Kansas City Confidential (1952)
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Phil Karlson
Starring: John Payne, Preston Foster, Lee Van Cleef, Neville Brand, Jack Elam, Coleen Gray
From: United Artists
Here is an older movie from me; it's been awhile since I've seen one of this vintage or older. I'll have to thank TCM for that. My review of this noir is below, via Letterboxd:
It has been more than a month since I had watched a motion picture this old so when I noticed that this famous noir would be on TCM late last night, I knew this was the right thing to see at the right time.
In this tale (mostly set in Mexico; I don't know if the Kansas City in the title is Missouri or Kansas; it doesn't matter either way), an ex-con is framed so he is accused of participating in a bank robbery, and he goes to Mexico to track down those that set him up. It's not a complex plot, at least for the viewer. Yet, while it doesn't always have all the typical tropes of a noir, it still has enough touches and style to clearly be part of that subgenre. It's intense and has hard-hitting violence, a lady who isn't necessarily a femme fatale but still is a love interest type (nicely played by Coleen Gray, who passed away only a few months ago), hard-boiled dialogue and has the common plot device of someone being framed. The cops being abusive to a suspect and/or an innocent person, I'd like to say that this is a real life thing which stopped during the time that the classic film noirs were made, but well... we sadly know the truth.
Anyhow, I realize that others here and elsewhere have noted this, but this certainly seems to be one of the many inspirations for Tarantino when it comes to Reservoir Dogs and well, I'll go with that. It probably inspired some other heist films also, but between the bank robbery & the participants being random and not knowing each other (if only Quentin would have had the characters wear wacky masks during the robbery) and I can understand the comparison.
The movie is nicely acted by the performers. John Payne and Ms. Gray were in other noir films, Preston Foster was a B actor veteran, and the three random criminals put together by “Mr. Big” to pull off the robbery (John Payne certainly wanted to be the one to be with them... so he could take them down) all became famous later: Jack Elam, Lee Van Cleef and Neville Brand. All of them are good in their own ways.
This is not the most hard-hitting or brutal or intense film noir. Yet, this is still a solid entry and the soon to be famous cast is one reason to track it down, which is easy to do as it is public domain.
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Monday, December 28, 2015
The Hateful Eight
The Hateful Eight (2015)
75% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 122 reviews)
Runtime: In the roadshow version I saw, 187 minutes long
Directed by: Who else but Tarantino could do a film like this?
Starring: I'll mention all of the Eight: Kurt Russell, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Walton Goggins, Samuel L. Jackson, Bruce Dern, Michael Madsen, Tim Roth, Demian Bichir
From: The Weinstein Company
I figured I should see a movie in Ultra Panavision 70 as it's such a rare experience (it was a cool one... literally and figuratively) so that is what I did this afternoon at what is now known as AMC Theatres at Disney Springs 24. There are Tarantino movies I like more than this one; still, it was worth seeing. I explain it all in my Letterboxd review below:
I still am not quite sure how I acquired more than two dozen new followers in the past week or so-except that I presume someone mentioned me in a list, and I thank whoever did that-and yet how it happened isn't as important as I am thankful for all the follows; I followed everyone back. Now that I am back from Christmas vacation, I'll try to post as often as usual, which is every day to every other day.
One of these years I'll go through all of Tarantino's filmography in order to rate it here. Most of them I haven't given a rating to on Letterboxd yet. I hadn't seen them in years and more than just about any other director, I always have a hard time giving a score or having a definitive opinion concerning Quentin's motion pictures. I do understand those that don't care for his loud and in your face personality, and the charges that he does more than just “borrow” or “homage” certain elements of motion pictures for his works are serious so at times I am not the biggest fan of his. I can't say I hate his product like I've heard some say. Yet, I haven't loved everything he's done. While stuff like Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained are great, I did not care for either Kill Bill movie or in a case of blasphemy for some, Jackie Brown. I'll explain why in the future when I review those movies.
Anyhow, I saw this movie in the afternoon and it drew a decent crowd and a wide mix of people, who seemed to enjoy it quite a bit. The experience ended up being 3D as the auditorium was the same approximate temperature as the snowy Wyoming setting of the film. I won't go into details about this as it's brand new, so I'll be vague. The general plot is already known; I did not know much besides the idea that Kurt Russell (no relation, sadly) was dragging killer Jennifer Jason Leigh to be hanged and due to a blizzard they are stuck in a haberdashery, meaning a small wooden shack.
This is definitely a QT picture, and not just because of the extreme close-ups of feet. He is at least distinctive. He certainly tries hard... sometimes too hard, IMO. Here, as typical he has shocking moments, not all of them I thought were needed. Really graphic violence is one thing (I am typically fine with that) but seeing a woman get physically abused by various men... that is something else. I wasn't automatically offended; it's just something I would rather not see, you know, even if QT is making a point here and I did recognize. There seemed to be too many unpleasant moments, again something I recognize was sort of the point. Also, Quentin had to have given a middle finger to the Spike Lee's and others who complained about the N word and how often it was used in Django, as I swear the racism flew even more frequently here. It ended up being noticeable and excessive.
Yet, I can still give this a high rating and it likely will be on my Top 10 list somewhere-said list will be out in, oh, 6 months or so-as there is a lot to like. All of the Eight deliver quality performances, and it's nice to see unheralded (to the general public, at least) actors like Walton Goggins get a chance to shine, not to mention old favorites like Bruce Dern and Old Kurt. Seeing Michael Madsen in a movie that's better than DTV schlock is a breath of fresh air. All the characters are colorful and quite engrossing. It is nicely shot and whether or not you are able to see it in 70mm-the images are great, but to be honest if you are only able to see it in digital, it's not that big of a loss-it does have a beautiful look. In addition, the Morricone score is good, good stuff. I am glad he is still making music when he's deep in his octogenarian years.
It's 3 hours and a lot of it is just on one set, and yet it's never boring and it seemed shorter than its length. It does have choice dialogue and there are plenty of great lines, which should probably not even been said due to the director and yet I wanted to make that clear. There are darkly humorous moments throughout so you will hear your audience laugh. It may be the sort of thing you want to see more than once, and I'll leave it at that.
I am glad I was able to see it in a roadshow version as while I saw revival screenings of The Ten Commandments and How the West Was Won in the past few years, seeing a new film that way (w/ overture and intermission) was pretty neat, along with the souvenir program that everyone got.
Tarantino will always be Tarantino, and some will just never care for what he does or how he acts, or even his style of motion pictures. This movie likely won't change too many minds either way. Yet, if you generally like-let alone love-what he does, you definitely should check this out. If you can see it on film in Super Panavision 70, all the better. The fact that like with all of Quentin's work this isn't the same old same old you get from too safe and mamby-pamby Hollywood, there's a mighty swell reason to give it some shekels.
75% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 122 reviews)
Runtime: In the roadshow version I saw, 187 minutes long
Directed by: Who else but Tarantino could do a film like this?
Starring: I'll mention all of the Eight: Kurt Russell, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Walton Goggins, Samuel L. Jackson, Bruce Dern, Michael Madsen, Tim Roth, Demian Bichir
From: The Weinstein Company
I figured I should see a movie in Ultra Panavision 70 as it's such a rare experience (it was a cool one... literally and figuratively) so that is what I did this afternoon at what is now known as AMC Theatres at Disney Springs 24. There are Tarantino movies I like more than this one; still, it was worth seeing. I explain it all in my Letterboxd review below:
I still am not quite sure how I acquired more than two dozen new followers in the past week or so-except that I presume someone mentioned me in a list, and I thank whoever did that-and yet how it happened isn't as important as I am thankful for all the follows; I followed everyone back. Now that I am back from Christmas vacation, I'll try to post as often as usual, which is every day to every other day.
One of these years I'll go through all of Tarantino's filmography in order to rate it here. Most of them I haven't given a rating to on Letterboxd yet. I hadn't seen them in years and more than just about any other director, I always have a hard time giving a score or having a definitive opinion concerning Quentin's motion pictures. I do understand those that don't care for his loud and in your face personality, and the charges that he does more than just “borrow” or “homage” certain elements of motion pictures for his works are serious so at times I am not the biggest fan of his. I can't say I hate his product like I've heard some say. Yet, I haven't loved everything he's done. While stuff like Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained are great, I did not care for either Kill Bill movie or in a case of blasphemy for some, Jackie Brown. I'll explain why in the future when I review those movies.
Anyhow, I saw this movie in the afternoon and it drew a decent crowd and a wide mix of people, who seemed to enjoy it quite a bit. The experience ended up being 3D as the auditorium was the same approximate temperature as the snowy Wyoming setting of the film. I won't go into details about this as it's brand new, so I'll be vague. The general plot is already known; I did not know much besides the idea that Kurt Russell (no relation, sadly) was dragging killer Jennifer Jason Leigh to be hanged and due to a blizzard they are stuck in a haberdashery, meaning a small wooden shack.
This is definitely a QT picture, and not just because of the extreme close-ups of feet. He is at least distinctive. He certainly tries hard... sometimes too hard, IMO. Here, as typical he has shocking moments, not all of them I thought were needed. Really graphic violence is one thing (I am typically fine with that) but seeing a woman get physically abused by various men... that is something else. I wasn't automatically offended; it's just something I would rather not see, you know, even if QT is making a point here and I did recognize. There seemed to be too many unpleasant moments, again something I recognize was sort of the point. Also, Quentin had to have given a middle finger to the Spike Lee's and others who complained about the N word and how often it was used in Django, as I swear the racism flew even more frequently here. It ended up being noticeable and excessive.
Yet, I can still give this a high rating and it likely will be on my Top 10 list somewhere-said list will be out in, oh, 6 months or so-as there is a lot to like. All of the Eight deliver quality performances, and it's nice to see unheralded (to the general public, at least) actors like Walton Goggins get a chance to shine, not to mention old favorites like Bruce Dern and Old Kurt. Seeing Michael Madsen in a movie that's better than DTV schlock is a breath of fresh air. All the characters are colorful and quite engrossing. It is nicely shot and whether or not you are able to see it in 70mm-the images are great, but to be honest if you are only able to see it in digital, it's not that big of a loss-it does have a beautiful look. In addition, the Morricone score is good, good stuff. I am glad he is still making music when he's deep in his octogenarian years.
It's 3 hours and a lot of it is just on one set, and yet it's never boring and it seemed shorter than its length. It does have choice dialogue and there are plenty of great lines, which should probably not even been said due to the director and yet I wanted to make that clear. There are darkly humorous moments throughout so you will hear your audience laugh. It may be the sort of thing you want to see more than once, and I'll leave it at that.
I am glad I was able to see it in a roadshow version as while I saw revival screenings of The Ten Commandments and How the West Was Won in the past few years, seeing a new film that way (w/ overture and intermission) was pretty neat, along with the souvenir program that everyone got.
Tarantino will always be Tarantino, and some will just never care for what he does or how he acts, or even his style of motion pictures. This movie likely won't change too many minds either way. Yet, if you generally like-let alone love-what he does, you definitely should check this out. If you can see it on film in Super Panavision 70, all the better. The fact that like with all of Quentin's work this isn't the same old same old you get from too safe and mamby-pamby Hollywood, there's a mighty swell reason to give it some shekels.
Friday, December 25, 2015
A Christmas Story
A Christmas Story (1983)
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Bob Clark
Starring: Darren McGavin, Melinda Dillon, Peter Billingsley, Ian Petrella, Scott Schwartz
From: MGM
Yes, I am posting this on Christmas night. I partially explain why in my Letterboxd review, but there are reasons why I don't go in-depth about it. Just know that this Christmas has not turned out so hot:
I wasn't planning on posting a review while I am still on vacation (let alone Christmas night) but things happen; I won't get into the details, except that this Christmas day hasn't gone as planned and writing this will help me take my mind off of “the real world” and its issues, especially the ones that have reared their ugly head on this day. No one has to worry about what I am referring to, as it's a private matter. Plus, while on vacation I managed to pick up a lot of followers (like over a dozen) and for them it'd be nice to post something tonight for everyone I now follow, who hopefully enjoy and continue to enjoy what I post.
Anyhow, I realize for many that this is blasphemy to post a not high rating for this motion picture, but to be perfectly honest I only saw it once as a kid and at the time I thought that it was more weird and off-putting than anything else. It happened to be on the TV at the house I am at now (out of state on vacation) and I had little choice in the matter. Turns out, I still feel the same way about it and I'll never quite understand how this became so beloved, to the point that TWO networks show it over and over again for 24 hours straight.
I'll admit that there are some amusing moments that everyone knows... “you'll poke your eye out”, the soap in the mouth, the tongue stuck on the pole, the “Bad Santa” long before Billy Bob Thornton, the weird lamp, the bully who in real life ended up spending a few years in the world of adult movies, and all the rest. However, the story as a whole just isn't that entertaining to me. The whole lamp thing is strange and creepy and so is the Santa stuff. The parents seem quite bipolar, to possibly generalize a legit mental illness. The general idea of a kid wishing for a special present for Christmas and we follow him for the holiday season as he grows up in the 1940's; it's just not a laugh riot or charming to me.
I am fine that most of the world loves this; I'll just never feel the same way. I hope that no one thinks I am The Grinch. There are holiday movies I do enjoy, even if I haven't posted a review for them here... stuff like It's a Wonderful Life or National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. At least I have fond memories of those motion pictures from my youth... and they still rate highly with me today. As for my vacation, its end date is now not entirely certain but soon I should get back to business as usual.
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Bob Clark
Starring: Darren McGavin, Melinda Dillon, Peter Billingsley, Ian Petrella, Scott Schwartz
From: MGM
Yes, I am posting this on Christmas night. I partially explain why in my Letterboxd review, but there are reasons why I don't go in-depth about it. Just know that this Christmas has not turned out so hot:
I wasn't planning on posting a review while I am still on vacation (let alone Christmas night) but things happen; I won't get into the details, except that this Christmas day hasn't gone as planned and writing this will help me take my mind off of “the real world” and its issues, especially the ones that have reared their ugly head on this day. No one has to worry about what I am referring to, as it's a private matter. Plus, while on vacation I managed to pick up a lot of followers (like over a dozen) and for them it'd be nice to post something tonight for everyone I now follow, who hopefully enjoy and continue to enjoy what I post.
