... like I said I laughed often, even if it was at the dopey movie where characters act inconsistent and there are plenty of cliches.
I know it's silly but at least it's harmless. Like I said there's plenty of unintentional humor and at least there are some nice skating routines and you get to hear Boogie Wonderland and the song Hell on Wheels, by Cher during the disco portion of her long illustrious career. And you have to see what some “police officers” are wearing; I shake my head if that was an actual uniform at the time, even for a “bike cop”.
Runtime: 103 minutes
Directed by: Mark L. Lester
Starring: Linda Blair, Jim Bray, Kimberly Beck, James Van Patten
From: United Artists
After seeing some quality films I decided to go this route; I'll explain why in the Letterboxd review below. I'll be back tomorrow night.
I guess I've been watching too many quality films as of late... this was on TCM Underground last night and as I had never seen it and yet it looked hilarious 35 years after the fact, I knew this was finally the time to watch it.
You can probably guess that a movie about rollerskating disco dancers starring Linda Blair wouldn't technically be good and that was indeed the case. But Lord is it amusing. Blair is Terry, a teen daughter to rich inattentive parents who enjoys being on skates and prefers hanging out with the common folk at Venice Beach to her similarly wealthy peers. There eventually is both a “let's save the rec center” plot involving the local roller rink and “a big competition for a finale” & that's about it for the plot, aside from seeing friendships and budding romances, and Terry learning to become a better rollerskater dancer from a love interest.
Rather, let me mention such things as the clothing (constantly hilarious; e.g., guys in short shorts and striped socks) or how there are characters named PHONES, HOPPY, or JAMMER DELANEY, or how there are many leering close-up shots of women throughout or how a key character was played by Trish from Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter or how Dean Cundey did the cinematography or how it was directed by the guy that gave us Commando and Showdown in Little Tokyo... like I said I laughed often, even if it was at the dopey movie where characters act inconsistent and there are plenty of cliches.
I know it's silly but at least it's harmless. Like I said there's plenty of unintentional humor and at least there are some nice skating routines and you get to hear Boogie Wonderland and the song Hell on Wheels, by Cher during the disco portion of her long illustrious career. And you have to see what some “police officers” are wearing; I shake my head if that was an actual uniform at the time, even for a “bike cop”.
Saturday, December 6, 2014
Nightcrawler
Nightcrawler (2014)
95% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 186 reviews)
Runtime: 117 minutes
Directed by: Dan Gilroy
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo, Riz Ahmed, Bill Paxton
From: Open Road/Bold Films
Yesterday I went out and saw this film. It was a wise decision on my part. The Letterboxd review is below and I will return tomorrow night with... something or another.
After all the strong reviews I've heard I finally decided to watch this on the big screen yesterday afternoon, and as I was the only person in the auditorium it was a de facto private screening, which worked for me. I am not a loner like Lou Bloom but I am not always a fan of human beings either.
The vast amounts of praise I heard for this film was correct, and I was glad I saw it on the big screen, even if it made me uncomfortable at times; that is not a slight. Rather it's a statement of how effective this dark thriller is at being unnerving as you follow Lou Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal delivering an incredible performance, looking gaunt and to echo what multiple people have told me, he just looks creepy as hell in the film), a friendless man who lives in Los Angeles & is charismatic, well-spoken, is intelligent, when he's motivated he's incredibly driven... and he's also a psychopath who does more than one appalling act during the course of the movie.
He is inspired to be a stringer (a person who freelances and finds crimes to film and sells the footage to local news stations) and soon shows a lot of zest and even though he needs an assistant-who he treats rather poorly-he is singularly determined to be the best as that field and he is willing to manipulate, abuse, lie, and do anything else to succeed. The other main characters include an established rival (Bill Paxton) and a news director at an LA TV station (Rene Russo).
From what I had heard this was going to be a dark movie, and even I was surprised at how black it got. Lou Bloom is a morally bankrupt person who does many appalling acts and yet he's such a fascinating character due to his charisma and his gift of gab and I always wanted to see what would happen next and if he would be punished for his acts. Again, old Jake did a tremendous job with this role. He looked disturbing and his portrayal of such an evil character was top-notch.
