I do not have much to say tonight, except that as a kid I did watch the original show and saw the films with the original cast multiple times so I was saddened by this news. I reviewed the first four; you can search for them if you wish.
I will return on Monday night with a review.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Thursday, February 26, 2015
World On A Wire
World on a Wire (Welt Am Draht) (1973)
Runtime: 212 minutes
Directed by: Rainer Werner Fassbinder
Starring: Klaus Lowistch, Barbara Valentin, Mascha Rabben, Karl Heinz Vosgerau, Wolfgang Schneck
From: The greatly named Westdeutsch Rundfunk
I had a busy evening so there's no time to write a lengthy intro. This is my virgin experience with a legendary director, again thanx due to Hulu Plus. I'll return Saturday, likely in the evening; the Letterboxd review is below.
I decided to watch my first Fassbinder film, and as the movie was only restored a few years ago after years of it being almost impossible to find, why not watch this, a 2 part miniseries made for German television? It turns out that this film seemed like an inspiration for several later famous motion pictures.
The plot is sometime in the near future of Germany. One of the creators (Vollmer) of a computer simulation program (Simulacron) dies mysteriously. The other creator (Fred Stiller) moves up the corporate ladder at the place where Simulacron is located at. Weird things begin to happen. A man who works security there (Gunther Lause) vanishes into thin air... and the day after it happens, an important drawing suddenly is gone and Lause's existence is erased, as if he never existed. Stiller tries to figure out what's going on. Part 1 sets up the situation and introduces the characters. The end of that drops the bombshell, the key component of the part. Part 2 is the fallout of that.
The key thing to note is that Simulacron is a program where over 9,000 human beings are created in a simulation world and those beings think their world is real. It's not like The Sims or anything of that sort. People can actually transport themselves into the faux world for a short amount of time and it certainly looks real and the simulations are just like human beings. From the outside, the company can look in and by introducing various factors they can actually predict what can happen in real life up to 20 years in the future; now what could go wrong there? Corporations naturally want a piece of that action. That's supposed to happen later on but one company wants it now. It's only one piece of this puzzle, though.
I won't reveal what the bombshell is, but it's one of several instances where I was reminded of more recent films. I heard that there was a bit used in Inception and the transporting of yourself into another world is Total Recall and of course there's The Matrix with the whole “simulation world that appears real” thing. Tron and Blade Runner are other movies that came to mind. I tell you, Phillip K. Dick was an incredibly influential man in the science fiction world.
The film is odd and at times I did feel the 3 ½ hour length. However, it was certainly well-filmed by the prolific director. I understand that mirror are a common trope for Fassbinder but I highly doubt they were used more often anywhere else than here; they are in the majority of scenes and besides it being something he must have liked it fits into the theme of the movie. Various high concepts and philosophy are brought up, usually well. And all this is done not only with infamous director Ulli Lommel in a key supporting role (I was shocked when I found out who played that character) but in a kitschy early 1970's version of what the future would be, a world that unfortunately did not come true. Shame, as I wish I could have bright orange phones and cowskin-covered office chairs!
This is my first Fassbinder but I know it won't be the last I see from what I understand was a very colorful human being.
Runtime: 212 minutes
Directed by: Rainer Werner Fassbinder
Starring: Klaus Lowistch, Barbara Valentin, Mascha Rabben, Karl Heinz Vosgerau, Wolfgang Schneck
From: The greatly named Westdeutsch Rundfunk
I had a busy evening so there's no time to write a lengthy intro. This is my virgin experience with a legendary director, again thanx due to Hulu Plus. I'll return Saturday, likely in the evening; the Letterboxd review is below.
I decided to watch my first Fassbinder film, and as the movie was only restored a few years ago after years of it being almost impossible to find, why not watch this, a 2 part miniseries made for German television? It turns out that this film seemed like an inspiration for several later famous motion pictures.
The plot is sometime in the near future of Germany. One of the creators (Vollmer) of a computer simulation program (Simulacron) dies mysteriously. The other creator (Fred Stiller) moves up the corporate ladder at the place where Simulacron is located at. Weird things begin to happen. A man who works security there (Gunther Lause) vanishes into thin air... and the day after it happens, an important drawing suddenly is gone and Lause's existence is erased, as if he never existed. Stiller tries to figure out what's going on. Part 1 sets up the situation and introduces the characters. The end of that drops the bombshell, the key component of the part. Part 2 is the fallout of that.
The key thing to note is that Simulacron is a program where over 9,000 human beings are created in a simulation world and those beings think their world is real. It's not like The Sims or anything of that sort. People can actually transport themselves into the faux world for a short amount of time and it certainly looks real and the simulations are just like human beings. From the outside, the company can look in and by introducing various factors they can actually predict what can happen in real life up to 20 years in the future; now what could go wrong there? Corporations naturally want a piece of that action. That's supposed to happen later on but one company wants it now. It's only one piece of this puzzle, though.
I won't reveal what the bombshell is, but it's one of several instances where I was reminded of more recent films. I heard that there was a bit used in Inception and the transporting of yourself into another world is Total Recall and of course there's The Matrix with the whole “simulation world that appears real” thing. Tron and Blade Runner are other movies that came to mind. I tell you, Phillip K. Dick was an incredibly influential man in the science fiction world.
The film is odd and at times I did feel the 3 ½ hour length. However, it was certainly well-filmed by the prolific director. I understand that mirror are a common trope for Fassbinder but I highly doubt they were used more often anywhere else than here; they are in the majority of scenes and besides it being something he must have liked it fits into the theme of the movie. Various high concepts and philosophy are brought up, usually well. And all this is done not only with infamous director Ulli Lommel in a key supporting role (I was shocked when I found out who played that character) but in a kitschy early 1970's version of what the future would be, a world that unfortunately did not come true. Shame, as I wish I could have bright orange phones and cowskin-covered office chairs!
This is my first Fassbinder but I know it won't be the last I see from what I understand was a very colorful human being.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Wings In The Dark
Wings in the Dark (1935)
Runtime: 75 minutes
Directed by: James Flood
Starring: Myrna Loy, Cary Grant, Roscoe Karns, Hobart Cavanaugh, Dean Jagger
From: Paramount
After too long, I decided to go real old-school and watch something from the 1930's. The Letterboxd review is below and I'll return tomorrow night.
I realized it's been a few months since I've seen a motion picture this old and as not too long ago I got a 5 disc set of lesser-known movies that Cary Grant did for Paramount I figured I should watch one and I picked this out as the plot sounded the most interesting to me... it also has Myrna Loy on loan from MGM, back in the days where there was contracted talent and studios could loan them out to other studios for films.
The plot isn't too complex: Grant is Ken Gordon, a talented pilot who is working on creating a plane that can fly on instruments alone and without the need for the pilot's eyesight. Well, irony is a cruel SOB here as Gordon is-wait for it-blinded in an accident; an accident from trying to light a stove, of all things. Loy is aviatrix Sheila Mason, flying and doing stunts as sexism won't allow her to do more. Those two good-looking people end up getting to know each other better and she wishes for a romance but he at first is bitter about his fate and then there's his continuing plane project...
This isn't a great film but it's an easy watch at 75 minutes and it's pleasant; there aren't too many surprises and at times it was a little far-fetched; still, the charm of the two leads and such wacky characters as Gordon's Scottish mechanic and Sheila's shifty manager... it does help. There's also a cute German Shepherd and Grant does a fine job with a role where most of the time he's without sight.