Anyhow, I realize for many that this is blasphemy to post a not high rating for this motion picture, but to be perfectly honest I only saw it once as a kid and at the time I thought that it was more weird and off-putting than anything else. It happened to be on the TV at the house I am at now (out of state on vacation) and I had little choice in the matter. Turns out, I still feel the same way about it and I'll never quite understand how this became so beloved, to the point that TWO networks show it over and over again for 24 hours straight.
I'll admit that there are some amusing moments that everyone knows... “you'll poke your eye out”, the soap in the mouth, the tongue stuck on the pole, the “Bad Santa” long before Billy Bob Thornton, the weird lamp, the bully who in real life ended up spending a few years in the world of adult movies, and all the rest. However, the story as a whole just isn't that entertaining to me. The whole lamp thing is strange and creepy and so is the Santa stuff. The parents seem quite bipolar, to possibly generalize a legit mental illness. The general idea of a kid wishing for a special present for Christmas and we follow him for the holiday season as he grows up in the 1940's; it's just not a laugh riot or charming to me.
I am fine that most of the world loves this; I'll just never feel the same way. I hope that no one thinks I am The Grinch. There are holiday movies I do enjoy, even if I haven't posted a review for them here... stuff like It's a Wonderful Life or National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. At least I have fond memories of those motion pictures from my youth... and they still rate highly with me today. As for my vacation, its end date is now not entirely certain but soon I should get back to business as usual.
Sunday, December 20, 2015
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)
95% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 277 reviews)
Runtime: 136 minutes
Directed by: J.J. Abrams
Starring: Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Harrison Ford, Adam Driver, Oscar Issac
From: Disney
Yep, here it is. I did not post this yesterday as Friday was not a great day aside from seeing this awesome motion picture so I did not finish my review; I only did finish it right before I went out the door as I went and saw a college football game. So, here we go. This will be my last review until after Christmas as I'll be on vacation in Kansas for almost a full week. Here's my lengthy review that literally inspired someone to read this (I swear this is true) below, via Letterboxd:
Note 1: This will be a NON SPOILER review of this movie
Note 2: I don't want this to be lengthy but it probably will be; I have a bizarre story to tell about my screening, for starters.
Note 3: As I will be leaving for a Christmas vacation on Tuesday and I have things to do before that, don't expect any new reviews from me until sometime after Christmas.
I have referred to this before in other reviews but let me mention how I saw the original trilogy and loved it since I was a little kid. I got it from my parents: they saw those movies on the big screen and I remember them stating once that when they first saw the OG film, my dad talked to the manager and somehow he was convinced that they could stay to the next showing up to the cantina scene as pops wanted to see that again. I saw the VHS tapes of those movies often. I did watch the prequels on the big screen and yeah, I've already mentioned how much of a disappointment those were.
I remember that as a kid I heard how “in the future” there was going to be Episodes 1 through 3 and that'd be it. However, I also heard someone say that there would be 9 movies, and that always stayed in my mind. After the fans got mad at how 1-3 turned out, I presumed that 7 through 9 wouldn't happen and with Lucas controlling it, who'd want to see it anyhow? The afternoon I saw Paranormal Activity 4 on the big screen, the shocking news of Disney purchasing Lucasfilm and that there's be new movies. I am not the biggest fan of J.J. Abrams for a variety of reasons but I still tried to keep an open mind about the movie; it was only in the past few days that I really got excited for this. Somehow I was able to avoid any spoilers for this, despite the sad mission of some to do so, apparently because there was so much publicity for people not to spoil anything.
Anyhow, for reasons I waited to see this until Friday night, and it was at my local cineplex. Also for reasons, Friday wasn't the best day for me overall. It isn't anything important I need to divulge here. The trailers played and then literally during the opening crawl, a crowd member experienced... something. It was some sort of medical event. I only heard someone say it was a “seizure” so that's what I'll go with. The movie stopped and the lights went up. Some cops and then a few paramedics took care of him. I don't know what happened to him but afterwards he was confused as he left; suddenly, right by the auditorium door he freaked out and started yelling at the top of his lungs. That lasted for a few minutes. Once that was dealt with, things started over from the beginning. I won't do another review for this as I imagine my opinion will stay the same but due to that incident, seeing this again will be a good idea.
I will not reveal what the plot is about as secrecy has been stressed throughout, so I will be vague about that. I will just note that things are more simplistic here and that is thankful with the “taxation of trade routes” or “galactic senate” nonsense of the prequels. Instead of following the weird stoic Jedi in 1-3 and not being able to connect with them for a variety of reasons, Rey (Daisy Ridley) and Finn (John Boyega) are characters you are made to care about and you do care about them as they unwittingly end up in a major conflict. They may not all get a lot of time (there's always the sequels for that) but all the new characters are interesting, from the evil Kylo Ren and the awesome droid BB-8 to Poe Dameron and Maz Kanata.
The main cast did a swell job overall. It is nice to see the new faces (such as Ridley, Boyega, Adam Driver and Oscar Issac) all nail their roles. It is also awesome seeing the old familiar faces return, the ones I loved since I was a kid. Harrison Ford actually cared and performed, which sadly has been a rare thing in recent years. He was like the Han Solo of old, except that he is old now.
This is definitely a Star Wars movie through and through, which I enjoyed for nostalgia reasons but I understand those who would complain about it for that very reason. No matter what the filmmakers did, it'd make some people upset. Also, there are some things that are a little illogical; to be honest, the original movies could be like that too and besides the stuff that can be elaborated upon in the sequels, I will excuse it as like with the OG adventures, it felt like a modern version of the 1930's serials that George Lucas loved watching back during his youth. In addition, the John Williams score was a big part in me loving IV through VI; I am glad that what he brought here was some old stuff and also some quality newer tunes.
Nostalgia may play part in giving this the highest possible rating, but I was happy that this did feel like a proper Star Wars film, and something that would happen in this universe. I am glad that Abrams did a great job with this and it wasn't a boondoggle like the CGI crapfests that Lucas thought would be appropriate. This does have a lot of heart and love and it made me feel like a little kid again. I am not sure how it ranks in my best of 2015 but it will be the best or one of the best of the year.
Also, thank goodness I did not get anything spoiled beforehand, and I'll leave it at that.
95% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 277 reviews)
Runtime: 136 minutes
Directed by: J.J. Abrams
Starring: Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Harrison Ford, Adam Driver, Oscar Issac
From: Disney
Yep, here it is. I did not post this yesterday as Friday was not a great day aside from seeing this awesome motion picture so I did not finish my review; I only did finish it right before I went out the door as I went and saw a college football game. So, here we go. This will be my last review until after Christmas as I'll be on vacation in Kansas for almost a full week. Here's my lengthy review that literally inspired someone to read this (I swear this is true) below, via Letterboxd:
Note 1: This will be a NON SPOILER review of this movie
Note 2: I don't want this to be lengthy but it probably will be; I have a bizarre story to tell about my screening, for starters.
Note 3: As I will be leaving for a Christmas vacation on Tuesday and I have things to do before that, don't expect any new reviews from me until sometime after Christmas.
I have referred to this before in other reviews but let me mention how I saw the original trilogy and loved it since I was a little kid. I got it from my parents: they saw those movies on the big screen and I remember them stating once that when they first saw the OG film, my dad talked to the manager and somehow he was convinced that they could stay to the next showing up to the cantina scene as pops wanted to see that again. I saw the VHS tapes of those movies often. I did watch the prequels on the big screen and yeah, I've already mentioned how much of a disappointment those were.
I remember that as a kid I heard how “in the future” there was going to be Episodes 1 through 3 and that'd be it. However, I also heard someone say that there would be 9 movies, and that always stayed in my mind. After the fans got mad at how 1-3 turned out, I presumed that 7 through 9 wouldn't happen and with Lucas controlling it, who'd want to see it anyhow? The afternoon I saw Paranormal Activity 4 on the big screen, the shocking news of Disney purchasing Lucasfilm and that there's be new movies. I am not the biggest fan of J.J. Abrams for a variety of reasons but I still tried to keep an open mind about the movie; it was only in the past few days that I really got excited for this. Somehow I was able to avoid any spoilers for this, despite the sad mission of some to do so, apparently because there was so much publicity for people not to spoil anything.
Anyhow, for reasons I waited to see this until Friday night, and it was at my local cineplex. Also for reasons, Friday wasn't the best day for me overall. It isn't anything important I need to divulge here. The trailers played and then literally during the opening crawl, a crowd member experienced... something. It was some sort of medical event. I only heard someone say it was a “seizure” so that's what I'll go with. The movie stopped and the lights went up. Some cops and then a few paramedics took care of him. I don't know what happened to him but afterwards he was confused as he left; suddenly, right by the auditorium door he freaked out and started yelling at the top of his lungs. That lasted for a few minutes. Once that was dealt with, things started over from the beginning. I won't do another review for this as I imagine my opinion will stay the same but due to that incident, seeing this again will be a good idea.
I will not reveal what the plot is about as secrecy has been stressed throughout, so I will be vague about that. I will just note that things are more simplistic here and that is thankful with the “taxation of trade routes” or “galactic senate” nonsense of the prequels. Instead of following the weird stoic Jedi in 1-3 and not being able to connect with them for a variety of reasons, Rey (Daisy Ridley) and Finn (John Boyega) are characters you are made to care about and you do care about them as they unwittingly end up in a major conflict. They may not all get a lot of time (there's always the sequels for that) but all the new characters are interesting, from the evil Kylo Ren and the awesome droid BB-8 to Poe Dameron and Maz Kanata.
The main cast did a swell job overall. It is nice to see the new faces (such as Ridley, Boyega, Adam Driver and Oscar Issac) all nail their roles. It is also awesome seeing the old familiar faces return, the ones I loved since I was a kid. Harrison Ford actually cared and performed, which sadly has been a rare thing in recent years. He was like the Han Solo of old, except that he is old now.
This is definitely a Star Wars movie through and through, which I enjoyed for nostalgia reasons but I understand those who would complain about it for that very reason. No matter what the filmmakers did, it'd make some people upset. Also, there are some things that are a little illogical; to be honest, the original movies could be like that too and besides the stuff that can be elaborated upon in the sequels, I will excuse it as like with the OG adventures, it felt like a modern version of the 1930's serials that George Lucas loved watching back during his youth. In addition, the John Williams score was a big part in me loving IV through VI; I am glad that what he brought here was some old stuff and also some quality newer tunes.
Nostalgia may play part in giving this the highest possible rating, but I was happy that this did feel like a proper Star Wars film, and something that would happen in this universe. I am glad that Abrams did a great job with this and it wasn't a boondoggle like the CGI crapfests that Lucas thought would be appropriate. This does have a lot of heart and love and it made me feel like a little kid again. I am not sure how it ranks in my best of 2015 but it will be the best or one of the best of the year.
Also, thank goodness I did not get anything spoiled beforehand, and I'll leave it at that.
Saturday, December 19, 2015
I'll Be Back Tomorrow
Then, I will post my review of you know what; just know that I loved it. I'll explain why I am not posting the review here now.
Friday, December 18, 2015
The Star Wars Holiday Special!
I was going to post this yesterday, but I had so many things on my mind... I'll still be back tomorrow afternoon to review you know what. For now, read my Letterboxd review of this disaster:
Yep... yep, I watched this infamous television special. No, it's not the version currently on YouTube, which I understand doesn't even have the best part (the animated bit where Boba Fett is introduced); rather, it's a version I've had illegally-to be honest-for years now, and I did watch it once before. I figured this was the best time for a revisit.
This introduces Chewbacca's family. Really. We see his wife, son and father. After the fact it was revealed they have longer names but as given here, they are Malla, Lumpy, and Itchy. It's about Chewie trying to get back to his home planet of Kashyyyk to celebrate “Life Day” with his family but really, this is a 70's variety special, but a bad one. Art Carney is alright with his role but Harvey Korman has three different ones, none of them amusing or worthwhile. This is just terrible.
I can't give it the lowest rating as it's not so bad I am not able to finish it; in fact, it can be quite unintentionally hilarious, between the extremely cheesy 1970's TV special effects, the idea of the Wookiee family only speaking their native language and it not being translated (leading to awkward stretches of time; you rarely have trouble understanding what's going on, but still, it's rather European arthouse of them to do such a thing), and a lot more... let me list some highlights, or maybe they're lowlights:
* Itchy watches a hologram of Diahann Carroll and it's uncomfortably erotic. This was supposed to be made for families, after all.
* When Jefferson Starship performs their tune-which is fine-lead singer Marty Balin pretty much sings into a pink-purple neon glowing dildo!
* The Boba Fett cartoon is cool; it coming from Canadian studio Nelvana gave me nostalgic feelings as I saw products from them as a kid, but the animation style is, well, avant garde.
* Mark Hamill looks different here. I'll excuse that as he was in a bad car wreck and all those scars had not fully healed yet, which explains why he wore pounds of makeup.
* Carrie Fisher... well, she's always tongue in cheek but I hear that she had issues with “the drugs” at the time and she allegedly doesn't remember working on this special. Like with Luke and Han and Chewy, their roles here are basically cameos, although Leia DOES sing a goofy song that was to the melody of the Star Wars theme. It's as goofy as that recording of Nichelle Nichols warbling a tune to the Star Trek theme.
I have heard differing stories on how closely Lucas followed production on this while working on The Empire Strikes Back but no matter that, he hated how this turned out, although it was supposed to be like a variety show all along. It was just a bad idea all around, between focusing on a species that doesn't speak English, it being so cheesy and all the bad moments. While I'd like to see it in pristine quality and it'd be nice for the fans, I do understand why Old George has prevented this from being legally seen again and why everyone has to bootleg it.
Yep... yep, I watched this infamous television special. No, it's not the version currently on YouTube, which I understand doesn't even have the best part (the animated bit where Boba Fett is introduced); rather, it's a version I've had illegally-to be honest-for years now, and I did watch it once before. I figured this was the best time for a revisit.
This introduces Chewbacca's family. Really. We see his wife, son and father. After the fact it was revealed they have longer names but as given here, they are Malla, Lumpy, and Itchy. It's about Chewie trying to get back to his home planet of Kashyyyk to celebrate “Life Day” with his family but really, this is a 70's variety special, but a bad one. Art Carney is alright with his role but Harvey Korman has three different ones, none of them amusing or worthwhile. This is just terrible.
I can't give it the lowest rating as it's not so bad I am not able to finish it; in fact, it can be quite unintentionally hilarious, between the extremely cheesy 1970's TV special effects, the idea of the Wookiee family only speaking their native language and it not being translated (leading to awkward stretches of time; you rarely have trouble understanding what's going on, but still, it's rather European arthouse of them to do such a thing), and a lot more... let me list some highlights, or maybe they're lowlights:
* Itchy watches a hologram of Diahann Carroll and it's uncomfortably erotic. This was supposed to be made for families, after all.