To think that this was the directorial debut of Dan Gilroy, a screenwriter who has written such “cinematic classics” as Real Steel and Freejack. You wouldn't know it as he also wrote this movie and the script here is better than the films I listed, needless to say. He also does a nice job directing it, and as many have noted already, the cinematography from Robert Elswit makes Los Angeles look quite lovely; much of it is at night and the city looks pretty colorful but in a dark way and not just literally.
Aside from the lead character and his craziness, much satire is directed at television news and that is a target worthy of scorn. I haven't watched it in years and I sure as heck don't get information from there. As the movie makes clear, TV news seems to be focused on the negative and material that causes panic for the viewers instead of being informative and positive. Also, ratings are above everything else (something Russo says often and stresses about as the last part of the film takes place during “sweeps month”) so the more lurid and sensational the story, the better, integrity and class be damned.
As I said I am glad I got to see this on the big screen. As the movie tells you, if you want to win the lottery you've got to make money to get a ticket.
95% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 186 reviews)
Runtime: 117 minutes
Directed by: Dan Gilroy
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo, Riz Ahmed, Bill Paxton
From: Open Road/Bold Films
Yesterday I went out and saw this film. It was a wise decision on my part. The Letterboxd review is below and I will return tomorrow night with... something or another.
After all the strong reviews I've heard I finally decided to watch this on the big screen yesterday afternoon, and as I was the only person in the auditorium it was a de facto private screening, which worked for me. I am not a loner like Lou Bloom but I am not always a fan of human beings either.
The vast amounts of praise I heard for this film was correct, and I was glad I saw it on the big screen, even if it made me uncomfortable at times; that is not a slight. Rather it's a statement of how effective this dark thriller is at being unnerving as you follow Lou Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal delivering an incredible performance, looking gaunt and to echo what multiple people have told me, he just looks creepy as hell in the film), a friendless man who lives in Los Angeles & is charismatic, well-spoken, is intelligent, when he's motivated he's incredibly driven... and he's also a psychopath who does more than one appalling act during the course of the movie.
He is inspired to be a stringer (a person who freelances and finds crimes to film and sells the footage to local news stations) and soon shows a lot of zest and even though he needs an assistant-who he treats rather poorly-he is singularly determined to be the best as that field and he is willing to manipulate, abuse, lie, and do anything else to succeed. The other main characters include an established rival (Bill Paxton) and a news director at an LA TV station (Rene Russo).
From what I had heard this was going to be a dark movie, and even I was surprised at how black it got. Lou Bloom is a morally bankrupt person who does many appalling acts and yet he's such a fascinating character due to his charisma and his gift of gab and I always wanted to see what would happen next and if he would be punished for his acts. Again, old Jake did a tremendous job with this role. He looked disturbing and his portrayal of such an evil character was top-notch.
To think that this was the directorial debut of Dan Gilroy, a screenwriter who has written such “cinematic classics” as Real Steel and Freejack. You wouldn't know it as he also wrote this movie and the script here is better than the films I listed, needless to say. He also does a nice job directing it, and as many have noted already, the cinematography from Robert Elswit makes Los Angeles look quite lovely; much of it is at night and the city looks pretty colorful but in a dark way and not just literally.
Aside from the lead character and his craziness, much satire is directed at television news and that is a target worthy of scorn. I haven't watched it in years and I sure as heck don't get information from there. As the movie makes clear, TV news seems to be focused on the negative and material that causes panic for the viewers instead of being informative and positive. Also, ratings are above everything else (something Russo says often and stresses about as the last part of the film takes place during “sweeps month”) so the more lurid and sensational the story, the better, integrity and class be damned.
As I said I am glad I got to see this on the big screen. As the movie tells you, if you want to win the lottery you've got to make money to get a ticket.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Wild Strawberries/The Seventh Seal
Wild Strawberries (Smultronstallet) (1957)
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: Ingmar Bergman
Starring: Victor Sjostrom, Bibi Andersson, Ingrid Thulin, Gunnar Bjornstrand
From: Svensk Filmindustri
The Seventh Seal (Det Sjunde Inseglet) (1957)
Runtime: 96 minutes
Directed by: Ingmar Bergman
Starring: Max Von Sydow, Bengt Ekerot, Gunnar Bjornstrand, Nils Poppe
From: Svensk Filmindustri
Yes, I did a double shot of Ingmar Bergman last night; I was able to do such a thing courtesy of Turner Classic Movies. I now know that 1957 was an incredible year for the director. I copied and pasted the Letterboxd reviews of both films, which are below. I will return Saturday afternoon. First, Wild Strawberries.