Like I said this was entertaining if not a must-see. There's melodrama and what little flying you do see is fine. The other films that Loy and Grant did years later (Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House and The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer) are better known and likely better but if you like the two stars and can find this, it's worth a watch.
Runtime: 75 minutes
Directed by: James Flood
Starring: Myrna Loy, Cary Grant, Roscoe Karns, Hobart Cavanaugh, Dean Jagger
From: Paramount
After too long, I decided to go real old-school and watch something from the 1930's. The Letterboxd review is below and I'll return tomorrow night.
I realized it's been a few months since I've seen a motion picture this old and as not too long ago I got a 5 disc set of lesser-known movies that Cary Grant did for Paramount I figured I should watch one and I picked this out as the plot sounded the most interesting to me... it also has Myrna Loy on loan from MGM, back in the days where there was contracted talent and studios could loan them out to other studios for films.
The plot isn't too complex: Grant is Ken Gordon, a talented pilot who is working on creating a plane that can fly on instruments alone and without the need for the pilot's eyesight. Well, irony is a cruel SOB here as Gordon is-wait for it-blinded in an accident; an accident from trying to light a stove, of all things. Loy is aviatrix Sheila Mason, flying and doing stunts as sexism won't allow her to do more. Those two good-looking people end up getting to know each other better and she wishes for a romance but he at first is bitter about his fate and then there's his continuing plane project...
This isn't a great film but it's an easy watch at 75 minutes and it's pleasant; there aren't too many surprises and at times it was a little far-fetched; still, the charm of the two leads and such wacky characters as Gordon's Scottish mechanic and Sheila's shifty manager... it does help. There's also a cute German Shepherd and Grant does a fine job with a role where most of the time he's without sight.
Like I said this was entertaining if not a must-see. There's melodrama and what little flying you do see is fine. The other films that Loy and Grant did years later (Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House and The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer) are better known and likely better but if you like the two stars and can find this, it's worth a watch.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Breathless
Breathless (A Bout De Souffle) (1960)
Runtime: 90 minutes
Directed by: Jean-Luc Godard
Starring: Jean-Paul Belmondo, Jean Seberg, Daniel Boulanger, Henri-Jacques Huet, Roger Hanin
From: Several different French companie
Well, this is the first time I had ever seen this incredibly influential movie in the history of cinema. About time, right? I don't have a better intro to write as not only do I give my reasons below for why I enjoyed (if not loved) this but I am not happy now as I was going to watch something streaming on the Blu-ray player but for reasons unknown the Internet connection there isn't working (despite the connection everywhere else-such as my laptop-working perfectly) so I'll have to watch something else and I am quite peeved about that. Sigh... I will still try to squeeze a review in tomorrow night.
It may be an embarrassing thing to admit on such a site like Letterboxd (at least with a segment of people here) but last night was actually the first time I had seen this film. I knew for years how important it is in film history, how even up to today there have been countless movies in the 55 years since it was released that have been inspired by the way it was filmed and its style. I was hoping I'd enjoy it and think it was more than just great style.
Luckily, I did enjoy (if not love) this motion picture about Michel (Jean-Paul Belmondo), self-professed A-hole (and that he certainly is) who's a low-life criminal and early on he murders a cop. People are on the lookout for that lout but as he wishes to be Bogie-an understandable thing-and a cool SOB he chain smokes, hangs around Paris, and chills with one of his ladies, Patricia (Jean Seburg), uncaring about the manhunt to find him and more admiring than fearful that his picture is now in the papers.
I do understand those that don't care for the movie; after all, Michel has little redeeming qualities and the style of this film probably would usually turn me off. However, I was interested in those two young fools and their pretentious babbling; they often argue but I'll say that what they have for each other is “passion” instead of true love. They are pompous fools but I was engrossed. I am not saying this as I am “supposed” to; I have no fear of being honest about films that most love. This is how I honestly feel.
The fact that it was filmed in an innovating and still interesting style (hand-held as if it was a documentary, and the jump cuts that were done to shorten the film but made the film-aside from the 10 or more minute segment in the apartment which was all talking-move pretty fast) with a groovy jazz score, those are big assets in helping me savor the movie. All that and the two leads delivering great performances made this “cool”; many have used the word but it is the best to describe it all, cool. Thankfully this virgin experience for me was a positive one.
Runtime: 90 minutes
Directed by: Jean-Luc Godard
Starring: Jean-Paul Belmondo, Jean Seberg, Daniel Boulanger, Henri-Jacques Huet, Roger Hanin
From: Several different French companie
Well, this is the first time I had ever seen this incredibly influential movie in the history of cinema. About time, right? I don't have a better intro to write as not only do I give my reasons below for why I enjoyed (if not loved) this but I am not happy now as I was going to watch something streaming on the Blu-ray player but for reasons unknown the Internet connection there isn't working (despite the connection everywhere else-such as my laptop-working perfectly) so I'll have to watch something else and I am quite peeved about that. Sigh... I will still try to squeeze a review in tomorrow night.
It may be an embarrassing thing to admit on such a site like Letterboxd (at least with a segment of people here) but last night was actually the first time I had seen this film. I knew for years how important it is in film history, how even up to today there have been countless movies in the 55 years since it was released that have been inspired by the way it was filmed and its style. I was hoping I'd enjoy it and think it was more than just great style.
Luckily, I did enjoy (if not love) this motion picture about Michel (Jean-Paul Belmondo), self-professed A-hole (and that he certainly is) who's a low-life criminal and early on he murders a cop. People are on the lookout for that lout but as he wishes to be Bogie-an understandable thing-and a cool SOB he chain smokes, hangs around Paris, and chills with one of his ladies, Patricia (Jean Seburg), uncaring about the manhunt to find him and more admiring than fearful that his picture is now in the papers.
I do understand those that don't care for the movie; after all, Michel has little redeeming qualities and the style of this film probably would usually turn me off. However, I was interested in those two young fools and their pretentious babbling; they often argue but I'll say that what they have for each other is “passion” instead of true love. They are pompous fools but I was engrossed. I am not saying this as I am “supposed” to; I have no fear of being honest about films that most love. This is how I honestly feel.
The fact that it was filmed in an innovating and still interesting style (hand-held as if it was a documentary, and the jump cuts that were done to shorten the film but made the film-aside from the 10 or more minute segment in the apartment which was all talking-move pretty fast) with a groovy jazz score, those are big assets in helping me savor the movie. All that and the two leads delivering great performances made this “cool”; many have used the word but it is the best to describe it all, cool. Thankfully this virgin experience for me was a positive one.
Monday, February 23, 2015
Some Random Thoughts
I hate not having a review up for tonight but I haven't felt good either last night or today and I tried to watch something I got from the library but I wasn't feeling it so I'll mention two things then mention that I'll return tomorrow night with... something or another.
I don't have much more to say about the Oscars last night. I am “meh” about the entire thing, including the outrage over Michael Keaton not winning Best Actor. Some are acting like it should be given as a “Lifetime Achievement Award” sort of thing, which I don't think should be done at all. I've heard complaints that the guy who won did not have the best performance but that's different from some of the arguments I've heard. Then again I've heard too many comments concerning last night's show that I don't even understand... they don't make much logical sense at all.