* When Jefferson Starship performs their tune-which is fine-lead singer Marty Balin pretty much sings into a pink-purple neon glowing dildo!
* The Boba Fett cartoon is cool; it coming from Canadian studio Nelvana gave me nostalgic feelings as I saw products from them as a kid, but the animation style is, well, avant garde.
* Mark Hamill looks different here. I'll excuse that as he was in a bad car wreck and all those scars had not fully healed yet, which explains why he wore pounds of makeup.
* Carrie Fisher... well, she's always tongue in cheek but I hear that she had issues with “the drugs” at the time and she allegedly doesn't remember working on this special. Like with Luke and Han and Chewy, their roles here are basically cameos, although Leia DOES sing a goofy song that was to the melody of the Star Wars theme. It's as goofy as that recording of Nichelle Nichols warbling a tune to the Star Trek theme.
I have heard differing stories on how closely Lucas followed production on this while working on The Empire Strikes Back but no matter that, he hated how this turned out, although it was supposed to be like a variety show all along. It was just a bad idea all around, between focusing on a species that doesn't speak English, it being so cheesy and all the bad moments. While I'd like to see it in pristine quality and it'd be nice for the fans, I do understand why Old George has prevented this from being legally seen again and why everyone has to bootleg it.
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Dutch
Dutch (1991)
Runtime: 107 minutes
Directed by: Peter Faiman
Starring: Ed O'Neill, Ethan Embry, JoBeth Williams, Christopher McDonald
From: 20th Century Fox
This isn't the longest review from me but that's OK. I have other things to deal with this week, which is why I am not seeing you know which movie (no, not the newest Alvin & The Chipmunks!) tomorrow night but instead on Friday night; expect a review for me tomorrow then the review for that movie will be Saturday afternoon. I am now getting pumped up for that. As for this motion picture, it is one I saw as a kid but not since. Thankfully I can say this is fine. The Letterboxd review is below:
This is yet another movie that I saw when I was a kid but I hadn't watched in at least 20 years. At the time I thought it was fine so I decided to watch this when I saw it was on Netflix Instant.
The plot isn't too complex: JoBeth Williams is divorced from the snobby rich Christopher McDonald. She had a bratty son (Ethan Embry) with him, who is at a boarding school in Georgia because he's such a sh*thead. Her current boyfriend is Ed O'Neill. He agrees to pick him up from Georgia and return to... well, this was written by John Hughes so of course home base is Chicago or the Chicago area. Needless to say, Dutch (O'Neill) and Doyle (Embry) don't get along at first, and experience wacky adventures along the journey and yes there is poignant moments too.
The film is reminiscent of what John Hughes has directed and written before and yeah, it can be said that this isn't as good as those entities that you'll be reminded of. Yet, I can still say that this was fine; I was entertained. Doyle is a pretty awful little kid so you'll enjoy Dutch clowning and embarrassing him, although Doyle gets in some barbs and he also makes Dutch look bad at times. It can get a little ridiculous at times but to me that isn't too big a deal. So is this being exactly what you'd expect and that is OK if this falls into cliché. As it's set around Thanksgiving time, this was appropriate to watch at this time of year.
I mean, there's slapstick, rude barbs, some T&A, and yes, the heartfelt moments. So, while not a must-see by any means this battle between the snobby Doyle and the working class Dutch is one of those “fine rainy-day watches” sort of motion pictures.
Runtime: 107 minutes
Directed by: Peter Faiman
Starring: Ed O'Neill, Ethan Embry, JoBeth Williams, Christopher McDonald
From: 20th Century Fox
This isn't the longest review from me but that's OK. I have other things to deal with this week, which is why I am not seeing you know which movie (no, not the newest Alvin & The Chipmunks!) tomorrow night but instead on Friday night; expect a review for me tomorrow then the review for that movie will be Saturday afternoon. I am now getting pumped up for that. As for this motion picture, it is one I saw as a kid but not since. Thankfully I can say this is fine. The Letterboxd review is below:
This is yet another movie that I saw when I was a kid but I hadn't watched in at least 20 years. At the time I thought it was fine so I decided to watch this when I saw it was on Netflix Instant.
The plot isn't too complex: JoBeth Williams is divorced from the snobby rich Christopher McDonald. She had a bratty son (Ethan Embry) with him, who is at a boarding school in Georgia because he's such a sh*thead. Her current boyfriend is Ed O'Neill. He agrees to pick him up from Georgia and return to... well, this was written by John Hughes so of course home base is Chicago or the Chicago area. Needless to say, Dutch (O'Neill) and Doyle (Embry) don't get along at first, and experience wacky adventures along the journey and yes there is poignant moments too.
The film is reminiscent of what John Hughes has directed and written before and yeah, it can be said that this isn't as good as those entities that you'll be reminded of. Yet, I can still say that this was fine; I was entertained. Doyle is a pretty awful little kid so you'll enjoy Dutch clowning and embarrassing him, although Doyle gets in some barbs and he also makes Dutch look bad at times. It can get a little ridiculous at times but to me that isn't too big a deal. So is this being exactly what you'd expect and that is OK if this falls into cliché. As it's set around Thanksgiving time, this was appropriate to watch at this time of year.
I mean, there's slapstick, rude barbs, some T&A, and yes, the heartfelt moments. So, while not a must-see by any means this battle between the snobby Doyle and the working class Dutch is one of those “fine rainy-day watches” sort of motion pictures.
Sunday, December 13, 2015
Gremlins 2: The New Batch
Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990)
Runtime: 106 minutes
Directed by: Joe Dante
Starring: Zach Galligan, Phoebe Cates, John Glover, Robert Prosky, Robert Picardo
From: Warner Brothers
Here's a movie I finally saw after not having seen it for years, as Friday night I rewatched the original Gremlins on the El Rey Network. Both of these films are entertaining, for different reasons. My review of this is below, via Letterboxd:
For years now I've had the DVD of this film in my collection, yet because I am me I had not watched it until last night. I had seen the movie before in my childhood but the last viewing was years ago. As I just rewatched the first Gremlins on Friday night, why not watch this the next night?
In this day and era of the safe and lame and overly cautious studio pictures we keep on getting from Hollywood, it's something else to see something so crazed, so cartoony, so anarchic come from Warner Brothers and it's a sequel to a popular film to boot. They gave Joe Dante complete creative freedom and he created this odd satire that spoofs many targets, from modern living (the “futuristic” skyscraper) to cable television to itself. That makes this quite uneven at times but I was still entertained by this. When Looney Tunes characters appear in the beginning and end & Christopher Lee plays a character named Dr. Catheter.... that says a lot about what sort of movie this is. What an odd beast, yet a fun beast.
I was amused that the Daniel Clamp character was a spoof of both Donald Trump and Ted Turner. No, he doesn't hate Muslims or Hispanics or has creepy feelings for one of his daughters but he's an unscrupulous real estate developer from New York City. He's Turner as he has his own cable network, he wants black and white movies to be colorized and in a bit I did not remember at all, they actually spoofed the long rumored (and only proven in January of 2015) video that would play on CNN if they had to sign off for the final time due to the world ending. Besides that, there are plenty of short bits, sight gags and quick quips.
As in the original, it is put together well and has talent behind the screen also. The practical effects that brought the title critters to life are tremendous; whether it's a sequel or a reboot or a remake, the long-rumored next installment of the series (which I hope doesn't happen; I have long been sick and tired of this sequel/reboot/remake trend) just won't be the same with CGI, as I know it won't look as authentic. As there's a subplot involving genetic research, it allows for a lot of creativity in different gremlin hybrids; there finally is the “electrical gremlin”.
Anyhow, I am glad that a big studio film like this ended up so wacky and strange, and it ends up being good, especially for a horror-related sequel. It may be Hulk Hogan's finest hour of acting in that field... at least if you don't count that sex tape.
Runtime: 106 minutes
Directed by: Joe Dante
Starring: Zach Galligan, Phoebe Cates, John Glover, Robert Prosky, Robert Picardo
From: Warner Brothers
Here's a movie I finally saw after not having seen it for years, as Friday night I rewatched the original Gremlins on the El Rey Network. Both of these films are entertaining, for different reasons. My review of this is below, via Letterboxd:
For years now I've had the DVD of this film in my collection, yet because I am me I had not watched it until last night. I had seen the movie before in my childhood but the last viewing was years ago. As I just rewatched the first Gremlins on Friday night, why not watch this the next night?
In this day and era of the safe and lame and overly cautious studio pictures we keep on getting from Hollywood, it's something else to see something so crazed, so cartoony, so anarchic come from Warner Brothers and it's a sequel to a popular film to boot. They gave Joe Dante complete creative freedom and he created this odd satire that spoofs many targets, from modern living (the “futuristic” skyscraper) to cable television to itself. That makes this quite uneven at times but I was still entertained by this. When Looney Tunes characters appear in the beginning and end & Christopher Lee plays a character named Dr. Catheter.... that says a lot about what sort of movie this is. What an odd beast, yet a fun beast.
I was amused that the Daniel Clamp character was a spoof of both Donald Trump and Ted Turner. No, he doesn't hate Muslims or Hispanics or has creepy feelings for one of his daughters but he's an unscrupulous real estate developer from New York City. He's Turner as he has his own cable network, he wants black and white movies to be colorized and in a bit I did not remember at all, they actually spoofed the long rumored (and only proven in January of 2015) video that would play on CNN if they had to sign off for the final time due to the world ending. Besides that, there are plenty of short bits, sight gags and quick quips.
As in the original, it is put together well and has talent behind the screen also. The practical effects that brought the title critters to life are tremendous; whether it's a sequel or a reboot or a remake, the long-rumored next installment of the series (which I hope doesn't happen; I have long been sick and tired of this sequel/reboot/remake trend) just won't be the same with CGI, as I know it won't look as authentic. As there's a subplot involving genetic research, it allows for a lot of creativity in different gremlin hybrids; there finally is the “electrical gremlin”.
Anyhow, I am glad that a big studio film like this ended up so wacky and strange, and it ends up being good, especially for a horror-related sequel. It may be Hulk Hogan's finest hour of acting in that field... at least if you don't count that sex tape.
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Electric Boogaloo: The Wild Untold Story Of Cannon Films
Electric Boogaloo: The Wild Untold Story of Cannon Films (2014)
Runtime: 106 minutes
Directed by: Mark Hartley
Starring: This is a documentary
From: A plethora of different companies
I may not post anything here for a few days as I may not watch any movies for a few days, but that is not certain as of yet. For now, my review of this documentary-via Letterboxd-is below:
I haven't reviewed either Not Quite Hollywood or Machete Maidens for (Letterboxd) but I have watched both before and I did enjoy them, as they covered wacky and crazy filmmaking scenes I knew little about, and while the films they showed clips of may have been poor overall, in highlight form they looked so strange and oddball I wanted to check them out. So, when I heard that the director of those documentaries (Mark Hartley) was doing one on the infamous Cannon Films, I was quite interested. So, when I saw last night that it was on Netflix Instant, I had to watch it.
It's a standard documentary; the background of both Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus is brought up and how they released popular movies in their native Israel before moving to Hollywood, acquiring Cannon Films and releasing a bunch of schlock, a lot of which wasn't too good but it still made money; they tried to go more upscale and be like a “real” studio and despite putting out some family flicks (which wasn't covered) or stuff from prestigious names as Franco Zeffirelli, Barbet Schroeder, and even Godard (which was covered), money issues and the leadership not being strong was their downfall.
I do not know if it was the idea going in, but with all the people they interviewed-which did not include either Golan or Globus, which I'll bring up later-many seemed to have an ax to grind with the company. With the information that was presented, I understand why some of them felt that way and others, I just don't know. I do wish that this would have been longer; it's 106 minutes but I wouldn't have minded it being at least 2 hours long. Some interesting factoids were briefly brought up then the subject was changed almost immediately. I wanted to hear more about how Michael Milken was involved in raising money for the company or how Ginacarlo Parretti was a crook; those details were briefly brought up then they moved onto the next topic at hand. Really, there should be a book or a series of books all about the history of Cannon; I'd eat that up.
Still, I can say I enjoyed this documentary. While not all the famous names from their history were present, there was enough people present and enough archive footage where it's not too much of an issue from me. As stated previously, plenty of people had a beef with the company but there are also others who praised them and their maverick ways. And there were plenty of clips from a plethora of films they did and as I haven't watched all of the Cannon catalog by any stretch of the imagination, so I was entertained by all the wackiness from those clips. As for why Golan and Globus weren't interviewed here, why that is because they were part of another documentary, known as The Go-Go Boys: The Inside Story of Cannon Films, which I understand is more positive of the pair. I will presume it's a fine companion piece to this but I hope to find out for myself one day.
Golan and Globus may have been poor businessmen who did not know how to properly run such a company and they blew through a lot of money in a short amount of time, they still produced a lot of schlock (some of it quite entertaining) and in these modern times of “corporate Hollywood” where clueless beancounters run the studios and through stupid crap like “focus groups” we get a lot of mediocre or worse Hollywood movies and all those brainless blockbusters, it does make me wish that we'd get some crazy people like them making B movies for wide release and if nothing else that'd make the lame and boring studio system a lot more fun.
Runtime: 106 minutes
Directed by: Mark Hartley
Starring: This is a documentary
From: A plethora of different companies
I may not post anything here for a few days as I may not watch any movies for a few days, but that is not certain as of yet. For now, my review of this documentary-via Letterboxd-is below:
I haven't reviewed either Not Quite Hollywood or Machete Maidens for (Letterboxd) but I have watched both before and I did enjoy them, as they covered wacky and crazy filmmaking scenes I knew little about, and while the films they showed clips of may have been poor overall, in highlight form they looked so strange and oddball I wanted to check them out. So, when I heard that the director of those documentaries (Mark Hartley) was doing one on the infamous Cannon Films, I was quite interested. So, when I saw last night that it was on Netflix Instant, I had to watch it.
It's a standard documentary; the background of both Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus is brought up and how they released popular movies in their native Israel before moving to Hollywood, acquiring Cannon Films and releasing a bunch of schlock, a lot of which wasn't too good but it still made money; they tried to go more upscale and be like a “real” studio and despite putting out some family flicks (which wasn't covered) or stuff from prestigious names as Franco Zeffirelli, Barbet Schroeder, and even Godard (which was covered), money issues and the leadership not being strong was their downfall.