Last night on TCM they spent hours showing several Bergman pictures and I figured I needed to see two all-time classics I shamefully hadn't watched before in my life, this and The Seventh Seal. First was this movie, about an crotchety old professor.
I presume many know the plot by now but in case you don't, the grumpy old man known as Isak Borg is to be honored in another town. Isak is a real loner, not even looking to interact with most people, much less be blessed with the gift of having friends. He thought about making the journey by plane but after a bizarre nightmare-likely one of the best and most chilling ever put to screen-he decides to go there instead by car, and with a daughter in law he has a contentious relationship with. They not only meet a variety of people on the road trip but Isak also daydreams and you get to look at various time periods in his long life; it's done by present day him stepping into the past and seeing various incidents. Will this cause him to change his ways?
Wiser people than me have waxed poetic about this but I'll try by best without being lengthy... or giving too much away The movie does a masterful job of looking at various aspects and stages of life, from a trio of young and carefree teenagers to a middle-aged married couple that loathe each other. The film certainly says a lot about life in general, and how everyone experiences various disappointments. Some are more severe than others and some people seem to have a proverbial black cloud over their heads but everyone has to deal with it and they have to make peace before they pass away, something that is of utmost importance to Borg as he's in the twilight of his life.
As for the cast, all of them do at least a good job but it's old film director/actor Victor Sjostrom as the lead that is the real highlight. He is great in a role where he starts off as not being the nicest person and yet even then you enjoy watching the character. As he has that very long day and you see things change, Sjostrom conveys all those emotions and feelings perfectly as he looked back upon a life of several huge disappointments. The film may sound bleak and downbeat from description but it's much more than that by the time it's finished.
Overall, everything about the movie is high-quality-such as the music and the cinematography-but it's the script, directing and performances that make this a deserved classic film.
Now, onto The Seventh Seal.
I'll be honest right away and say that I need to see this movie at least one more time before I can deliver a good and lengthy review of this cinematic masterpiece. I can say, though, that it does deserve the reputation it has and it should be known more than just has the film where a dude plays Death in a game of chess.
By the way, I imagine that there are plenty of people around my age who saw that spoofed in Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey and didn't know for a long time what it was spoofing; that's the category I fall in.
Anyhow, like I said the movie is much more than just a knight in The Crusades who returns but meets up with Death and challenges him to a game of chess in the hopes that he can win and defeat Death; there's the knight's comedic square & also there's the acting troupe who go from village to village... oh yeah this is also set during The Plague, Black Death, or whatever you want to call it.
The movie has great dialogue and raises many intriguing points about such things as God and Death, why God remains silent & invisible, and a huge aspect is religion and what can be called faults with it; philosophical questions and being faithful while still having doubts. There's a lot to digest so I would like to see it again and appreciate it even more.
However, I can still say that it's a deserved classic and this revolutionary film that you could argue introduced “arthouse cinema” rightfully is a film people can reasonably argue is among the best of all-time and may be the best piece of work that a still renowned world director ever put to film.
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: Ingmar Bergman
Starring: Victor Sjostrom, Bibi Andersson, Ingrid Thulin, Gunnar Bjornstrand
From: Svensk Filmindustri
The Seventh Seal (Det Sjunde Inseglet) (1957)
Runtime: 96 minutes
Directed by: Ingmar Bergman
Starring: Max Von Sydow, Bengt Ekerot, Gunnar Bjornstrand, Nils Poppe
From: Svensk Filmindustri
Yes, I did a double shot of Ingmar Bergman last night; I was able to do such a thing courtesy of Turner Classic Movies. I now know that 1957 was an incredible year for the director. I copied and pasted the Letterboxd reviews of both films, which are below. I will return Saturday afternoon. First, Wild Strawberries.
Last night on TCM they spent hours showing several Bergman pictures and I figured I needed to see two all-time classics I shamefully hadn't watched before in my life, this and The Seventh Seal. First was this movie, about an crotchety old professor.
I presume many know the plot by now but in case you don't, the grumpy old man known as Isak Borg is to be honored in another town. Isak is a real loner, not even looking to interact with most people, much less be blessed with the gift of having friends. He thought about making the journey by plane but after a bizarre nightmare-likely one of the best and most chilling ever put to screen-he decides to go there instead by car, and with a daughter in law he has a contentious relationship with. They not only meet a variety of people on the road trip but Isak also daydreams and you get to look at various time periods in his long life; it's done by present day him stepping into the past and seeing various incidents. Will this cause him to change his ways?