The movie I tried watching was from Olive Films, one of those small companies which put out obscure films on disc. Whether it's Scream/Shout Factory, Kino Lorber, Olive, Vinegar Syndrome, Twilight Time, or some others, I am glad they are around to serve hardcore film/genre fans. This was my first Olive disc. It was bare-bones and the title menu looked kind of cheap but I tried to forgive that. The fact that there's bad grammar on the back cover of the DVD... even then I am glad companies like them are around and the print at least did look nice.
Hopefully I'll start feeling better immediately so I can get back in the swing of things.
I don't have much more to say about the Oscars last night. I am “meh” about the entire thing, including the outrage over Michael Keaton not winning Best Actor. Some are acting like it should be given as a “Lifetime Achievement Award” sort of thing, which I don't think should be done at all. I've heard complaints that the guy who won did not have the best performance but that's different from some of the arguments I've heard. Then again I've heard too many comments concerning last night's show that I don't even understand... they don't make much logical sense at all.
The movie I tried watching was from Olive Films, one of those small companies which put out obscure films on disc. Whether it's Scream/Shout Factory, Kino Lorber, Olive, Vinegar Syndrome, Twilight Time, or some others, I am glad they are around to serve hardcore film/genre fans. This was my first Olive disc. It was bare-bones and the title menu looked kind of cheap but I tried to forgive that. The fact that there's bad grammar on the back cover of the DVD... even then I am glad companies like them are around and the print at least did look nice.
Hopefully I'll start feeling better immediately so I can get back in the swing of things.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Happy Birthday To Me
Yes, I am now 34 years old. I was thinking about saying more but I am tired and the Oscars are still going on (I've watched them on mute; it's about what I expected and of course after the kerfuffle over how white the nominees were, the presenters tonight have been more diverse than usual) so I'll just say that I'll be back tomorrow night with a proper review.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Mr. Jones
Mr. Jones (2013)
Runtime: 84 minute
Directed by: Karl Mueller
Starring: Jon Foster, Sarah Jones, Mark Steger, Faran Tahir
From: Preferred Content (which I think this is not)
I'll let the cat out of the bag: I saw this movie mainly because of its title and how I found it hilarious there is a movie named after that 90's song, although the two aren't related at all. I am not the biggest fan of the song but Lord is it better than this movie! I explain why in the Letterboxd review below and I'll return tomorrow night.
I randomly decided to watch this recent horror film on Netflix Instant earlier in the day. Unfortunately this is a rather big miss and I made a grave error here.
This is yet another found footage movie, although the way it is done, it makes zero logical sense, especially by the final act. Found footage with a musical score? We have to hang out with two young pretentious asshats named Scott and Penny They decide to move out into the rural California woods, not to sing “Shalalalala” but so that Scott can film “a nature documentary” but as the couple are not only stupid idiots but they also can never get along after the opening scene, and not a lot gets done with the documentary. They randomly run into a nearby house owned by a reclusive artist (the title character) who probably doesn't strike up conversations with black-haired flamenco dancers. He makes weird art that he sends randomly to random people. Yeah.
From there the asshats try to unravel the mystery... then it turns into a pompous surreal nightmare as the director and cinematographer do various things they learn in film school to “twist reality so you don't know what's real and what's a dream” and a movie that I hated already as I could NOT stand the two leads and their buffoonery or their constantly changing moods and opinions... it never made much sense then it just got confused when you find out what it's actually about and the movie was a gigantic waste of time and the only reaction it got out of me was not fright or terror but anger and rage. Sorry for the run-on sentence but I thought this was an agonizing experience.
The song by The Counting Crows isn't one of my favorites but I'd much rather listen to that for 84 minutes than watch this piece of crap ever again.
Runtime: 84 minute
Directed by: Karl Mueller
Starring: Jon Foster, Sarah Jones, Mark Steger, Faran Tahir
From: Preferred Content (which I think this is not)
I'll let the cat out of the bag: I saw this movie mainly because of its title and how I found it hilarious there is a movie named after that 90's song, although the two aren't related at all. I am not the biggest fan of the song but Lord is it better than this movie! I explain why in the Letterboxd review below and I'll return tomorrow night.
I randomly decided to watch this recent horror film on Netflix Instant earlier in the day. Unfortunately this is a rather big miss and I made a grave error here.
This is yet another found footage movie, although the way it is done, it makes zero logical sense, especially by the final act. Found footage with a musical score? We have to hang out with two young pretentious asshats named Scott and Penny They decide to move out into the rural California woods, not to sing “Shalalalala” but so that Scott can film “a nature documentary” but as the couple are not only stupid idiots but they also can never get along after the opening scene, and not a lot gets done with the documentary. They randomly run into a nearby house owned by a reclusive artist (the title character) who probably doesn't strike up conversations with black-haired flamenco dancers. He makes weird art that he sends randomly to random people. Yeah.
From there the asshats try to unravel the mystery... then it turns into a pompous surreal nightmare as the director and cinematographer do various things they learn in film school to “twist reality so you don't know what's real and what's a dream” and a movie that I hated already as I could NOT stand the two leads and their buffoonery or their constantly changing moods and opinions... it never made much sense then it just got confused when you find out what it's actually about and the movie was a gigantic waste of time and the only reaction it got out of me was not fright or terror but anger and rage. Sorry for the run-on sentence but I thought this was an agonizing experience.
The song by The Counting Crows isn't one of my favorites but I'd much rather listen to that for 84 minutes than watch this piece of crap ever again.
Friday, February 20, 2015
The Housemaid
The Housemaid (Hanyo) (2010)
Runtime: 106 minutes
Directed by: Sang-soo Im
Starring: Do-yeon Jeon, Jung-Jae Lee, Yeo-jeong Yoon, Woo Seo
From: Too many companies to list
Basically, I saw this on Netflix last night as back two months ago I saw the original film from 1960 (review here) and I wanted to compare the two. I was surprised at the results. The review is below and I'll return tomorrow night.
A few months ago I saw the 1960 South Korean film The Housemaid, as it was part of a box set I have. I watched the film and I loved that wacky over the top yet engrossing film that was made very well. The remake from 50 years later is on Netflix Instant so I decided to watch it to compare the two.
I discovered that unlike the wild original this is much more subdued. The general story is the same, in that the title character is hired by a family to help around the house; she fools around with the husband and chaos happens and the family is ruined. This time said family is filthy rich instead of upper middle class, but the general idea is the same. Everything about this film is fine, from the story to the acting, the cinematography and the directing are all fine. But, I can't get the original out of my head and I prefer that to this.
With that 1960 film, it's more what you expect from Korean films in modern times, with bold and shocking things and crazy moments to go along with the story and performances. The OG film had the title character become much more of a villain after she is scorned by the husband character, and it's over the top some of the things she does but it's also Machiavellian and tremendously cruel and it was great entertainment. Plus, the film has quite an energy to it, a lot of propulsion driving the film and it's shot so well and with confidence...
Like I said this is fine but I definitely prefer the original when it comes to entertainment and having a good time. Sure, this version has the husband receiving two BJ's in one night from two different women and the second time, you see him flexing, but otherwise the 1960 classic is the preferable of the two.
Runtime: 106 minutes
Directed by: Sang-soo Im
Starring: Do-yeon Jeon, Jung-Jae Lee, Yeo-jeong Yoon, Woo Seo
From: Too many companies to list
Basically, I saw this on Netflix last night as back two months ago I saw the original film from 1960 (review here) and I wanted to compare the two. I was surprised at the results. The review is below and I'll return tomorrow night.