I do not know if it was the idea going in, but with all the people they interviewed-which did not include either Golan or Globus, which I'll bring up later-many seemed to have an ax to grind with the company. With the information that was presented, I understand why some of them felt that way and others, I just don't know. I do wish that this would have been longer; it's 106 minutes but I wouldn't have minded it being at least 2 hours long. Some interesting factoids were briefly brought up then the subject was changed almost immediately. I wanted to hear more about how Michael Milken was involved in raising money for the company or how Ginacarlo Parretti was a crook; those details were briefly brought up then they moved onto the next topic at hand. Really, there should be a book or a series of books all about the history of Cannon; I'd eat that up.
Still, I can say I enjoyed this documentary. While not all the famous names from their history were present, there was enough people present and enough archive footage where it's not too much of an issue from me. As stated previously, plenty of people had a beef with the company but there are also others who praised them and their maverick ways. And there were plenty of clips from a plethora of films they did and as I haven't watched all of the Cannon catalog by any stretch of the imagination, so I was entertained by all the wackiness from those clips. As for why Golan and Globus weren't interviewed here, why that is because they were part of another documentary, known as The Go-Go Boys: The Inside Story of Cannon Films, which I understand is more positive of the pair. I will presume it's a fine companion piece to this but I hope to find out for myself one day.
Golan and Globus may have been poor businessmen who did not know how to properly run such a company and they blew through a lot of money in a short amount of time, they still produced a lot of schlock (some of it quite entertaining) and in these modern times of “corporate Hollywood” where clueless beancounters run the studios and through stupid crap like “focus groups” we get a lot of mediocre or worse Hollywood movies and all those brainless blockbusters, it does make me wish that we'd get some crazy people like them making B movies for wide release and if nothing else that'd make the lame and boring studio system a lot more fun.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
I Watched Revenge Of The Sith...
and while it's the best of the prequels, that's a relative term as overall it's still only average. I explained why in my Letterboxd review below:
I concluded my Star Wars watching in prep for A Force Awakens by seeing this, the one prequel film that people seem to like but me, I can only say that it's about average, and it's still pathetic compared to the original movies. I always thought that about this, by the way. When I saw it 10 summers ago I did not dislike it like the first two but even though it finally set things up for the original Star Wars, it still felt unsatisfying and yet I couldn't fully explain why.
Well, thankfully Red Letter Media did their reviews of the prequels; I'll never understand the presentation and the Mr. Plinkett character, but the complaints they brought up are almost all accurate. Here, the explanation of how the opening 20 minutes made zero sense was an “Ah ha!” moment for me. Honestly, trying to figure out logically the kidnapping and rescue of Palpatine is impossible so that's why it left me feeling hollow and uncaring. It's just a bunch of noise, signifying nothing. The fact that it's also a CGI orgasm of throwing 5,000 different things at the screen at the same time and even Michael Bay would say it's overkill... that does not help. Admittedly, in this day and age both things are far too common in modern film and it is a reason why I don't see most “blockbusters”. That doesn't excuse Lucas doing it, though. I wish for the simple and elegant storytelling of the original movies. I don't mean old-fashioned like “dying of a broken heart” or-sigh-”NNNNOOOOO”, though.
Then, there's how the atrocious writing of the first two films and how it affects the story told here and it can't overcome that. All of the characters are morons so your intelligence is constantly insulted and the world of almost constant green screens makes it look artificial and as the Red Letter Media video explained, it greatly constrained things, and Lucas being a lazy director did not help there either. Darth Vader being a whiny emo teenager with a moppy haircut... no, just no.
At least I can rate it as average, meaning it's better than I or II. While ineptly told, the general idea of Anakin turning evil is fine. A mastermind manipulating things behind the scenes so that he is the victor at the end... that is typically real interesting to me. Some of the CGI hasn't aged well but otherwise-even though it's essentially meaningless-it did create nice images and there are some interesting worlds visited. As I stated recently, Ian McDiarmid plays the Emperor real well and does his best with what he's given.
Like everyone else I'll never comprehend how the prequels got screwed up so badly. But I am over that and I can just forget they ever happened. Heaven knows that it will be a long time before I watch any of them again.
I concluded my Star Wars watching in prep for A Force Awakens by seeing this, the one prequel film that people seem to like but me, I can only say that it's about average, and it's still pathetic compared to the original movies. I always thought that about this, by the way. When I saw it 10 summers ago I did not dislike it like the first two but even though it finally set things up for the original Star Wars, it still felt unsatisfying and yet I couldn't fully explain why.
Well, thankfully Red Letter Media did their reviews of the prequels; I'll never understand the presentation and the Mr. Plinkett character, but the complaints they brought up are almost all accurate. Here, the explanation of how the opening 20 minutes made zero sense was an “Ah ha!” moment for me. Honestly, trying to figure out logically the kidnapping and rescue of Palpatine is impossible so that's why it left me feeling hollow and uncaring. It's just a bunch of noise, signifying nothing. The fact that it's also a CGI orgasm of throwing 5,000 different things at the screen at the same time and even Michael Bay would say it's overkill... that does not help. Admittedly, in this day and age both things are far too common in modern film and it is a reason why I don't see most “blockbusters”. That doesn't excuse Lucas doing it, though. I wish for the simple and elegant storytelling of the original movies. I don't mean old-fashioned like “dying of a broken heart” or-sigh-”NNNNOOOOO”, though.
Then, there's how the atrocious writing of the first two films and how it affects the story told here and it can't overcome that. All of the characters are morons so your intelligence is constantly insulted and the world of almost constant green screens makes it look artificial and as the Red Letter Media video explained, it greatly constrained things, and Lucas being a lazy director did not help there either. Darth Vader being a whiny emo teenager with a moppy haircut... no, just no.
At least I can rate it as average, meaning it's better than I or II. While ineptly told, the general idea of Anakin turning evil is fine. A mastermind manipulating things behind the scenes so that he is the victor at the end... that is typically real interesting to me. Some of the CGI hasn't aged well but otherwise-even though it's essentially meaningless-it did create nice images and there are some interesting worlds visited. As I stated recently, Ian McDiarmid plays the Emperor real well and does his best with what he's given.
Like everyone else I'll never comprehend how the prequels got screwed up so badly. But I am over that and I can just forget they ever happened. Heaven knows that it will be a long time before I watch any of them again.
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Return Of The Jedi
Return of the Jedi (1983)
We all know the details already.
Yep, I saw this last night... and it was the original film in good quality in widescreen. Nevermind how but I did. I was quite happy I was able to. I talk about it in my Letterboxd review below:
As it's only about a week and a half before The Force Awakens comes out on the big screen, I figured it would be time to start wrapping up my rewatching of the Star Wars films by checking this out. After this I only have one more to go. Like with Episodes IV and V, I was able to watch the original theatrical version in widescreen and in good quality... nevermind how but I did. I don't want to do such things but when those versions aren't officially available... I saw all three of those movies many times as a youth but as an adult, it's less so. I mean, I've never seen the “Special Edition” of this film, which I know it's a good thing as I have-unfortunately-witnessed the clip where Hayden Christiansen is a ghost instead of Sebastian Shaw, and I know that bit with the disco song (yeah, let's be honest, it's a disco tune) Lapti Nek in Jabba's palace was replaced by some horrible CGI thing... how could you do that to the Max Rebo band?
Anyhow, while this isn't as great as the first two, it's still pretty great and it does a swell job of finishing off the trilogy. The beginning is the band getting back together and dealing with the awesome practical effect that is the slimy Jabba the Hutt. They then have to take down the new and improved Death Star (I guess the Death Star II; at least that's what I'll call it), soon to be completed. While it won't be easy for Luke to deal with trying to convert his dad and deal with the emperor, the forces on the forest moon of Endor to take out the Death Star II shields or the attack led by Lando on the DSII itself, this is classical storytelling so you know what the outcome will be... and yet it's still awesome. You don't need swerves or nonsensical crap for it to be interesting or fun.
As a kid I always enjoyed this like I did the other two. Even the Ewoks were fine with me, and viewing it again I still feel the same way, but I realize how nicely done the arc with Luke, Vader and the Emperor was, and how like with the prequels, Ian McDiarmid did a swell job as the guy formerly known as Palpatine. As for the Ewoks, like with Yoda it is nice that you can't underestimate them despite their appearance and how they look like bipedal teddy bears.
This is grand entertainment, from the long first act at Jabba's palace to all the space battles, Vader's redemption to the action on Endor. It was awesome as a kid and I am thankful it is still awesome as an adult in his mid 30's like I am. I mean, the Speeder Bikes are still really rad to me. Like I said it ends a great trilogy and an epic story on a high note, and the viewer feels happy at how things turn out because all the heroes are happy and things are wrapped up with a bow. It was all filmed very well (who needs distracting CGI to “make it better”? It sure as hell did not do that in the Special Editions) and I was reminded of what a great composer John Williams is. Who knows what would have happened had Cronenberg or David Lynch had accepted the job as director, as they were actually offered it. I imagine Lynch after the fact wished he could have done that instead of Dune! Also, his version of Slave Girl Leia and the Freudian monster that was the Sarlacc would have likely been something else.
I have no idea how The Force Awakens will turn out as to be honest, I am not a J.J. Abrams fan and I do have reasons to be concerned. But I hope that it's awesome and it can make many young kids of today fall in love with it. Then again, I know that the young kids of today can enjoy the original movies. I have a pair of twin nephews, about to turn 3. In the past 6 months or so my sister showed them those films and they love them. I mean, they dressed up for Halloween as Darth Vader and Yoda. I wish they could see the OG versions and not the unfortunate lesser versions out there, but alas... I am still a proud & happy uncle that they are also fans as it reminds me of me as a child.
We all know the details already.
Yep, I saw this last night... and it was the original film in good quality in widescreen. Nevermind how but I did. I was quite happy I was able to. I talk about it in my Letterboxd review below:
As it's only about a week and a half before The Force Awakens comes out on the big screen, I figured it would be time to start wrapping up my rewatching of the Star Wars films by checking this out. After this I only have one more to go. Like with Episodes IV and V, I was able to watch the original theatrical version in widescreen and in good quality... nevermind how but I did. I don't want to do such things but when those versions aren't officially available... I saw all three of those movies many times as a youth but as an adult, it's less so. I mean, I've never seen the “Special Edition” of this film, which I know it's a good thing as I have-unfortunately-witnessed the clip where Hayden Christiansen is a ghost instead of Sebastian Shaw, and I know that bit with the disco song (yeah, let's be honest, it's a disco tune) Lapti Nek in Jabba's palace was replaced by some horrible CGI thing... how could you do that to the Max Rebo band?
Anyhow, while this isn't as great as the first two, it's still pretty great and it does a swell job of finishing off the trilogy. The beginning is the band getting back together and dealing with the awesome practical effect that is the slimy Jabba the Hutt. They then have to take down the new and improved Death Star (I guess the Death Star II; at least that's what I'll call it), soon to be completed. While it won't be easy for Luke to deal with trying to convert his dad and deal with the emperor, the forces on the forest moon of Endor to take out the Death Star II shields or the attack led by Lando on the DSII itself, this is classical storytelling so you know what the outcome will be... and yet it's still awesome. You don't need swerves or nonsensical crap for it to be interesting or fun.
As a kid I always enjoyed this like I did the other two. Even the Ewoks were fine with me, and viewing it again I still feel the same way, but I realize how nicely done the arc with Luke, Vader and the Emperor was, and how like with the prequels, Ian McDiarmid did a swell job as the guy formerly known as Palpatine. As for the Ewoks, like with Yoda it is nice that you can't underestimate them despite their appearance and how they look like bipedal teddy bears.
This is grand entertainment, from the long first act at Jabba's palace to all the space battles, Vader's redemption to the action on Endor. It was awesome as a kid and I am thankful it is still awesome as an adult in his mid 30's like I am. I mean, the Speeder Bikes are still really rad to me. Like I said it ends a great trilogy and an epic story on a high note, and the viewer feels happy at how things turn out because all the heroes are happy and things are wrapped up with a bow. It was all filmed very well (who needs distracting CGI to “make it better”? It sure as hell did not do that in the Special Editions) and I was reminded of what a great composer John Williams is. Who knows what would have happened had Cronenberg or David Lynch had accepted the job as director, as they were actually offered it. I imagine Lynch after the fact wished he could have done that instead of Dune! Also, his version of Slave Girl Leia and the Freudian monster that was the Sarlacc would have likely been something else.
I have no idea how The Force Awakens will turn out as to be honest, I am not a J.J. Abrams fan and I do have reasons to be concerned. But I hope that it's awesome and it can make many young kids of today fall in love with it. Then again, I know that the young kids of today can enjoy the original movies. I have a pair of twin nephews, about to turn 3. In the past 6 months or so my sister showed them those films and they love them. I mean, they dressed up for Halloween as Darth Vader and Yoda. I wish they could see the OG versions and not the unfortunate lesser versions out there, but alas... I am still a proud & happy uncle that they are also fans as it reminds me of me as a child.
Monday, December 7, 2015
I Talk The First Two Die Hard Movies
I thought I had up a review of the OG Die Hard but after some searching, I was incorrect. So, below I'll post the review for Die Hard (which is from the summer; I also saw that movie on the big screen last Tuesday) then my Saturday night review for Die Hard 2.
DIE HARD
This is another review I am doing over to replace the ultra-short original one I had up. The rating hasn't changed, though. There aren't too many films I have seen many times in my life but this is one of them... and it is also one of my favorites. I have seen this on television, on VHS, on DVD, on Blu (how I saw it Wednesday night), with my family on Christmas Day back in '09 when we were at the house of one of my sisters, who lives halfway across the country from me. I even got to see it on the big screen the summer of '04 and the print was an original and beat-up, which was great in terms of charm. I will mention a few reasons why I rate this a full 5 stars:
The Hero: Bruce Willis plays John McClane, who isn't a ripped or muscular slab of beef like Arnold or Sly was in the past. He's a typical New York City cop, profane and who has such faults as a troubled marriage (a lot of it is due to his selfishness) and at one point he admits that he fears he won't make it out of the Nakatomi Plaza alive. At the time that was refreshing. Now, maybe it should swing back around and we should have no hulking slabs of beef as action heroes... I just have no idea who would stand on that mantle.