Wiser people than me have waxed poetic about this but I'll try by best without being lengthy... or giving too much away The movie does a masterful job of looking at various aspects and stages of life, from a trio of young and carefree teenagers to a middle-aged married couple that loathe each other. The film certainly says a lot about life in general, and how everyone experiences various disappointments. Some are more severe than others and some people seem to have a proverbial black cloud over their heads but everyone has to deal with it and they have to make peace before they pass away, something that is of utmost importance to Borg as he's in the twilight of his life.
As for the cast, all of them do at least a good job but it's old film director/actor Victor Sjostrom as the lead that is the real highlight. He is great in a role where he starts off as not being the nicest person and yet even then you enjoy watching the character. As he has that very long day and you see things change, Sjostrom conveys all those emotions and feelings perfectly as he looked back upon a life of several huge disappointments. The film may sound bleak and downbeat from description but it's much more than that by the time it's finished.
Overall, everything about the movie is high-quality-such as the music and the cinematography-but it's the script, directing and performances that make this a deserved classic film.
Now, onto The Seventh Seal.
I'll be honest right away and say that I need to see this movie at least one more time before I can deliver a good and lengthy review of this cinematic masterpiece. I can say, though, that it does deserve the reputation it has and it should be known more than just has the film where a dude plays Death in a game of chess.
By the way, I imagine that there are plenty of people around my age who saw that spoofed in Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey and didn't know for a long time what it was spoofing; that's the category I fall in.
Anyhow, like I said the movie is much more than just a knight in The Crusades who returns but meets up with Death and challenges him to a game of chess in the hopes that he can win and defeat Death; there's the knight's comedic square & also there's the acting troupe who go from village to village... oh yeah this is also set during The Plague, Black Death, or whatever you want to call it.
The movie has great dialogue and raises many intriguing points about such things as God and Death, why God remains silent & invisible, and a huge aspect is religion and what can be called faults with it; philosophical questions and being faithful while still having doubts. There's a lot to digest so I would like to see it again and appreciate it even more.
However, I can still say that it's a deserved classic and this revolutionary film that you could argue introduced “arthouse cinema” rightfully is a film people can reasonably argue is among the best of all-time and may be the best piece of work that a still renowned world director ever put to film.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
My Schedule For The Rest Of The Year
I tried watching more than one film last night but none were working for me so I didn't finish any of them. Instead, let me mention that I'll try to have a normal schedule from now until around the 22nd, where I'll be out of town for a little less than a week and I'll be taking a break during that time. I'll give more details by the time I leave. In the meantime, I'll have a review for tomorrow night and barring something going really haywire it'll be at least two movies.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
The Eagle And The Hawk
The Eagle and the Hawk (1933)
Runtime: 73 minutes
Directed by: Stuart Walker
Starring: Fredric March, Cary Grant, Jack Oakie, Carole Lombard, Guy Standing
From: Paramount
This is another random watch from me, one that was on TCM late last night. It sounded interesting so I gave it a whirl, and even though it's a movie most don't know or remember, it was worth the watch. The Letterboxd review is below, after I mention that I'll be back tomorrow night.
Runtime: 73 minutes
Directed by: Stuart Walker
Starring: Fredric March, Cary Grant, Jack Oakie, Carole Lombard, Guy Standing
From: Paramount
This is another random watch from me, one that was on TCM late last night. It sounded interesting so I gave it a whirl, and even though it's a movie most don't know or remember, it was worth the watch. The Letterboxd review is below, after I mention that I'll be back tomorrow night.
Last night on TCM they started a month where each Monday they show several Cary Grant films per night and as I haven't seen enough films from Archibald Leach, I figured that I should see some this month. This was on late at night and I hadn't heard of it before but the plot was intriguing so I checked it out.
On the 100th anniversary of World War I it's appropriate I see a film set in that time period. In this case it's an antiwar film about some Yankees who volunteer for the British Royal Air Force and Fredric March is a skilled pilot who quickly becomes disillusioned with all the death that happens during wartime. Cary Grant is a rival and yet they have to work together as a duo in an aircraft whose first job is to take pictures of the enemy but they can engage in air battles if needed. In contrast, Grant is gung-ho about the war. Jack Oakie is there as a genial humorous guy who tries to lighten the mood even during tense moments and Carole Lombard is an unnamed gal who has a small role but at least adds some sex appeal.