A few months ago I saw the 1960 South Korean film The Housemaid, as it was part of a box set I have. I watched the film and I loved that wacky over the top yet engrossing film that was made very well. The remake from 50 years later is on Netflix Instant so I decided to watch it to compare the two.
I discovered that unlike the wild original this is much more subdued. The general story is the same, in that the title character is hired by a family to help around the house; she fools around with the husband and chaos happens and the family is ruined. This time said family is filthy rich instead of upper middle class, but the general idea is the same. Everything about this film is fine, from the story to the acting, the cinematography and the directing are all fine. But, I can't get the original out of my head and I prefer that to this.
With that 1960 film, it's more what you expect from Korean films in modern times, with bold and shocking things and crazy moments to go along with the story and performances. The OG film had the title character become much more of a villain after she is scorned by the husband character, and it's over the top some of the things she does but it's also Machiavellian and tremendously cruel and it was great entertainment. Plus, the film has quite an energy to it, a lot of propulsion driving the film and it's shot so well and with confidence...
Like I said this is fine but I definitely prefer the original when it comes to entertainment and having a good time. Sure, this version has the husband receiving two BJ's in one night from two different women and the second time, you see him flexing, but otherwise the 1960 classic is the preferable of the two.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
The Interview
The Interview (2014)
52% on Rotten Tomatoes, out of 116 reviews
Runtime: 112 minutes
Directed by: Evan Goldberg/Seth Rogen
Starring: James Franco, Seth Rogen, Randall Park, Lizzy Caplan, Diana Bang
From: Columbia
Yes, I finally saw this little movie that caused an incredible amount of havoc and chaos, and something that amazingly became world news, something I could not have ever foreseen until it happened. As it was free on Instant I figured I should check it out. Well... I know it has its fans, but I am not one of those people. I'll explain why in my Letterboxd review below. I'll be back tomorrow night.
True story: the day that news broke of the threats to bomb all United States theatres that showed this film, I had a parent recommend to me that I not go see it on the big screen. I appreciated their concern but I mentioned that I was never interested in seeing it anyhow (the trailers did not make it look too funny to me) so they had nothing to worry about.
As we all remember all the chaos that happened surrounding this film (although I've never heard why they moved the release date about two months from late October to late December; in hindsight, what an extremely stupid and pointless move that was) I won't go over that. However, they probably should have expected such a reaction. I know there was Team America but times are different now than they were back then. Basing it on a real life figure and it being the head of a government that has committed a number of horrific atrocities against its own citizens... I just know some people who were quite aggravated with all that.
With all that out of the way, I personally found this movie to be brutally unfunny. While I don't go out of my way to see films from the two stars, I have watched Pineapple Express before (one day I will again so I can give it a Letterboxd review) and I find it to be a pretty entertaining film. This, though, most of the jokes just landed with a thud and weren't funny at all.
It was so bad it became painful as I had to watch almost 2 hours of a failed comedy where moment after moment failed, and I had to watch wannabe intellectual (but not as smart as he thinks he is) James Franco overact to an aggravating degree, mugging to the camera and acting like a clown as he thought it was humorous. It was not. More than one person I follow described the full performance as “full retard” and while I don't like using such a term, it is a strong descriptor of just how buffoonish he acted, oblivious to how awful he came off. That's not even taking into account how much of an ogre that character is.
I don't even want to go more in-depth on this, and how a violent finale did not do anything to save this. Now this movie will forever have the reputation of causing all the chaos it did and doing a lot of harm to Sony, but to me it's all for a movie I'd rather not remember and I don't think should be remembered.
52% on Rotten Tomatoes, out of 116 reviews
Runtime: 112 minutes
Directed by: Evan Goldberg/Seth Rogen
Starring: James Franco, Seth Rogen, Randall Park, Lizzy Caplan, Diana Bang
From: Columbia
Yes, I finally saw this little movie that caused an incredible amount of havoc and chaos, and something that amazingly became world news, something I could not have ever foreseen until it happened. As it was free on Instant I figured I should check it out. Well... I know it has its fans, but I am not one of those people. I'll explain why in my Letterboxd review below. I'll be back tomorrow night.
True story: the day that news broke of the threats to bomb all United States theatres that showed this film, I had a parent recommend to me that I not go see it on the big screen. I appreciated their concern but I mentioned that I was never interested in seeing it anyhow (the trailers did not make it look too funny to me) so they had nothing to worry about.
As we all remember all the chaos that happened surrounding this film (although I've never heard why they moved the release date about two months from late October to late December; in hindsight, what an extremely stupid and pointless move that was) I won't go over that. However, they probably should have expected such a reaction. I know there was Team America but times are different now than they were back then. Basing it on a real life figure and it being the head of a government that has committed a number of horrific atrocities against its own citizens... I just know some people who were quite aggravated with all that.
With all that out of the way, I personally found this movie to be brutally unfunny. While I don't go out of my way to see films from the two stars, I have watched Pineapple Express before (one day I will again so I can give it a Letterboxd review) and I find it to be a pretty entertaining film. This, though, most of the jokes just landed with a thud and weren't funny at all.
It was so bad it became painful as I had to watch almost 2 hours of a failed comedy where moment after moment failed, and I had to watch wannabe intellectual (but not as smart as he thinks he is) James Franco overact to an aggravating degree, mugging to the camera and acting like a clown as he thought it was humorous. It was not. More than one person I follow described the full performance as “full retard” and while I don't like using such a term, it is a strong descriptor of just how buffoonish he acted, oblivious to how awful he came off. That's not even taking into account how much of an ogre that character is.
I don't even want to go more in-depth on this, and how a violent finale did not do anything to save this. Now this movie will forever have the reputation of causing all the chaos it did and doing a lot of harm to Sony, but to me it's all for a movie I'd rather not remember and I don't think should be remembered.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Gone Girl
Gone Girl (2014)
88% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 280 reviews)
Runtime: 149 minutes
Directed by: David Fincher
Starring: Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike, Neil Patrick Harris, Tyler Perry, Carrie Coon
From: 20th Century Fox/Regency
Here is another opinion many won't agree with, and unfortunately it's another 2014 film many like and I do not understand the near-universal praise at all. I explain why I hated this movie below in my Letterboxd review. I think it's best I take a one night break from watching movies so I'll be back Thursday night.
I know already most people will strongly disagree with me here, or at least be aghast at seeing such a rating attached to this; I imagine some think I am a contrarian or even a troll because this is yet another 2014 movie I've seen which is beloved by what seems like the vast majority but I just don't comprehend it. I will try to explain why I would rate a movie so low when I see 4 star or higher ratings for it everywhere on this site.
I'll admit right away the sacrilegious statement that I've never really been a fan of Fincher. I won't break down what I have and haven't seen of his, and all that was long before I joined this site but I'll just say that I saw Fight Club soon after it came out on disc (so it's not like this is an opinion of it years after the fact) and thought it was absolutely insufferable.
What made me see this was all the hype and I do enjoy watching true life mystery shows on TV such as Dateline NBC, 48 Hours, the program on the Investigation Discovery channel or what used to be on the former Court TV before that channel did a 180 and became atrocious mindless garbage. A story about how a wife disappears and the husband is the subject (understandable as in those cases it's typically someone they knew) sounded interesting to me, so I somehow managed to stay almost entirely spoiler-free until I watched it last night.