The Plot: It defies expectations: you think that the villains are terrorists; they're all foreigners and hold hostages. However, they never say they are terrorists and they actually are looking to steal 650 million dollars in bearer bonds that are sealed in the building, which is a great idea as no records are ever kept on who owns on that type of bond. They have things thought out very well and you expect the law enforcement (such as the police chiefs, the SWAT Team and even the FBI) to handle the crises correctly but they constantly fail and fall into the trap of the villains. Plus, there are many great little moments you may not pick up on until you see it at least a few times and often, things brought up early pay off later. Oh, and there's many great lines too.
The Characters: There are so many here that are memorable, from the hero to the villain (Alan Rickman in an incredible role) to the minor ones, such as Al Leong (playing one of the bad guys) grabbing a candy bar he finds on display in the building. While I always enjoyed such people as the Twinkie-loving Sgt. Al Powell, multiple viewings have made me also appreciate such people as the SWAT team leader. Ellis in particular is hilarious as a typical coke-snorting 80's yuppie D-bag, with an unforgettable laugh. Even though the bad guys are holding a few dozen people hostage and have murdered more than one person, they have the combination of cleverness and charisma and you almost want to see them pull off the big heist; how they are able to perform the last step and then escape was built up perfectly throughout so when you see how it happens... for a moment you do want to see them ride off in the sunset.
The Action: No goofy CGI; just practical effects, actual stunts, bloody moments and beautiful matte paintings in the background. It's still thrilling in 2015. There are some quality setpieces for sure.
Those are just a few reasons why this is one of my all-time favorites and maybe at the top as THE favorite. I won't talk about the 4th and 5th movies as I don't even regard them as true sequels but the second and third-while both flawed-I'll watch again sometime in the future so I can talk about them here.
By the way, out of all the times I have seen this, some things I never noticed until a few years ago. For example, the scene where a dead man falls on the car of Sgt. Powell and he freaks out. There's a brief moment where you see the limo driver Argyle obliviously talking on his then-hip car phone. To think it wasn't until relatively recently that I spotted in the background of that moment the fake body of the dead man fly off in a hilarious fashion.
DIE HARD 2
This past Tuesday, I was able to watch Die Hard in a theatre; as that's one of my all-time favorites I couldn't turn down that opportunity. It was great. I once saw it on the big screen in 2004, which was an original beat-up film print and in this digital age, I appreciate such things. I already reviewed the movie this past summer so I don't need to do it again. However, I needed to give a proper review to this and as I hadn't watched this in a long while, I figured this was the perfect time to do so, with the OG film still not having left my mind yet.
I presume many are familiar with the plot of how some bad guys use technology to take over the Dulles National Airport in Washington, D.C. for the purpose of them taking an overthrown dictator and drug dealer of THE 80's action movie fictitious country (Val Verde), played by the great Franco Nero. John McClane happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time again. John has to deal with such obstacles as a stereotypical police chief in Dennis Franz, and there are also some unexpected enemies.
This is not the all-time-classic that the original is. Some of the dialogue is incredibly cheesy or goofy. The way that they shoehorn in a minor character or two is a little goofy considering this takes place almost 3,000 miles away from the Los Angeles setting of the first. Characters like the one that Franz played was written to be stupid, just because. Like what we get in too many modern action films, various parts of the plot make little to no sense. I could list various examples, but I won't go into detail on those Chris Nolan movies...
Yet, I can still give it a nice grade, as the action scenes are still cracking, there are some funny moments, and it is nice to see John McClane and his wife Holly. Plus, Meat from the Porky's films gets a rather nasty death scene. So while I wish it didn't have its faults and the major act of terrorism the movie has can be questioned as to whether it should have happened (in this day and age it does look worse), talent behind the camera such as producer Joel Silver, director Renny Harlin-his reputation may be mud now but he was actually cool back then-and composer Michael Kamen help make sure that this isn't a bad motion picture. Heaven knows that the 4th and 5th film in the series (which I can at least easily pretend that they aren't true Die Hard movies and even if the lead in those two was not John McClane, they'd still be pretty terrible) are much worse than this.
DIE HARD
This is another review I am doing over to replace the ultra-short original one I had up. The rating hasn't changed, though. There aren't too many films I have seen many times in my life but this is one of them... and it is also one of my favorites. I have seen this on television, on VHS, on DVD, on Blu (how I saw it Wednesday night), with my family on Christmas Day back in '09 when we were at the house of one of my sisters, who lives halfway across the country from me. I even got to see it on the big screen the summer of '04 and the print was an original and beat-up, which was great in terms of charm. I will mention a few reasons why I rate this a full 5 stars:
The Hero: Bruce Willis plays John McClane, who isn't a ripped or muscular slab of beef like Arnold or Sly was in the past. He's a typical New York City cop, profane and who has such faults as a troubled marriage (a lot of it is due to his selfishness) and at one point he admits that he fears he won't make it out of the Nakatomi Plaza alive. At the time that was refreshing. Now, maybe it should swing back around and we should have no hulking slabs of beef as action heroes... I just have no idea who would stand on that mantle.
The Plot: It defies expectations: you think that the villains are terrorists; they're all foreigners and hold hostages. However, they never say they are terrorists and they actually are looking to steal 650 million dollars in bearer bonds that are sealed in the building, which is a great idea as no records are ever kept on who owns on that type of bond. They have things thought out very well and you expect the law enforcement (such as the police chiefs, the SWAT Team and even the FBI) to handle the crises correctly but they constantly fail and fall into the trap of the villains. Plus, there are many great little moments you may not pick up on until you see it at least a few times and often, things brought up early pay off later. Oh, and there's many great lines too.
The Characters: There are so many here that are memorable, from the hero to the villain (Alan Rickman in an incredible role) to the minor ones, such as Al Leong (playing one of the bad guys) grabbing a candy bar he finds on display in the building. While I always enjoyed such people as the Twinkie-loving Sgt. Al Powell, multiple viewings have made me also appreciate such people as the SWAT team leader. Ellis in particular is hilarious as a typical coke-snorting 80's yuppie D-bag, with an unforgettable laugh. Even though the bad guys are holding a few dozen people hostage and have murdered more than one person, they have the combination of cleverness and charisma and you almost want to see them pull off the big heist; how they are able to perform the last step and then escape was built up perfectly throughout so when you see how it happens... for a moment you do want to see them ride off in the sunset.
The Action: No goofy CGI; just practical effects, actual stunts, bloody moments and beautiful matte paintings in the background. It's still thrilling in 2015. There are some quality setpieces for sure.
Those are just a few reasons why this is one of my all-time favorites and maybe at the top as THE favorite. I won't talk about the 4th and 5th movies as I don't even regard them as true sequels but the second and third-while both flawed-I'll watch again sometime in the future so I can talk about them here.
By the way, out of all the times I have seen this, some things I never noticed until a few years ago. For example, the scene where a dead man falls on the car of Sgt. Powell and he freaks out. There's a brief moment where you see the limo driver Argyle obliviously talking on his then-hip car phone. To think it wasn't until relatively recently that I spotted in the background of that moment the fake body of the dead man fly off in a hilarious fashion.
DIE HARD 2
This past Tuesday, I was able to watch Die Hard in a theatre; as that's one of my all-time favorites I couldn't turn down that opportunity. It was great. I once saw it on the big screen in 2004, which was an original beat-up film print and in this digital age, I appreciate such things. I already reviewed the movie this past summer so I don't need to do it again. However, I needed to give a proper review to this and as I hadn't watched this in a long while, I figured this was the perfect time to do so, with the OG film still not having left my mind yet.
I presume many are familiar with the plot of how some bad guys use technology to take over the Dulles National Airport in Washington, D.C. for the purpose of them taking an overthrown dictator and drug dealer of THE 80's action movie fictitious country (Val Verde), played by the great Franco Nero. John McClane happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time again. John has to deal with such obstacles as a stereotypical police chief in Dennis Franz, and there are also some unexpected enemies.
This is not the all-time-classic that the original is. Some of the dialogue is incredibly cheesy or goofy. The way that they shoehorn in a minor character or two is a little goofy considering this takes place almost 3,000 miles away from the Los Angeles setting of the first. Characters like the one that Franz played was written to be stupid, just because. Like what we get in too many modern action films, various parts of the plot make little to no sense. I could list various examples, but I won't go into detail on those Chris Nolan movies...
Yet, I can still give it a nice grade, as the action scenes are still cracking, there are some funny moments, and it is nice to see John McClane and his wife Holly. Plus, Meat from the Porky's films gets a rather nasty death scene. So while I wish it didn't have its faults and the major act of terrorism the movie has can be questioned as to whether it should have happened (in this day and age it does look worse), talent behind the camera such as producer Joel Silver, director Renny Harlin-his reputation may be mud now but he was actually cool back then-and composer Michael Kamen help make sure that this isn't a bad motion picture. Heaven knows that the 4th and 5th film in the series (which I can at least easily pretend that they aren't true Die Hard movies and even if the lead in those two was not John McClane, they'd still be pretty terrible) are much worse than this.
Sunday, December 6, 2015
Ex Machina
Ex Machina (2015)
Runtime: 108 minutes
Directed by: Alex Garland
Starring: Domhnall Gleeson, Oscar Issac, Alicia Vikander, Sonoya Mizuno
From: Several different companies, including A24
When I do my Best of 2015 list (sometime in... July of '16 or so) expect this motion picture to be at or near the top. Why did I not see this in a theatre? Because I am a dumbass, apparently. Read my glowing praise for this below in my Letterboxd review, but not before saying that I may post a review Sunday night proper or wait until Monday afternoon:
Oh, what a fool I was for not seeing this theatrically earlier this year.
2015 has been a pretty blah year for me when it comes to motion pictures. I've enjoyed some films quite a bit but there weren't any that I would say was great. Let's not even talk about how I am a rare person that did not care for Fury Road the two times I saw it on the big screen. While there definitely are a few I need to catch up on once they come out on disc or streaming, there's at least a decent chance that Ex Machina will be my top film of this year.
This is the sort of motion picture you want to go in as cold as possible, so I'll just mention the basic plot: a computer programmer (Caleb) wins a lottery at the job he works at-a Google-like company-and he goes to the huge estate in the middle of nowhere of the company's founder, Nathan... a rather odd and standoffish person. He created an android-a lovely lady named Ava-and Caleb has to do sessions with her to see if she could pass for a human. It's the famed Turing Test of computing lore. Things do not go as planned.
This movie isn't extravagant at all; instead, it's low-key and it presents its intelligent and interesting ideas in a measured fashion. I won't give away what those ideas of except for saying that they are mature and thought-provoking, including what it means to be human and the philosophical problems of creating an AI that could possibly fool someone via conversation that they are a person. The only other major character was a maid that is mute (Kyoko), and yet with only a few characters and the setting of a fancy futuristic house in the woods, thought-provoking science fiction greatness was created.
The performances from all four are top-notch. While Domhnall Gleeson as Caleb, Oscar Issac as Nathan and Sonoya Mizuno as Kyoko are all great, it is Alicia Vikander's performance as Ava that is truly outstanding. Through various subtle movements and gestures that probably came from her childhood as a ballerina, I can see why so many people went gaga over her performance. She is quite attractive in my opinion but she is definitely more than a pretty face and from what I have heard about her other roles in serious movies, 2015 has been great for her.
Behind the camera is also spectacular. I am talking about such things as cinematography, editing, and my favorite, the cerebral haunting electronic score from Ben Salisbury and Geoff Barrow. It's cold yet beautiful and it fits like a second skin to the images and the themes of this motion picture. While he spent plenty of time with Danny Boyle, it is still quite the achievement that this is the first movie from Alex Garland, someone who I'll definitely keep an eye on in the future.
Again, I wish that I could have seen this in a theatre but if you enjoy science fiction that isn't dopey or full of noise or bombast, this is a must-see and you must see it as soon as you are able to.
Runtime: 108 minutes
Directed by: Alex Garland
Starring: Domhnall Gleeson, Oscar Issac, Alicia Vikander, Sonoya Mizuno
From: Several different companies, including A24
When I do my Best of 2015 list (sometime in... July of '16 or so) expect this motion picture to be at or near the top. Why did I not see this in a theatre? Because I am a dumbass, apparently. Read my glowing praise for this below in my Letterboxd review, but not before saying that I may post a review Sunday night proper or wait until Monday afternoon:
Oh, what a fool I was for not seeing this theatrically earlier this year.
2015 has been a pretty blah year for me when it comes to motion pictures. I've enjoyed some films quite a bit but there weren't any that I would say was great. Let's not even talk about how I am a rare person that did not care for Fury Road the two times I saw it on the big screen. While there definitely are a few I need to catch up on once they come out on disc or streaming, there's at least a decent chance that Ex Machina will be my top film of this year.
This is the sort of motion picture you want to go in as cold as possible, so I'll just mention the basic plot: a computer programmer (Caleb) wins a lottery at the job he works at-a Google-like company-and he goes to the huge estate in the middle of nowhere of the company's founder, Nathan... a rather odd and standoffish person. He created an android-a lovely lady named Ava-and Caleb has to do sessions with her to see if she could pass for a human. It's the famed Turing Test of computing lore. Things do not go as planned.
This movie isn't extravagant at all; instead, it's low-key and it presents its intelligent and interesting ideas in a measured fashion. I won't give away what those ideas of except for saying that they are mature and thought-provoking, including what it means to be human and the philosophical problems of creating an AI that could possibly fool someone via conversation that they are a person. The only other major character was a maid that is mute (Kyoko), and yet with only a few characters and the setting of a fancy futuristic house in the woods, thought-provoking science fiction greatness was created.
The performances from all four are top-notch. While Domhnall Gleeson as Caleb, Oscar Issac as Nathan and Sonoya Mizuno as Kyoko are all great, it is Alicia Vikander's performance as Ava that is truly outstanding. Through various subtle movements and gestures that probably came from her childhood as a ballerina, I can see why so many people went gaga over her performance. She is quite attractive in my opinion but she is definitely more than a pretty face and from what I have heard about her other roles in serious movies, 2015 has been great for her.
Behind the camera is also spectacular. I am talking about such things as cinematography, editing, and my favorite, the cerebral haunting electronic score from Ben Salisbury and Geoff Barrow. It's cold yet beautiful and it fits like a second skin to the images and the themes of this motion picture. While he spent plenty of time with Danny Boyle, it is still quite the achievement that this is the first movie from Alex Garland, someone who I'll definitely keep an eye on in the future.