The performances by and large are at least fine but while Grant does a swell job young in his career (and I am not used to him looking so young) it is March as the lead who is the highlight. He does a tremendous job slowly but surely becoming more mad and anguished by all the deaths that happen, whether they be his fellow soldiers or the enemies, often young adults who barely have had a chance to lead a good life.
As it's a Pre-Code movie you have some things happen that are still pretty potent today and without giving anything away, Grant's character is not as one-note as you may expect. Thus, the movie is still relevant today when it comes to the stress and mental pressures of a person who is in the armed forces.
I am glad for services like TCM where I can discover such movies like this, where you have flying scenes (some lifted from Paramount's Wings) that may look dated today but overall the story is still one to remember and contemplate.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Night Flight
Night Flight (1933)
Runtime: 84 minutes
Directed by: Clarence Brown
Starring: John and Lionel Barrymore, Helen Hayes, Clark Gable, Robert Montgomery
From: MGM
I've finally returned and I picked out another hard to find title that happens to be on Warner Archive Instant. Onto the Letterboxd review, after I tell you that I'll return tomorrow night.
In my last few days of having Warner Archive Instant (I'll subscribe to it again; that'll just be sometime next year) I decided to watch this film due to its strong cast (Barrymore Squared in John and Lionel, Helen Hayes, Clark Gable, and in a minor role Myrna Loy), its plot involving one day in “South America”-actually Southern California and Colorado-where a polio outbreak has happened and there has to be a then-dangerous flight at night done by airmail pilots in order to transport the medicine from Chile back to Brazil. There's more to it than that but now you know the gist of the plot
The movie also was nearly impossible to find for decades due to copyright issues but that got settled a few years ago. Was it worth the wait? Well... I say it's average overall. It's not awful but with the cast you'd expect better. It happens that a lot of the focus is on Barrymore Squared, which doesn't sound bad due to their talent but the other people get short shrift; for example, Loy only has a few scenes and that's it. Instead you concentrate on John as a huge A-hole boss of the airmail company and Lionel as the poor sap who has to enforce John's edicts.
The movie is quite melodramatic; maybe it's overdramatic but it's up to interpretation. After all the first thing you see is a pretty sick young boy. At least the flying scenes are pretty nice for the time but like I said it's just average overall, when you'd hope for something better. Many of the stars don't even really interact with each other. Those are the breaks, I guess. Maybe the novel from Antoine de Saint-Exupery was better.
Runtime: 84 minutes
Directed by: Clarence Brown
Starring: John and Lionel Barrymore, Helen Hayes, Clark Gable, Robert Montgomery
From: MGM
I've finally returned and I picked out another hard to find title that happens to be on Warner Archive Instant. Onto the Letterboxd review, after I tell you that I'll return tomorrow night.
In my last few days of having Warner Archive Instant (I'll subscribe to it again; that'll just be sometime next year) I decided to watch this film due to its strong cast (Barrymore Squared in John and Lionel, Helen Hayes, Clark Gable, and in a minor role Myrna Loy), its plot involving one day in “South America”-actually Southern California and Colorado-where a polio outbreak has happened and there has to be a then-dangerous flight at night done by airmail pilots in order to transport the medicine from Chile back to Brazil. There's more to it than that but now you know the gist of the plot
The movie also was nearly impossible to find for decades due to copyright issues but that got settled a few years ago. Was it worth the wait? Well... I say it's average overall. It's not awful but with the cast you'd expect better. It happens that a lot of the focus is on Barrymore Squared, which doesn't sound bad due to their talent but the other people get short shrift; for example, Loy only has a few scenes and that's it. Instead you concentrate on John as a huge A-hole boss of the airmail company and Lionel as the poor sap who has to enforce John's edicts.
The movie is quite melodramatic; maybe it's overdramatic but it's up to interpretation. After all the first thing you see is a pretty sick young boy. At least the flying scenes are pretty nice for the time but like I said it's just average overall, when you'd hope for something better. Many of the stars don't even really interact with each other. Those are the breaks, I guess. Maybe the novel from Antoine de Saint-Exupery was better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)