I won't even get into the whole ending and whether or not this movie is misogynistic; I wouldn't think so because the female author adapted her own book but I was more offended by how ridiculous and stupid it got rather than any issues of misogyny. Christ, as I later remembered when I read it again after the fact, someone I follow also thought that the first 15 minutes or so were pretty terrible, with atrocious dialogue and a complete smug douchy unrealistic “meet cute” where you see how the two lead characters first met each other. He thought “it was done on purpose” and it might be but who knows or cares... I certainly don't! I thought it was putrid and no explanation can make it acceptable.
I'll presume the characters, dialogue, and story are just as bad and intolerable in the book. While that follower ended up liking the film in the end, I did not feel the same way at all. After that opening I still thought the dialogue was bad, I didn't like any of the other characters that came into the film (“director's hubris” seemed to be the reason why Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Perry had major roles here; they were fine but come on now), and that story was ludicrous and made absolute zero sense and left me pondering numerous gigantic intelligence-insulting plot holes*-and there were more than a few underdeveloped or unresolved plot threads to boot-and if others loved its daffiness, good for you; I thought it was intelligence-insulting in many ways, the inconsistent way characters acted being a big reason why. What a LONG 2 ½ hour experience this was. It was tough but I did make it to the end. I didn't even enjoy the media bashing that happened and I typically think that today's media deserves any and all criticism.
If most people love this movie and the director in general, that is OK with me. I'll be baffled by all the praise it has gotten for a crap film that just has some fine performances, Tyler Perry somehow being tolerable, and good cinematography going for it, but I will accept that this somehow is captivating to people. I will be happy avoiding Fincher's dour films and stick to watching those real life crime mysteries and enjoy the actual absurdities that can happen and not things like a bar being called THE BAR and “hospitals that take care of a blood-soaked woman and don't wash said blood off her before discharging her to go back home.” I just know my mission to create a worthy Top 10 list for the year will probably take me a few more months to create.
* I won't spoil them but if you look at the IMDb page for the film, a number of people have listed many of the illogical moments in spoiler-filled recaps.
88% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 280 reviews)
Runtime: 149 minutes
Directed by: David Fincher
Starring: Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike, Neil Patrick Harris, Tyler Perry, Carrie Coon
From: 20th Century Fox/Regency
Here is another opinion many won't agree with, and unfortunately it's another 2014 film many like and I do not understand the near-universal praise at all. I explain why I hated this movie below in my Letterboxd review. I think it's best I take a one night break from watching movies so I'll be back Thursday night.
I know already most people will strongly disagree with me here, or at least be aghast at seeing such a rating attached to this; I imagine some think I am a contrarian or even a troll because this is yet another 2014 movie I've seen which is beloved by what seems like the vast majority but I just don't comprehend it. I will try to explain why I would rate a movie so low when I see 4 star or higher ratings for it everywhere on this site.
I'll admit right away the sacrilegious statement that I've never really been a fan of Fincher. I won't break down what I have and haven't seen of his, and all that was long before I joined this site but I'll just say that I saw Fight Club soon after it came out on disc (so it's not like this is an opinion of it years after the fact) and thought it was absolutely insufferable.
What made me see this was all the hype and I do enjoy watching true life mystery shows on TV such as Dateline NBC, 48 Hours, the program on the Investigation Discovery channel or what used to be on the former Court TV before that channel did a 180 and became atrocious mindless garbage. A story about how a wife disappears and the husband is the subject (understandable as in those cases it's typically someone they knew) sounded interesting to me, so I somehow managed to stay almost entirely spoiler-free until I watched it last night.
I won't even get into the whole ending and whether or not this movie is misogynistic; I wouldn't think so because the female author adapted her own book but I was more offended by how ridiculous and stupid it got rather than any issues of misogyny. Christ, as I later remembered when I read it again after the fact, someone I follow also thought that the first 15 minutes or so were pretty terrible, with atrocious dialogue and a complete smug douchy unrealistic “meet cute” where you see how the two lead characters first met each other. He thought “it was done on purpose” and it might be but who knows or cares... I certainly don't! I thought it was putrid and no explanation can make it acceptable.
I'll presume the characters, dialogue, and story are just as bad and intolerable in the book. While that follower ended up liking the film in the end, I did not feel the same way at all. After that opening I still thought the dialogue was bad, I didn't like any of the other characters that came into the film (“director's hubris” seemed to be the reason why Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Perry had major roles here; they were fine but come on now), and that story was ludicrous and made absolute zero sense and left me pondering numerous gigantic intelligence-insulting plot holes*-and there were more than a few underdeveloped or unresolved plot threads to boot-and if others loved its daffiness, good for you; I thought it was intelligence-insulting in many ways, the inconsistent way characters acted being a big reason why. What a LONG 2 ½ hour experience this was. It was tough but I did make it to the end. I didn't even enjoy the media bashing that happened and I typically think that today's media deserves any and all criticism.
If most people love this movie and the director in general, that is OK with me. I'll be baffled by all the praise it has gotten for a crap film that just has some fine performances, Tyler Perry somehow being tolerable, and good cinematography going for it, but I will accept that this somehow is captivating to people. I will be happy avoiding Fincher's dour films and stick to watching those real life crime mysteries and enjoy the actual absurdities that can happen and not things like a bar being called THE BAR and “hospitals that take care of a blood-soaked woman and don't wash said blood off her before discharging her to go back home.” I just know my mission to create a worthy Top 10 list for the year will probably take me a few more months to create.
* I won't spoil them but if you look at the IMDb page for the film, a number of people have listed many of the illogical moments in spoiler-filled recaps.
Monday, February 16, 2015
WNUF Halloween Special
WNUF Halloween Special (2013)
Runtime: 83 minutes
Directed by: Chris LaMartina, and the commercials in the film are from others
Starring: Paul Fahrenkopf, Nicolette le Faye, Brian St. August, Helenmary Ball, Robert Long II
From: Midnight Crew Studios
Here's an obscure film that I wish was better-known as I think many would enjoy this love letter to the 1980's, a faux Halloween 1987 special where things go wrong and it looks quite authentic. I talk about it below and I will return tomorrow night:
I am a child of the 80's, 1981 to be exact. That has to be a big reason I enjoy all the 80's nostalgia from recent times, but I think I've always been entertained by what was in hindsight a pretty weird decade, from the music and the fashion to everything else. Thus, since I heard about this almost two years ago I was real excited to see this microbudget film (claimed to be almost 1500 bucks but I understand that claimed budgets are usually more than stated when it comes to low-buck things like this) and last night I was finally able to check it out.
If you aren't familiar with this film that can only legally be found at one website (at Alternative Cinema), it was made recently but it looks like it's from a low wattage television station and it's a news broadcast then a Halloween special (from 1987) where an old dick reporter-but the funny kind of A-hole-two paranormal investigators obviously inspired by Ed & Lorraine Warren, a priest and two cameramen go into an abandoned house where 20 years ago a young man murdered his parents after he said his Ouija board told him to do so, and hauntings are said to happen. Things do happen as it's broadcasted live...
Despite what you may think and how it's advertised, it's more a comedy than a horror film. That is OK with me as this is a blast to watch. The opening 20 minutes or so is the newscast and it sets things up with the backstory and introducing the characters. The news anchors are cheesy and tell awful jokes and due to the day they wear goofy costumes.