Again, I wish that I could have seen this in a theatre but if you enjoy science fiction that isn't dopey or full of noise or bombast, this is a must-see and you must see it as soon as you are able to.
Saturday, December 5, 2015
Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Yeah, you know all the details already about this infamous movie
This is a movie that I had seen twice before but I wanted to give it a better review on Letterboxd so I watched it again last night, and as I always thought, the movie is so average and that is disappointing considering the Indy movies before that are all quality. The Letterboxd review is below:
Oh, what a fool I was for not seeing this theatrically earlier this year.
2015 has been a pretty blah year for me when it comes to motion pictures. I've enjoyed some films quite a bit but there weren't any that I would say was great. Let's not even talk about how I am a rare person that did not care for Fury Road the two times I saw it on the big screen. While there definitely are a few I need to catch up on once they come out on disc or streaming, there's at least a decent chance that Ex Machina will be my top film of this year.
This is the sort of motion picture you want to go in as cold as possible, so I'll just mention the basic plot: a computer programmer (Caleb) wins a lottery at the job he works at-a Google-like company-and he goes to the huge estate in the middle of nowhere of the company's founder, Nathan... a rather odd and standoffish person. He created an android-a lovely lady named Ava-and Caleb has to do sessions with her to see if she could pass for a human. It's the famed Turing Test of computing lore. Things do not go as planned.
This movie isn't extravagant at all; instead, it's low-key and it presents its intelligent and interesting ideas in a measured fashion. I won't give away what those ideas of except for saying that they are mature and thought-provoking, including what it means to be human and the philosophical problems of creating an AI that could possibly fool someone via conversation that they are a person. The only other major character was a maid that is mute (Kyoko), and yet with only a few characters and the setting of a fancy futuristic house in the woods, thought-provoking science fiction greatness was created.
The performances from all four are top-notch. While Domhnall Gleeson as Caleb, Oscar Issac as Nathan and Sonoya Mizuno as Kyoko are all great, it is Alicia Vikander's performance as Ava that is truly outstanding. Through various subtle movements and gestures that probably came from her childhood as a ballerina, I can see why so many people went gaga over her performance. She is quite attractive in my opinion but she is definitely more than a pretty face and from what I have heard about her other roles in serious movies, 2015 has been great for her.
Behind the camera is also spectacular. I am talking about such things as cinematography, editing, and my favorite, the cerebral haunting electronic score from Ben Salisbury and Geoff Barrow. It's cold yet beautiful and it fits like a second skin to the images and the themes of this motion picture. While he spent plenty of time with Danny Boyle, it is still quite the achievement that this is the first movie from Alex Garland, someone who I'll definitely keep an eye on in the future.
Again, I wish that I could have seen this in a theatre but if you enjoy science fiction that isn't dopey or full of noise or bombast, this is a must-see and you must see it as soon as you are able to.
Yeah, you know all the details already about this infamous movie
This is a movie that I had seen twice before but I wanted to give it a better review on Letterboxd so I watched it again last night, and as I always thought, the movie is so average and that is disappointing considering the Indy movies before that are all quality. The Letterboxd review is below:
Oh, what a fool I was for not seeing this theatrically earlier this year.
2015 has been a pretty blah year for me when it comes to motion pictures. I've enjoyed some films quite a bit but there weren't any that I would say was great. Let's not even talk about how I am a rare person that did not care for Fury Road the two times I saw it on the big screen. While there definitely are a few I need to catch up on once they come out on disc or streaming, there's at least a decent chance that Ex Machina will be my top film of this year.
This is the sort of motion picture you want to go in as cold as possible, so I'll just mention the basic plot: a computer programmer (Caleb) wins a lottery at the job he works at-a Google-like company-and he goes to the huge estate in the middle of nowhere of the company's founder, Nathan... a rather odd and standoffish person. He created an android-a lovely lady named Ava-and Caleb has to do sessions with her to see if she could pass for a human. It's the famed Turing Test of computing lore. Things do not go as planned.
This movie isn't extravagant at all; instead, it's low-key and it presents its intelligent and interesting ideas in a measured fashion. I won't give away what those ideas of except for saying that they are mature and thought-provoking, including what it means to be human and the philosophical problems of creating an AI that could possibly fool someone via conversation that they are a person. The only other major character was a maid that is mute (Kyoko), and yet with only a few characters and the setting of a fancy futuristic house in the woods, thought-provoking science fiction greatness was created.
The performances from all four are top-notch. While Domhnall Gleeson as Caleb, Oscar Issac as Nathan and Sonoya Mizuno as Kyoko are all great, it is Alicia Vikander's performance as Ava that is truly outstanding. Through various subtle movements and gestures that probably came from her childhood as a ballerina, I can see why so many people went gaga over her performance. She is quite attractive in my opinion but she is definitely more than a pretty face and from what I have heard about her other roles in serious movies, 2015 has been great for her.
Behind the camera is also spectacular. I am talking about such things as cinematography, editing, and my favorite, the cerebral haunting electronic score from Ben Salisbury and Geoff Barrow. It's cold yet beautiful and it fits like a second skin to the images and the themes of this motion picture. While he spent plenty of time with Danny Boyle, it is still quite the achievement that this is the first movie from Alex Garland, someone who I'll definitely keep an eye on in the future.
Again, I wish that I could have seen this in a theatre but if you enjoy science fiction that isn't dopey or full of noise or bombast, this is a must-see and you must see it as soon as you are able to.
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
I Am Rewatching Old Films
That is what I've been doing as of late. Last night on the big screen I saw Die Hard; it was awesome seeing it that way; I did that once before way back in 2004. A few hours later I saw again Road Games, the 1981 Australian film. For the next few days I'll likely be doing the same thing so who knows when I'll be back with a new review.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Labyrinth
Labyrinth (1986)
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Jim Henson
Starring: Jennifer Connelly, David Bowie
From: Both Jim Henson and the not yet hated George Lucas
This movie is now gone from Netflix Instant, but I watched it Sunday night while they still had the film streaming. I had seen it only once before in my life despite being born in the 1980's. I explain it all in my Letterboxd review below:
I hope that there aren't too many people who strongly disagree with how I rated this. It has to be said that despite being born in 1981, unlike many people in my general age range I had only seen this once before; the reason for me checking it out a second time is that in a matter of hours it'll be gone from Netflix Instant. From what I remember when I first saw it many years ago, I thought it fine and nothing more; I now know my opinion hasn't really changed.
I can say that it was a very imaginative world and in this day and age I appreciate how everything-from the sets to the creatures to the effects-were done practically instead of CGI that would make it look not as real and tangible. I certainly did see the works of Jim Henson since I was very little. Sesame Street, The Muppet Show, the Muppets movies, and so much more. I did enjoy the wacky characters on display and what an imaginative world it was. It's 80's-riffic all the way but that was fine with me and I enjoyed how 80's the music was, especially the David Bowie songs.
And oh what a performance from him, between his singing, his big wig, and his overall look. I can understand why I've heard plenty of people in the past say that they enjoyed Jareth the Goblin King in a romantic way. I understand... and the incredibly tight pants he wore did not hurt either in that regard! I can say that the movie has riddles, most of them on the clever side. It reminds me that a modern day Labyrinth videogame would be perfect and if done right it would work.
However, there were some things that I was not so hot about. There are various story issues I could carp about, but I won't. I'll just say that there were story issues. Even if I hadn't seen some reviewers here mention it, more often than not Jennifer Connelly was more wooden than Pinocchio. The opening was rough until Jareth the Goblin King showed up. Sarah as a character was also pretty annoying too often. Still, I can say this is fine overall and I do understand how if I would have seen this when I was younger or I saw it more often, I'd probably also rate it higher and love it in a cult way like so many do.
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Jim Henson
Starring: Jennifer Connelly, David Bowie
From: Both Jim Henson and the not yet hated George Lucas
This movie is now gone from Netflix Instant, but I watched it Sunday night while they still had the film streaming. I had seen it only once before in my life despite being born in the 1980's. I explain it all in my Letterboxd review below:
I hope that there aren't too many people who strongly disagree with how I rated this. It has to be said that despite being born in 1981, unlike many people in my general age range I had only seen this once before; the reason for me checking it out a second time is that in a matter of hours it'll be gone from Netflix Instant. From what I remember when I first saw it many years ago, I thought it fine and nothing more; I now know my opinion hasn't really changed.
I can say that it was a very imaginative world and in this day and age I appreciate how everything-from the sets to the creatures to the effects-were done practically instead of CGI that would make it look not as real and tangible. I certainly did see the works of Jim Henson since I was very little. Sesame Street, The Muppet Show, the Muppets movies, and so much more. I did enjoy the wacky characters on display and what an imaginative world it was. It's 80's-riffic all the way but that was fine with me and I enjoyed how 80's the music was, especially the David Bowie songs.
And oh what a performance from him, between his singing, his big wig, and his overall look. I can understand why I've heard plenty of people in the past say that they enjoyed Jareth the Goblin King in a romantic way. I understand... and the incredibly tight pants he wore did not hurt either in that regard! I can say that the movie has riddles, most of them on the clever side. It reminds me that a modern day Labyrinth videogame would be perfect and if done right it would work.
However, there were some things that I was not so hot about. There are various story issues I could carp about, but I won't. I'll just say that there were story issues. Even if I hadn't seen some reviewers here mention it, more often than not Jennifer Connelly was more wooden than Pinocchio. The opening was rough until Jareth the Goblin King showed up. Sarah as a character was also pretty annoying too often. Still, I can say this is fine overall and I do understand how if I would have seen this when I was younger or I saw it more often, I'd probably also rate it higher and love it in a cult way like so many do.
Saturday, November 28, 2015
Turkish Mad Max!
Turkish Mad Max (Olume Son Adim) (1983)
Runtime: 77 minutes
Directed by: Cetin Inanc
Starring: Cuneyt Arkin, Emel Turner, Yildirim Gencer, Nazan Ayas
From: Anit Film
Here's a different sort of review from me. I explain it all below in what I wrote about it for Letterboxd, but it is a Turkish film called Death's Last Step (which is pretty awesome) and somehow it became known as Turkish Mad Max even though it has nothing in common with Mad Max. My review is below:
Here is something quite unusual from me, a review of a super-obscure foreign film which is not dubbed or subtitled yet I had to see it anyhow; in this case, it's something that's been called TURKISH MAD MAX, so how could I not watch it? I did in fact find out about this movie from Letterboxd.
The title is pretty inaccurate, BTW; I don't even know what to compare it to, so I'll say it's more a case where three random people go looking for a kidnapped professor, who is said to have found a cure for leukemia (!), but boy is there a lot of lunacy involved. It shouldn't be a surprise considering it's from the director (Cetin Inanc) and star (the alpha male known as Cuneyt Arkin) of... TURKISH STAR WARS. Yes, I've seen that and one day I will again so I can give it a proper review here but note that it's not quite as deranged as that... what is, though?
I looked at a few reviews of it to get a general idea of what it's about but otherwise I winged it, trying to figure out what's going on without knowing a word of Turkish. Note that yes this indeed is hilariously inept on a frequent basis. It also looks at least a decade older than its 1983 release date. Let me mention some of the highlights:
* Arkin forces a bad guy to eat a packet of heroin, which suspiciously looks like the power from powdered donuts.
* Arkin is such an alpha, he plays cards while waiting for a gaggle of bad guys to show up, which he dispatches by throwing knives at them. Of course he often does his version of kung fu.
* The second hero (Yildirim Gencer, sort of a Turkish Lee Van Cleef, or maybe it's a mix of Van Cleef and Robert Loggia) shows up, and boy does he ever. You see him make out with a young woman (he's a middle-aged man) in a blue bikini as a disco song plays in the background. I knew right away which one the filmmakers stole. It's Have a Cigar by Rosebud. Yes, it actually is a remake of the Pink Floyd song and it is as strange as you'd expect it to be. Arkin shows up, says a few words... and it's implied that they both “hang out” with the bikinied babe.
* The third hero is a lady (Emel Tumer) and I don't think I've ever seen a motion picture gratuitously show off the main women in its cast (her and another lady we meet later on; the two heroes come off as tremendous horndogs). Sure, the women we see are attractive ladies and all but it becomes downright absurd how often it happens and how closely they zoom in on certain bodyparts. Anyhow, her intro was a ripoff of Marion's intro from Raiders of the Lost Ark, except that she and a guy with a giant mustache downs glasses of beer. He tries to-ahem-motorboat her, and a giant brawl breaks out.
* Things happen, such as Arkin flipping a coin more often than Harvey Dent and Tumer ending up in a wet t-shirt with no bra on. Yes.
* A form of the gearing up montage happens. Arkin wears a leather jacket and a bandolero, Gencer dresses up like Han Solo, and Tumer's outfit includes wearing short-shorts where her butt is hanging out. Oh, and the heroes are the ones who do a version of waterboarding.
* Is this like a proto version of The Expendables?
* Once they start the rescue mission, the movie is full of shootings, exploding bullets (yes, exploding; also, the few times the filmmakers try to show muzzle flash, it's animated and wow does it look daffy), Turkish Kung Fu, and other goofiness.
I am not quite sure how to rate this so I'll go with 3 stars, as while it's a gas throughout the first act is stronger-or at least more hilarious to me-than the other two acts, where all the action tends to blend together. If you've ever seen any of these off-the-wall Turkish movies, it is worth seeing this one.
Runtime: 77 minutes
Directed by: Cetin Inanc
Starring: Cuneyt Arkin, Emel Turner, Yildirim Gencer, Nazan Ayas
From: Anit Film
Here's a different sort of review from me. I explain it all below in what I wrote about it for Letterboxd, but it is a Turkish film called Death's Last Step (which is pretty awesome) and somehow it became known as Turkish Mad Max even though it has nothing in common with Mad Max. My review is below:
Here is something quite unusual from me, a review of a super-obscure foreign film which is not dubbed or subtitled yet I had to see it anyhow; in this case, it's something that's been called TURKISH MAD MAX, so how could I not watch it? I did in fact find out about this movie from Letterboxd.
The title is pretty inaccurate, BTW; I don't even know what to compare it to, so I'll say it's more a case where three random people go looking for a kidnapped professor, who is said to have found a cure for leukemia (!), but boy is there a lot of lunacy involved. It shouldn't be a surprise considering it's from the director (Cetin Inanc) and star (the alpha male known as Cuneyt Arkin) of... TURKISH STAR WARS. Yes, I've seen that and one day I will again so I can give it a proper review here but note that it's not quite as deranged as that... what is, though?