The mood is set, not to mention... as it's a VHS tape you're watching there is not only a few instances of fast forwarding but you get to see various fake television ads, mainly from using legit stock footage from the time and it SO captures the look that commercials had at the time. There are such things as anti-drug ads so it was a blast from the past and as it's mainly local establishments you get to marvel at how goofy such things used to be and how such things as heavy metal cassettes, arcades, and horror hotlines used to be advertised.
Besides bringing back memories of a crazy decade with the various themes it brings up, the story is just entertaining and fun as you see things become worse in the house. It should be enjoyable to horror fans as are the various references peppered throughout; they aren't super obvious but if you're a hardcore fan of the genre and remember the films of the period then you should catch many of them. If you didn't, you can always watch it again. I say the rewatchability factor of this is pretty high.
I do understand those that think there are too many ads and they ruin the flow; however, I say that it makes the experience more authentic and as they did an awesome job making it look like it was actually from 1987 and it was a tape from the station that got out, I am glad they went full bore and made it as true to form as they could.
It's unfortunate that this can't be found at the typical streaming sites and thus is still pretty obscure as if more people knew about it then this love letter to a decade now long gone would get the attention I feel it deserves. If any of it sounds intriguing then I give a strong recommendation to buy.
Runtime: 83 minutes
Directed by: Chris LaMartina, and the commercials in the film are from others
Starring: Paul Fahrenkopf, Nicolette le Faye, Brian St. August, Helenmary Ball, Robert Long II
From: Midnight Crew Studios
Here's an obscure film that I wish was better-known as I think many would enjoy this love letter to the 1980's, a faux Halloween 1987 special where things go wrong and it looks quite authentic. I talk about it below and I will return tomorrow night:
I am a child of the 80's, 1981 to be exact. That has to be a big reason I enjoy all the 80's nostalgia from recent times, but I think I've always been entertained by what was in hindsight a pretty weird decade, from the music and the fashion to everything else. Thus, since I heard about this almost two years ago I was real excited to see this microbudget film (claimed to be almost 1500 bucks but I understand that claimed budgets are usually more than stated when it comes to low-buck things like this) and last night I was finally able to check it out.
If you aren't familiar with this film that can only legally be found at one website (at Alternative Cinema), it was made recently but it looks like it's from a low wattage television station and it's a news broadcast then a Halloween special (from 1987) where an old dick reporter-but the funny kind of A-hole-two paranormal investigators obviously inspired by Ed & Lorraine Warren, a priest and two cameramen go into an abandoned house where 20 years ago a young man murdered his parents after he said his Ouija board told him to do so, and hauntings are said to happen. Things do happen as it's broadcasted live...
Despite what you may think and how it's advertised, it's more a comedy than a horror film. That is OK with me as this is a blast to watch. The opening 20 minutes or so is the newscast and it sets things up with the backstory and introducing the characters. The news anchors are cheesy and tell awful jokes and due to the day they wear goofy costumes.
The mood is set, not to mention... as it's a VHS tape you're watching there is not only a few instances of fast forwarding but you get to see various fake television ads, mainly from using legit stock footage from the time and it SO captures the look that commercials had at the time. There are such things as anti-drug ads so it was a blast from the past and as it's mainly local establishments you get to marvel at how goofy such things used to be and how such things as heavy metal cassettes, arcades, and horror hotlines used to be advertised.
Besides bringing back memories of a crazy decade with the various themes it brings up, the story is just entertaining and fun as you see things become worse in the house. It should be enjoyable to horror fans as are the various references peppered throughout; they aren't super obvious but if you're a hardcore fan of the genre and remember the films of the period then you should catch many of them. If you didn't, you can always watch it again. I say the rewatchability factor of this is pretty high.
I do understand those that think there are too many ads and they ruin the flow; however, I say that it makes the experience more authentic and as they did an awesome job making it look like it was actually from 1987 and it was a tape from the station that got out, I am glad they went full bore and made it as true to form as they could.
It's unfortunate that this can't be found at the typical streaming sites and thus is still pretty obscure as if more people knew about it then this love letter to a decade now long gone would get the attention I feel it deserves. If any of it sounds intriguing then I give a strong recommendation to buy.
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Twister
Twister (1996)
Runtime: 113 minutes
Directed by: Jan De Bont
Starring: Helen Hunt, Bill Paxton, Jami Gertz, Cary Elwes, Philip Seymour Hoffman
From: Warner Brothers/Universal
For the first time in maybe as long as 19 years I saw this movie. I did watch it on the big screen with the family but that may have been the only time. I talk about it in my Letterboxd review below and I'll return tomorrow night.
A few years ago the MPAA started to add more information to the ratings they give films. I am fine with that as it helps those wanting further information on what is in a movie. Sometimes it can be oddly descriptive, and doing it for older films can be pretty funny too. For example, they say that this film is PG-13 for “Intense Depiction of Very Bad Weather”. While there's also foul language, this motion picture is indeed about very bad weather.
I do know I saw this on the big screen; the entire family went and saw it back in '96. It turns out I didn't remember too much about it. I have no recollection of watching it on VHS after the fact so it may have been 19 years since I saw it last. Now, I do think it's cool that a big budget blockbuster starred Bill Paxton and it was the first time I ever saw Philip Seymour Hoffman. I was hoping to enjoy this after not seeing it for so long.
Well, while some of the special effects look dated I won't do too much complaining about the destruction you saw on screen, the awe-inspiring force of nature that can cause so much damage. Unfortunately... maybe I am just cynical but the story, the characters and some of the dialogue... oh Lord.
I mean, Bill Paxton is pretty much a tornado whisperer! “He's like a human barometer”, to quote the film. He argues with his soon to be ex-wife, he already has a new girl (who is shoehorned in as the “fish out of water” character), most of the tornado chasers (some of them are “that guy” actors) are bro surfer dude types, there's a group of rivals who use fancy technology to track storms and their leader is a dick... I know you have to be a little odd to do such a job but these characters were annoying too often. I know blockbusters are pretty silly in general but this-especially the ending-was just preposterous. Flying cows is one thing but how the main characters survive at the end, fantastical.
It was nice to see this again after so long but I can't rate it as any higher than average. It's preferable to dreck like the Transformers travesties, although you hope for more with some of the people involved also giving us Jurassic Park just a few years earlier. At least I now have the desire to see The Shining and Psycho as a double-bill at a drive-in. If only that could happen.
Runtime: 113 minutes
Directed by: Jan De Bont
Starring: Helen Hunt, Bill Paxton, Jami Gertz, Cary Elwes, Philip Seymour Hoffman
From: Warner Brothers/Universal
For the first time in maybe as long as 19 years I saw this movie. I did watch it on the big screen with the family but that may have been the only time. I talk about it in my Letterboxd review below and I'll return tomorrow night.
A few years ago the MPAA started to add more information to the ratings they give films. I am fine with that as it helps those wanting further information on what is in a movie. Sometimes it can be oddly descriptive, and doing it for older films can be pretty funny too. For example, they say that this film is PG-13 for “Intense Depiction of Very Bad Weather”. While there's also foul language, this motion picture is indeed about very bad weather.
I do know I saw this on the big screen; the entire family went and saw it back in '96. It turns out I didn't remember too much about it. I have no recollection of watching it on VHS after the fact so it may have been 19 years since I saw it last. Now, I do think it's cool that a big budget blockbuster starred Bill Paxton and it was the first time I ever saw Philip Seymour Hoffman. I was hoping to enjoy this after not seeing it for so long.
Well, while some of the special effects look dated I won't do too much complaining about the destruction you saw on screen, the awe-inspiring force of nature that can cause so much damage. Unfortunately... maybe I am just cynical but the story, the characters and some of the dialogue... oh Lord.
I mean, Bill Paxton is pretty much a tornado whisperer! “He's like a human barometer”, to quote the film. He argues with his soon to be ex-wife, he already has a new girl (who is shoehorned in as the “fish out of water” character), most of the tornado chasers (some of them are “that guy” actors) are bro surfer dude types, there's a group of rivals who use fancy technology to track storms and their leader is a dick... I know you have to be a little odd to do such a job but these characters were annoying too often. I know blockbusters are pretty silly in general but this-especially the ending-was just preposterous. Flying cows is one thing but how the main characters survive at the end, fantastical.
It was nice to see this again after so long but I can't rate it as any higher than average. It's preferable to dreck like the Transformers travesties, although you hope for more with some of the people involved also giving us Jurassic Park just a few years earlier. At least I now have the desire to see The Shining and Psycho as a double-bill at a drive-in. If only that could happen.
Saturday, February 14, 2015
Return To The 36th Chamber
Return to the 36th Chamber (Shao Lin Da Ping Da Shi) (1980)
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Liu Chia-Liang
Starring: Gordon Liu, Kara Hui, Hsiao Ho, Dang Wai-Ho, Wong Ching-Ho
From: Shaw Brothers
I saw this film last night; it's on Hulu Plus so it was a free watched. I watched the original last year and I definitely enjoyed it. This... it's quite different, as I explain in my Letterboxd review below. I'll return tomorrow night.
I recently got Hulu Plus and will have it for the next few months. I quickly saw that they had some Shaw Brothers films so that was hunky dory to me. I noticed that they had the sequel to the classic Shaw film The 36th Chamber of Shaolin. I knew nothing of it so I figured I'd give it a shot as it also stars Gordon Liu and is directed by Liu-Chia Liang. What I got... well, you can definitely say that this was not the same plot done over again.
The original film is great (I've reviewed it before and gave it 4 stars) and is about patriots against the oppressive regime and a man named San Te goes to a temple to get revenge on them for a brutal attack. He is pretty bad at first but through wacky but tough training that actually comes to use later on, he becomes a great fighter.
This movie... is about workers at a dye factory. Really, as in adding dye to clothing. The production at the factory is deemed not up to snuff so thugs are brought in and their pay is cut as they are there to yell at them to work harder. That's one thing but “their women are also taken”, according to dialogue you hear.
Now, this is a little strange. Gordon Liu plays a character here calling himself San Te... only he isn't. He's just an impostor and though he does some tricks to try and fool the thugs, but he ends up getting humiliated when it's shown he has no actual skills. He goes to a temple which is ran by San Te, only he isn't played by Liu and instead is played by someone else. Like I said this is definitely different from the original.
But, there is more. Comedy is a much larger factor here, some of it funny and some of it isn't. I mean, parts of this are really goofy and the score... I am not sure “cartoony” is the best term but I'll go with it. Then again this is a film about workers at a dye factory and at least 5 minutes is spent with Not San Te trying to figure out how to wash his hair with only water from a well and without using a bucket... and his hair is fake, by the way! He has to build scaffolding for repairs for the temple and as he watches all the students practice he builds the scaffolding... and tries to do their moves too. That's how he invented SCAFFOLDING KUNG FU. Yes. It doesn't always require a scaffold for it to work, but it does help.
The movie is definitely hit or miss (why is there a character with giant fake teeth? That I cannot answer) but at least it is different and offers a fighting style I haven't seen before and it is an exciting if a little far fetched finale.
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Liu Chia-Liang
Starring: Gordon Liu, Kara Hui, Hsiao Ho, Dang Wai-Ho, Wong Ching-Ho
From: Shaw Brothers
I saw this film last night; it's on Hulu Plus so it was a free watched. I watched the original last year and I definitely enjoyed it. This... it's quite different, as I explain in my Letterboxd review below. I'll return tomorrow night.
I recently got Hulu Plus and will have it for the next few months. I quickly saw that they had some Shaw Brothers films so that was hunky dory to me. I noticed that they had the sequel to the classic Shaw film The 36th Chamber of Shaolin. I knew nothing of it so I figured I'd give it a shot as it also stars Gordon Liu and is directed by Liu-Chia Liang. What I got... well, you can definitely say that this was not the same plot done over again.
The original film is great (I've reviewed it before and gave it 4 stars) and is about patriots against the oppressive regime and a man named San Te goes to a temple to get revenge on them for a brutal attack. He is pretty bad at first but through wacky but tough training that actually comes to use later on, he becomes a great fighter.
This movie... is about workers at a dye factory. Really, as in adding dye to clothing. The production at the factory is deemed not up to snuff so thugs are brought in and their pay is cut as they are there to yell at them to work harder. That's one thing but “their women are also taken”, according to dialogue you hear.
Now, this is a little strange. Gordon Liu plays a character here calling himself San Te... only he isn't. He's just an impostor and though he does some tricks to try and fool the thugs, but he ends up getting humiliated when it's shown he has no actual skills. He goes to a temple which is ran by San Te, only he isn't played by Liu and instead is played by someone else. Like I said this is definitely different from the original.
But, there is more. Comedy is a much larger factor here, some of it funny and some of it isn't. I mean, parts of this are really goofy and the score... I am not sure “cartoony” is the best term but I'll go with it. Then again this is a film about workers at a dye factory and at least 5 minutes is spent with Not San Te trying to figure out how to wash his hair with only water from a well and without using a bucket... and his hair is fake, by the way! He has to build scaffolding for repairs for the temple and as he watches all the students practice he builds the scaffolding... and tries to do their moves too. That's how he invented SCAFFOLDING KUNG FU. Yes. It doesn't always require a scaffold for it to work, but it does help.
The movie is definitely hit or miss (why is there a character with giant fake teeth? That I cannot answer) but at least it is different and offers a fighting style I haven't seen before and it is an exciting if a little far fetched finale.
Friday, February 13, 2015
The Stranger and the Gunfighter
The Stranger and the Gunfighter (El Karate, El Colt y El Impostor) (1974)
Runtime: 96 minutes (at least that's the version commonly available)
Directed by: Antonio Margheriti
Starring: Lee Van Cleef, Lo Lieh, Patty Shepard, Femi Benussi, Karen Yeh
From: Several companies, including Shaw Brothers, believe it or not
Here's a movie I've known about for a few years now; it has several different titles but this is the most popular one. It's a curious film all around and I explain it below in the Letterboxd review I copied and paste here. I'll return tomorrow night.
Recently I realized that it had been a few months since I had seen a Shaw Brothers film. I decided to watch something that wasn't their hallmark (period martial arts films) and I plan on watching a few of the other genres they dabbled in, such as horror or in this case, spaghetti Western (yes). It depends on what I can find. Technically, they were one of five companies (representing four countries in total) who made this and I presume their contributions didn't go too far beyond providing Lo Lieh and Karen Yeh and allowed for a small part of the movie to be filmed in Hong Kong but to me it still counts.
I've known of this movie for a few years and it sounds like something right in my wheelhouse so I am not sure why I have put watching it off. I mean, look at the elements involved:
* The two leads are the incredible duo of Lee Van Cleef and Lo Lieh
* It's a kung fu spaghetti Western. And yes, Shanghai Noon wasn't the first by any means to do a martial arts Western
* The director is Antonio Margheriti
* Ladies such as Femi Benussi and Patty Shepard are involved
*The plot-no kidding-is the hunt for pieces of a treasure map... which happened to be tattooed on the asses of four different women!