I looked at a few reviews of it to get a general idea of what it's about but otherwise I winged it, trying to figure out what's going on without knowing a word of Turkish. Note that yes this indeed is hilariously inept on a frequent basis. It also looks at least a decade older than its 1983 release date. Let me mention some of the highlights:
* Arkin forces a bad guy to eat a packet of heroin, which suspiciously looks like the power from powdered donuts.
* Arkin is such an alpha, he plays cards while waiting for a gaggle of bad guys to show up, which he dispatches by throwing knives at them. Of course he often does his version of kung fu.
* The second hero (Yildirim Gencer, sort of a Turkish Lee Van Cleef, or maybe it's a mix of Van Cleef and Robert Loggia) shows up, and boy does he ever. You see him make out with a young woman (he's a middle-aged man) in a blue bikini as a disco song plays in the background. I knew right away which one the filmmakers stole. It's Have a Cigar by Rosebud. Yes, it actually is a remake of the Pink Floyd song and it is as strange as you'd expect it to be. Arkin shows up, says a few words... and it's implied that they both “hang out” with the bikinied babe.
* The third hero is a lady (Emel Tumer) and I don't think I've ever seen a motion picture gratuitously show off the main women in its cast (her and another lady we meet later on; the two heroes come off as tremendous horndogs). Sure, the women we see are attractive ladies and all but it becomes downright absurd how often it happens and how closely they zoom in on certain bodyparts. Anyhow, her intro was a ripoff of Marion's intro from Raiders of the Lost Ark, except that she and a guy with a giant mustache downs glasses of beer. He tries to-ahem-motorboat her, and a giant brawl breaks out.
* Things happen, such as Arkin flipping a coin more often than Harvey Dent and Tumer ending up in a wet t-shirt with no bra on. Yes.
* A form of the gearing up montage happens. Arkin wears a leather jacket and a bandolero, Gencer dresses up like Han Solo, and Tumer's outfit includes wearing short-shorts where her butt is hanging out. Oh, and the heroes are the ones who do a version of waterboarding.
* Is this like a proto version of The Expendables?
* Once they start the rescue mission, the movie is full of shootings, exploding bullets (yes, exploding; also, the few times the filmmakers try to show muzzle flash, it's animated and wow does it look daffy), Turkish Kung Fu, and other goofiness.
I am not quite sure how to rate this so I'll go with 3 stars, as while it's a gas throughout the first act is stronger-or at least more hilarious to me-than the other two acts, where all the action tends to blend together. If you've ever seen any of these off-the-wall Turkish movies, it is worth seeing this one.
Thursday, November 26, 2015
The 'Burbs
The 'Burbs (1989)
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Joe Dante
Starring: Tom Hanks, Bruce Dern, Rick Ducommun, Wendy Schaal, Carrie Fisher
From: Universal/Imagine Entertainment
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. I watched this movie last night; I had seen it before but that was a long time ago. It'll be gone from Netflix in a few days, so that's why I saw it at that time. I talk about it in my Letterboxd review below:
At the end of the month several films I have in my Netflix Instant queue will leave the service; I won't have the time to watch them all but I still wanted to see more than one of them. This movie is one of those that will soon be gone, maybe forever. I have watched this before but that was many years ago.
I presume many are familiar with the plot... if not, it's a dark comic look at typical suburban life. It's entirely set in a small neighborhood; the opening of the movie shows on a globe that it takes place in the American Midwest, Iowa to be more specific; it was mainly filmed on a studio lot. It appears to be an average neighborhood but you see that its denizens are all colorful characters. Ray (Tom Hanks) wishes to enjoy a week of vacation at home, but his new next door neighbors-the Klopek family-don't take care of the exterior and they are never seen. His paranoid pal Art (the late Rick Ducommun) and the ex-military Lieutenant Mark (Bruce Dern, who never not wears incredible clothing throughout; there's plenty of both camouflage and Hawaiian shirts) are convinced that something is very wrong with the Klopeks, and his friends really rile up poor Ray.
The movie is definitely uneven and I can't say it's great; yet, I still think it's fine and entertaining. Like I said it's full of colorful characters, from the leads to the strange neighbors, and there's even Corey Feldman, who plays the exact sort of character you'd expect Corey Feldman to play from about '85 to '90, meaning “a real smartass”. There are still plenty of laughs as typical suburban life is lampooned as really, who knows what your neighbors are like behind closed doors. This is like a wacky version of Rear Window, really.
There are other films from Joe Dante which I would rate higher (I just haven't watched any of them in the time I have been a member of this site), such as the Gremlins movies or The Howling but I still enjoy this entry in his filmography, as it is something different from the norm and it was nicely directed by him. There's also a great angry soliloquy from Hanks back in the day when he did these sorts of comedies rather than the “serious” movies he's done in the past 20 years plus.
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Joe Dante
Starring: Tom Hanks, Bruce Dern, Rick Ducommun, Wendy Schaal, Carrie Fisher
From: Universal/Imagine Entertainment
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. I watched this movie last night; I had seen it before but that was a long time ago. It'll be gone from Netflix in a few days, so that's why I saw it at that time. I talk about it in my Letterboxd review below:
At the end of the month several films I have in my Netflix Instant queue will leave the service; I won't have the time to watch them all but I still wanted to see more than one of them. This movie is one of those that will soon be gone, maybe forever. I have watched this before but that was many years ago.
I presume many are familiar with the plot... if not, it's a dark comic look at typical suburban life. It's entirely set in a small neighborhood; the opening of the movie shows on a globe that it takes place in the American Midwest, Iowa to be more specific; it was mainly filmed on a studio lot. It appears to be an average neighborhood but you see that its denizens are all colorful characters. Ray (Tom Hanks) wishes to enjoy a week of vacation at home, but his new next door neighbors-the Klopek family-don't take care of the exterior and they are never seen. His paranoid pal Art (the late Rick Ducommun) and the ex-military Lieutenant Mark (Bruce Dern, who never not wears incredible clothing throughout; there's plenty of both camouflage and Hawaiian shirts) are convinced that something is very wrong with the Klopeks, and his friends really rile up poor Ray.
The movie is definitely uneven and I can't say it's great; yet, I still think it's fine and entertaining. Like I said it's full of colorful characters, from the leads to the strange neighbors, and there's even Corey Feldman, who plays the exact sort of character you'd expect Corey Feldman to play from about '85 to '90, meaning “a real smartass”. There are still plenty of laughs as typical suburban life is lampooned as really, who knows what your neighbors are like behind closed doors. This is like a wacky version of Rear Window, really.
There are other films from Joe Dante which I would rate higher (I just haven't watched any of them in the time I have been a member of this site), such as the Gremlins movies or The Howling but I still enjoy this entry in his filmography, as it is something different from the norm and it was nicely directed by him. There's also a great angry soliloquy from Hanks back in the day when he did these sorts of comedies rather than the “serious” movies he's done in the past 20 years plus.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
The Internship
The Internship (2013)
34% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 158 reviews)
Runtime: 119 minutes
Directed by: Shawn Levy
Starring: Vince Vaughn, Owen Wilson, Josh Brenner, Dylan O'Brien, Max Minghella
From: 20th Century Fox/Regency Enterprises
I apologize for being gone for so long with no word; I was preoccupied with other things, including going to a gaming event in Orlando on both Friday and Saturday. I'll try to get back in the swing of things but I may be sporadic for the rest of the year. As for this movie, it was not my choice to see this, and I'll leave it at that. The Letterboxd review is below:
The past few days I have been preoccupied with other things so I have not had the time to watch any films. Those things aren't anything bad, and I'll leave it at that. I was not expecting this movie to be the one I saw last night for a review, but without going into details on why, I was somewhere else and I had no voice in the matter so I had to see this, despite not having any desire to ever do so. I saw the PG-13 version and not the unrated version, although I highly doubt that would change my rating at all. Turns out, this was pretty bad, and the common complaint of “This is just a 2 hour commercial for a company that does not need such a plug” isn't even my biggest gripe with it.
I presume most are familiar with the plot so I won't spend much time describing how two dopey man-children in Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson lose their crappy jobs so they decide to apply for a Google internship and of course they act like dopes at first so there's a clash with the “youths” they have to work with but of course things change and they get along and yawn...
What constitutes modern humor just doesn't interest me. As the lack of modern superhero movie reviews I've done reflects how much I care about such things, me not watching most of the comedies that have come out in recent years speaks volumes. Considering that much of the “humor” was “a bunch of incessant babbling that sometimes included 80's references”, it doesn't cut the mustard for me. I only chuckled a few times and that includes a lewd gag. Then, there's the fact that this is a commercial for Google to show off how cool their headquarters is, yet the place doesn't look appealing to work at, as not only is it filled with D-bag interns, but the guy who leads that internship is a gigantic A-hole; what a great plug for Google!
The movie tries to have some poignant moments and I guess that was OK but overall this was just not good; it's filled with eye-rolling cliches, gross characters and like I said, I did not get many laughs at all out of this. The fact that there aren't too many films that I've seen in my life (whether or not I have them listed here) that have had either Mr. Vaughn or Mr. Wilson, that again speaks volumes.
34% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 158 reviews)
Runtime: 119 minutes
Directed by: Shawn Levy
Starring: Vince Vaughn, Owen Wilson, Josh Brenner, Dylan O'Brien, Max Minghella
From: 20th Century Fox/Regency Enterprises
I apologize for being gone for so long with no word; I was preoccupied with other things, including going to a gaming event in Orlando on both Friday and Saturday. I'll try to get back in the swing of things but I may be sporadic for the rest of the year. As for this movie, it was not my choice to see this, and I'll leave it at that. The Letterboxd review is below:
The past few days I have been preoccupied with other things so I have not had the time to watch any films. Those things aren't anything bad, and I'll leave it at that. I was not expecting this movie to be the one I saw last night for a review, but without going into details on why, I was somewhere else and I had no voice in the matter so I had to see this, despite not having any desire to ever do so. I saw the PG-13 version and not the unrated version, although I highly doubt that would change my rating at all. Turns out, this was pretty bad, and the common complaint of “This is just a 2 hour commercial for a company that does not need such a plug” isn't even my biggest gripe with it.
I presume most are familiar with the plot so I won't spend much time describing how two dopey man-children in Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson lose their crappy jobs so they decide to apply for a Google internship and of course they act like dopes at first so there's a clash with the “youths” they have to work with but of course things change and they get along and yawn...
What constitutes modern humor just doesn't interest me. As the lack of modern superhero movie reviews I've done reflects how much I care about such things, me not watching most of the comedies that have come out in recent years speaks volumes. Considering that much of the “humor” was “a bunch of incessant babbling that sometimes included 80's references”, it doesn't cut the mustard for me. I only chuckled a few times and that includes a lewd gag. Then, there's the fact that this is a commercial for Google to show off how cool their headquarters is, yet the place doesn't look appealing to work at, as not only is it filled with D-bag interns, but the guy who leads that internship is a gigantic A-hole; what a great plug for Google!
The movie tries to have some poignant moments and I guess that was OK but overall this was just not good; it's filled with eye-rolling cliches, gross characters and like I said, I did not get many laughs at all out of this. The fact that there aren't too many films that I've seen in my life (whether or not I have them listed here) that have had either Mr. Vaughn or Mr. Wilson, that again speaks volumes.
Thursday, November 19, 2015
E.T.
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
We all know the details, so I won't bother typing them out; just know that I saw the original version and not “the walkie-talkie” version.
This is a movie that I saw as a kid (as almost everyone else did in America who's around my age) but the last viewing was when I was a kid. So I was happy to finally see it again. Read my glowing take in my Letterboxd review below:
I am in my mid 30's, so it likely should be no surprise that I have seen this movie a few times before in my life. Yet, I have not seen it as an adult so my last viewing was many years ago. I figured it was about time I saw this beloved movie again and thankfully, I can still rate it highly and it's not due to nostalgia.
Everyone knows the story of that interesting-looking alien (which is a tremendous puppet effect and you believe it's real; if this was in modern times and it was a CGI creation, there's a good chance you wouldn't buy the effect) who gets left behind and you see it hang out with three young siblings, so I'll just say that I am glad the performances were effective all around-especially from the kids-as the viewer spends a lot of time around them. It's all charming and so entertaining. As others have said, it embodies the wonderment of childhood.
Another nice aspect is that the characters aren't flat or two dimensional. Even “the government” aren't that bad and the guy only known as Keys (Peter Coyote) has wanted to see an alien for years. Elliott as the lead is a typical 10 year old boy who wishes he could hang out with his older brother Michael and Michael's friends and wishes for pals and is affected by the recent separation of his parents; an alien friend is perfect for him and you really like Elliott. All three siblings are normal kids and thankfully aren't painted as annoying or dumb. They are typical suburbanites in a northern California neighborhood. It's a great script from Melissa Mathison, someone who recently passed away. It also reminds me what a great composer John Williams is, as the score from this film is note-perfect.
I was amused by some of the content in this family film and how you wouldn't see such material in a family film of today. You likely wouldn't see an alien get drunk after drinking a few cans of Coors and you definitely wouldn't hear a 10 year old boy refer to someone else as PENIS BREATH. Whether or not this is a good thing is up to you. Also, I saw this via Amazon Instant Video and it was the original cut and not the “20th Anniversary Edition”, which of course I've never seen as I mentioned at the beginning this was the first time watching this movie as an adult. I do know that 2002 version is the one where “the guns that government agents carry in one scene were replaced by walkie-talkies” and everyone got upset by that change. At least unlike one of Spielberg's contemporaries, the original version of a classic film is still THE cut that can easily be viewed...
Anyway, this is great family entertainment made by an all-time-great director firing on all cylinders and I am sure can still captivate young children (such as the twin nephews I have, who will turn 3 in a month's time) today and I hope that one day they can watch the film and love it.
We all know the details, so I won't bother typing them out; just know that I saw the original version and not “the walkie-talkie” version.
This is a movie that I saw as a kid (as almost everyone else did in America who's around my age) but the last viewing was when I was a kid. So I was happy to finally see it again. Read my glowing take in my Letterboxd review below:
I am in my mid 30's, so it likely should be no surprise that I have seen this movie a few times before in my life. Yet, I have not seen it as an adult so my last viewing was many years ago. I figured it was about time I saw this beloved movie again and thankfully, I can still rate it highly and it's not due to nostalgia.
Everyone knows the story of that interesting-looking alien (which is a tremendous puppet effect and you believe it's real; if this was in modern times and it was a CGI creation, there's a good chance you wouldn't buy the effect) who gets left behind and you see it hang out with three young siblings, so I'll just say that I am glad the performances were effective all around-especially from the kids-as the viewer spends a lot of time around them. It's all charming and so entertaining. As others have said, it embodies the wonderment of childhood.
Another nice aspect is that the characters aren't flat or two dimensional. Even “the government” aren't that bad and the guy only known as Keys (Peter Coyote) has wanted to see an alien for years. Elliott as the lead is a typical 10 year old boy who wishes he could hang out with his older brother Michael and Michael's friends and wishes for pals and is affected by the recent separation of his parents; an alien friend is perfect for him and you really like Elliott. All three siblings are normal kids and thankfully aren't painted as annoying or dumb. They are typical suburbanites in a northern California neighborhood. It's a great script from Melissa Mathison, someone who recently passed away. It also reminds me what a great composer John Williams is, as the score from this film is note-perfect.
I was amused by some of the content in this family film and how you wouldn't see such material in a family film of today. You likely wouldn't see an alien get drunk after drinking a few cans of Coors and you definitely wouldn't hear a 10 year old boy refer to someone else as PENIS BREATH. Whether or not this is a good thing is up to you. Also, I saw this via Amazon Instant Video and it was the original cut and not the “20th Anniversary Edition”, which of course I've never seen as I mentioned at the beginning this was the first time watching this movie as an adult. I do know that 2002 version is the one where “the guns that government agents carry in one scene were replaced by walkie-talkies” and everyone got upset by that change. At least unlike one of Spielberg's contemporaries, the original version of a classic film is still THE cut that can easily be viewed...
Anyway, this is great family entertainment made by an all-time-great director firing on all cylinders and I am sure can still captivate young children (such as the twin nephews I have, who will turn 3 in a month's time) today and I hope that one day they can watch the film and love it.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Kiss Of Death
Runtime: 98 minutes
Directed by: Henry Hathaway
Starring: Victor Mature, Richard Widmark, Coleen Gray, Brian Donlevy, Taylor Holmes
From: 20th Century Fox
Here is a film noir I watched at almost the literal last minute last night, and that was a wise decision. Read why below in my Letterboxd review:
It had been a few months since a noir has been watched by me. Someone on a messageboard reminding me that this film was on TCM last night and as I had never seen it before... it was the most appropriate thing for me to see. One day I'll watch the 1995 remake where you see someone bench press a girl but I will presume that is not as good as this motion picture.
I don't want to give away too much about the plot but it's centered around Nick Bianco (Victor Mature), a crook who gets caught during a failed robbery and gets sent to the slammer because he won't rat out his friends. Things change and he changes his mind. Things end up complicated for him and he ends up dealing with a psychopath with the great name of Tommy Udo (Richard Widmark). An innocent dame (Coleen Gray, who just passed away a few months ago) is involved, as are the typical trappings of a film noir.
I now know why many people rate this highly. It's a quality noir for sure. You end up liking Bianco even though at first he acts like a punk. You find out that he has a family-including two young daughters-and he clearly loves them very much. There are entertaining tough guys throughout and the plot was always interesting to me. However, to be the true highlight was Widmark. This was actually his film debut and he hit a home run with his performance. Udo is quite crazed and he does a tremendous job bringing that to life with such thing as his maniacal laughter. I know that people have drawn parallels between that performance and Heath Ledger as The Joker and it is an understandable comparison. Widmark was actually a fan of The Joker in the Batman comics of the 40's. Anyway, Udo does a thing or two that made me go WOW as I was not expecting to see such things in a film of the time. I'll just say there are some incredibly harsh moments.
This movie is well-done and to list but an example of that, at times there are long stretches of silence (such as during the opening robbery, and it's used during other tension-filled scenes) and it's quite effective. I know that it won't be so long before I see another film noir.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
A Sound Of Thunder
A Sound of Thunder (2005)
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Peter Hyams
Starring: Edward Burns, Catherine McCormack, Ben Kingsley, Jemima Rooper, David Oyelowo
From: Franchise Pictures
I have actually seen this terrible movie before, a long while ago. I explain why in my Letterboxd review below why I did so on Friday night:
Due to all the chaos that happened on Friday, I figured that evening I shouldn't watch anything serious and instead my viewing should be of something that I know will provide laughs, as I had seen it before. Of course with this film it's unintentional humor but it still did the job. Although, the movie is still agonizing to watch so maybe I should have seen a traditional comedy instead.
This is based on the short story by Ray Bradbury; a free version of it can easily be found via a Google search. It's an entertaining story and all, but due to its length it had to be greatly expanded upon for a feature length film and somehow this lunacy is what we got. It shows that stepping on just one butterfly 65 million years ago can drastically change things... I am not sure how it works considering that the area immediately gets wiped out by a volcano but what do I know? The tale is set in the future of 2055 and time travel allows for people to hunt dinosaurs in an area right before it would have died anyhow. Things go wrong, a butterfly (actually a giant moth; yes, they couldn't get that right) gets stepped on, and the concept of “time waves” are brought in; I am sure that concept is poppycock... there's more glaring scientific problems than that with this story, believe me.
The story has plenty of unintentional humor. The biggest force that this group of asstagonists (sad to say, the people we're supposed to root for are all unlikable A-holes, who act incredibly rude for no real good reason; the villain-played by Ben Kingsley wearing a goofy white wig that makes him look like Malcolm McDowell-comes off as more enjoyable because he's such a sleazy SOB) have to face is monkey-dinosaurs! Then, there's such things as the dinosaur being hunted not having lived in that time period by “only” 80 million years, all the time travel logic problems (some of which were in the short story but they didn't even try to fix those), the hilariously wrong statement that “humans were the last to evolve” or the mistaken belief that no organism is still evolving today, not understanding what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is, etc. It's incredible.
The most incredible thing, though, is the CGI. You can't even really blame the filmmakers. It's unfortunate for them that their production company (Franchise Pictures) went bankrupt during filming so their budget got slashed by more than half and thus they had to use computer graphics that are even worse than what you see in SyFy Channel original movies. I mean, they look so terrible and that's an issue when the movie is full of CGI. At least it brought me much mirth and merriment.
Yet, I only recommend this movie to the masochists despite all the ha ha moments, as like I said the characters are so loathsome. What a mess this movie is; because of the bankruptcy this took a few years to come off, and maybe it should have stayed on the shelf. He wasn't the first choice for director but this has to be Peter Hyams' worst movie, and he's done things like End of Days and that terrible wire-fu version of the Three Musketeers.
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Peter Hyams
Starring: Edward Burns, Catherine McCormack, Ben Kingsley, Jemima Rooper, David Oyelowo
From: Franchise Pictures
I have actually seen this terrible movie before, a long while ago. I explain why in my Letterboxd review below why I did so on Friday night:
Due to all the chaos that happened on Friday, I figured that evening I shouldn't watch anything serious and instead my viewing should be of something that I know will provide laughs, as I had seen it before. Of course with this film it's unintentional humor but it still did the job. Although, the movie is still agonizing to watch so maybe I should have seen a traditional comedy instead.
This is based on the short story by Ray Bradbury; a free version of it can easily be found via a Google search. It's an entertaining story and all, but due to its length it had to be greatly expanded upon for a feature length film and somehow this lunacy is what we got. It shows that stepping on just one butterfly 65 million years ago can drastically change things... I am not sure how it works considering that the area immediately gets wiped out by a volcano but what do I know? The tale is set in the future of 2055 and time travel allows for people to hunt dinosaurs in an area right before it would have died anyhow. Things go wrong, a butterfly (actually a giant moth; yes, they couldn't get that right) gets stepped on, and the concept of “time waves” are brought in; I am sure that concept is poppycock... there's more glaring scientific problems than that with this story, believe me.
The story has plenty of unintentional humor. The biggest force that this group of asstagonists (sad to say, the people we're supposed to root for are all unlikable A-holes, who act incredibly rude for no real good reason; the villain-played by Ben Kingsley wearing a goofy white wig that makes him look like Malcolm McDowell-comes off as more enjoyable because he's such a sleazy SOB) have to face is monkey-dinosaurs! Then, there's such things as the dinosaur being hunted not having lived in that time period by “only” 80 million years, all the time travel logic problems (some of which were in the short story but they didn't even try to fix those), the hilariously wrong statement that “humans were the last to evolve” or the mistaken belief that no organism is still evolving today, not understanding what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is, etc. It's incredible.
The most incredible thing, though, is the CGI. You can't even really blame the filmmakers. It's unfortunate for them that their production company (Franchise Pictures) went bankrupt during filming so their budget got slashed by more than half and thus they had to use computer graphics that are even worse than what you see in SyFy Channel original movies. I mean, they look so terrible and that's an issue when the movie is full of CGI. At least it brought me much mirth and merriment.
Yet, I only recommend this movie to the masochists despite all the ha ha moments, as like I said the characters are so loathsome. What a mess this movie is; because of the bankruptcy this took a few years to come off, and maybe it should have stayed on the shelf. He wasn't the first choice for director but this has to be Peter Hyams' worst movie, and he's done things like End of Days and that terrible wire-fu version of the Three Musketeers.
Friday, November 13, 2015
The Relic
The Relic (1997)
Runtime: 110 minutes
Directed by: Peter Hyams
Starring: Penelope Ann Miller, Tom Sizemore, Linda Hunt, James Whitmore, Clayton Rohner
From: Paramount, Universal, and several other companies
Here's a film I saw on the big screen w/ a parent back in January of '97. I may not have seen it in full again until I checked it out Wednesday night on Instant. It's based on the book Relic and needless to say, the literary version is preferable to this. Read why below in my Letterboxd review:
The book was better.
I know that is a common refrain when talking about movies based on books, but it's almost always true and this is a rare film where I did read the novel beforehand. I first read it in like '96, shortly before a parent took me to see this on the big screen in January 1997. I may not have watched it in full again until last night on Instant. Those that saw the movie without reading the book from Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child will likely think that this is fine; me, I'll always compare it to the book and yeah, it was better.
The plot (the novel was set in New York City, the movie is in Chicago, perhaps because that's where they could film) revolves around the Field Museum of Natural History-I grew up in Illinois and yes I have been there before-and how a series of gruesome murders take place there; I mean, brains being ripped out and the hypothalamus being gone. The book had plenty of characters but as they needed the story to be told in a little less than 2 hours, things were pared-down. The two we focus on are superstitious cop-something the movie reminds us of often-D'Agosta (Tom Sizemore) and museum employee Margo Green (Penelope Ann Miller), who is an evolutionary biologist and needless to say that does come into play with the big bad monster, which is related to an old Brazilian tribe and the science is preposterous but at least the plot tried to explain it. An exhibit about-of course-superstitions is about to open with a red carpet gala, which is when the creature designs to raise the most hell.
At least I can rate the movie as average. I can't complain with the main cast (Linda Hunt also has a key role), it at least is a hard R movie with a lot of gore and violence, and the direction from Peter Hyams is good; I'll review more of his movies in the future. I have seen some of work and while there are stinkers like A Sound of Thunder, there are a good number of films I've enjoyed from him... from Sudden Death to 2010. A lot of the movie is shot in the dark so it's not the most aesthetically pleasing, though.
I re-read the book in '04 (and also read its sequel, Reliquary, which I did not really care for, as too many stupid and unbelievable things happened) so my remembrance of the whole plot isn't exact but the movie seems to dumb things down and fill it with cliché. Also, the biggest character missing is one that happened to appear in a number of novels after this one, FBI agent Pendergast. The character is kind of ridiculous in someone that you could believe actually exist in this world, but he was still memorable and I know he has many fans and I wish he could have been in the movie also.
Like I said, this may work better for those that haven't read the original novel Relic; if you like reading such books that have plots like this one, I definitely recommend checking it out.
Runtime: 110 minutes
Directed by: Peter Hyams
Starring: Penelope Ann Miller, Tom Sizemore, Linda Hunt, James Whitmore, Clayton Rohner
From: Paramount, Universal, and several other companies
Here's a film I saw on the big screen w/ a parent back in January of '97. I may not have seen it in full again until I checked it out Wednesday night on Instant. It's based on the book Relic and needless to say, the literary version is preferable to this. Read why below in my Letterboxd review:
The book was better.
I know that is a common refrain when talking about movies based on books, but it's almost always true and this is a rare film where I did read the novel beforehand. I first read it in like '96, shortly before a parent took me to see this on the big screen in January 1997. I may not have watched it in full again until last night on Instant. Those that saw the movie without reading the book from Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child will likely think that this is fine; me, I'll always compare it to the book and yeah, it was better.
The plot (the novel was set in New York City, the movie is in Chicago, perhaps because that's where they could film) revolves around the Field Museum of Natural History-I grew up in Illinois and yes I have been there before-and how a series of gruesome murders take place there; I mean, brains being ripped out and the hypothalamus being gone. The book had plenty of characters but as they needed the story to be told in a little less than 2 hours, things were pared-down. The two we focus on are superstitious cop-something the movie reminds us of often-D'Agosta (Tom Sizemore) and museum employee Margo Green (Penelope Ann Miller), who is an evolutionary biologist and needless to say that does come into play with the big bad monster, which is related to an old Brazilian tribe and the science is preposterous but at least the plot tried to explain it. An exhibit about-of course-superstitions is about to open with a red carpet gala, which is when the creature designs to raise the most hell.
At least I can rate the movie as average. I can't complain with the main cast (Linda Hunt also has a key role), it at least is a hard R movie with a lot of gore and violence, and the direction from Peter Hyams is good; I'll review more of his movies in the future. I have seen some of work and while there are stinkers like A Sound of Thunder, there are a good number of films I've enjoyed from him... from Sudden Death to 2010. A lot of the movie is shot in the dark so it's not the most aesthetically pleasing, though.
I re-read the book in '04 (and also read its sequel, Reliquary, which I did not really care for, as too many stupid and unbelievable things happened) so my remembrance of the whole plot isn't exact but the movie seems to dumb things down and fill it with cliché. Also, the biggest character missing is one that happened to appear in a number of novels after this one, FBI agent Pendergast. The character is kind of ridiculous in someone that you could believe actually exist in this world, but he was still memorable and I know he has many fans and I wish he could have been in the movie also.
Like I said, this may work better for those that haven't read the original novel Relic; if you like reading such books that have plots like this one, I definitely recommend checking it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)