I had high expectations for it. They were perhaps too high but this story set in California (but mostly filmed in Spain) is quite wacky, not to mention pretty odd. The man who tattooed the map on those posteriors... he's a short homely middle-aged bald dude named Wang. There's comedy throughout. It's more about that and the silliness of what the heroes have to do rather than the action scenes and there isn't too much kung fu until the ending so if you're expecting that...
There's also such things as a preacher who murders people, a seemingly indestructible Native American, and Van Cleef SINGING. He also spends the last part of the movie shirtless so if you want to see a man in his late 40's nude from the waist up... It's wacky but it's not too over the top. Maybe it should have been but I still enjoyed this oddity for what it was.
Runtime: 96 minutes (at least that's the version commonly available)
Directed by: Antonio Margheriti
Starring: Lee Van Cleef, Lo Lieh, Patty Shepard, Femi Benussi, Karen Yeh
From: Several companies, including Shaw Brothers, believe it or not
Here's a movie I've known about for a few years now; it has several different titles but this is the most popular one. It's a curious film all around and I explain it below in the Letterboxd review I copied and paste here. I'll return tomorrow night.
Recently I realized that it had been a few months since I had seen a Shaw Brothers film. I decided to watch something that wasn't their hallmark (period martial arts films) and I plan on watching a few of the other genres they dabbled in, such as horror or in this case, spaghetti Western (yes). It depends on what I can find. Technically, they were one of five companies (representing four countries in total) who made this and I presume their contributions didn't go too far beyond providing Lo Lieh and Karen Yeh and allowed for a small part of the movie to be filmed in Hong Kong but to me it still counts.
I've known of this movie for a few years and it sounds like something right in my wheelhouse so I am not sure why I have put watching it off. I mean, look at the elements involved:
* The two leads are the incredible duo of Lee Van Cleef and Lo Lieh
* It's a kung fu spaghetti Western. And yes, Shanghai Noon wasn't the first by any means to do a martial arts Western
* The director is Antonio Margheriti
* Ladies such as Femi Benussi and Patty Shepard are involved
*The plot-no kidding-is the hunt for pieces of a treasure map... which happened to be tattooed on the asses of four different women!
I had high expectations for it. They were perhaps too high but this story set in California (but mostly filmed in Spain) is quite wacky, not to mention pretty odd. The man who tattooed the map on those posteriors... he's a short homely middle-aged bald dude named Wang. There's comedy throughout. It's more about that and the silliness of what the heroes have to do rather than the action scenes and there isn't too much kung fu until the ending so if you're expecting that...
There's also such things as a preacher who murders people, a seemingly indestructible Native American, and Van Cleef SINGING. He also spends the last part of the movie shirtless so if you want to see a man in his late 40's nude from the waist up... It's wacky but it's not too over the top. Maybe it should have been but I still enjoyed this oddity for what it was.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Hulu Plus
What I did today was go to a Gamestop and I saw they had a Hulu Pass giftcard available so I got one and now I also have that service for the next few months. I watched something on my Blu-ray player to try out the app and it thankfully works. As I've mentioned long ago, in the past I've had issues with watching Hulu programming on my laptop so I am glad I can watch programming that way. I tried it out by watching something I'd seen before and it does work.
I'll be back tomorrow night with a review.
I'll be back tomorrow night with a review.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
The Killers
The Killers (1946)
Runtime: 103 minutes
Directed by: Robert Siodmak
Starring: Burt Lancaster, Ava Gardner, Edmond O'Brien, Albert Dekker, Sam Levene
From: Universal
To cut to the chase, I watched this classic film for the first time last night via TCM showing it. I was happy to as I hadn't seen a film this old or a noir in a few weeks. The Letterboxd review is below and I'll return tomorrow night.
I realized I hadn't seen a film this old in a few weeks, and the same goes for watching a noir so I decided to take advantage of TCM showing this last night to watch one of the most highly regarded works in the genre and probably one of the best also.
The movie starts off with two hitmen (the guy I'll always know as Cannon or The Fatman and genre veteran Charles McGraw) looking for Ole Andreson, commonly known as The Swede, and played by a debuting Burt Lancaster. It's a great opening scene as they wait for him in a diner, only to find out he isn't going there that day. What a relief for the poor people who were there at the time. They find him and he offers no resistance as they gun him down. An insurance agent investigates the case and from talking to some common folk but various hooligans and ruffians, you see various flashbacks which explain how The Swede started off as a boxer and through his actions and who he hung out with-including a sultry dame, a common keystone for a noir-ended up a dead man. Yes, an insurance agent as the protagonist and it's a hero you like.
The film was indeed as great as I had heard from others. It's a classic noir with many of the staples you expect. It's a tight script-despite all that happens you never feel lost or overwhelmed trying to figure it out-and I was always interesting in seeing the snapshots of his life and discover the twists and turns (and the big event which was the catalyst for the downfall of all its participants) of this delicious tale. To reveal more would ruin the surprises of what this is about. The cinematography and direction are all great and add zest to the film. And you wouldn't think this was Burt Lancaster's first movie; it's no surprise he became pretty popular back in the day. Also, Ava Gardner was a lovely lady back in this time period. It's easy to see why The Swede fell for her hard despite the fact she was not a single lady.
I have no knowledge of the Ernest Hemingway short story this is (loosely) based on but I do know he apparently loved the motion picture, and now I can understand why.
Runtime: 103 minutes
Directed by: Robert Siodmak
Starring: Burt Lancaster, Ava Gardner, Edmond O'Brien, Albert Dekker, Sam Levene
From: Universal
To cut to the chase, I watched this classic film for the first time last night via TCM showing it. I was happy to as I hadn't seen a film this old or a noir in a few weeks. The Letterboxd review is below and I'll return tomorrow night.
I realized I hadn't seen a film this old in a few weeks, and the same goes for watching a noir so I decided to take advantage of TCM showing this last night to watch one of the most highly regarded works in the genre and probably one of the best also.
The movie starts off with two hitmen (the guy I'll always know as Cannon or The Fatman and genre veteran Charles McGraw) looking for Ole Andreson, commonly known as The Swede, and played by a debuting Burt Lancaster. It's a great opening scene as they wait for him in a diner, only to find out he isn't going there that day. What a relief for the poor people who were there at the time. They find him and he offers no resistance as they gun him down. An insurance agent investigates the case and from talking to some common folk but various hooligans and ruffians, you see various flashbacks which explain how The Swede started off as a boxer and through his actions and who he hung out with-including a sultry dame, a common keystone for a noir-ended up a dead man. Yes, an insurance agent as the protagonist and it's a hero you like.
The film was indeed as great as I had heard from others. It's a classic noir with many of the staples you expect. It's a tight script-despite all that happens you never feel lost or overwhelmed trying to figure it out-and I was always interesting in seeing the snapshots of his life and discover the twists and turns (and the big event which was the catalyst for the downfall of all its participants) of this delicious tale. To reveal more would ruin the surprises of what this is about. The cinematography and direction are all great and add zest to the film. And you wouldn't think this was Burt Lancaster's first movie; it's no surprise he became pretty popular back in the day. Also, Ava Gardner was a lovely lady back in this time period. It's easy to see why The Swede fell for her hard despite the fact she was not a single lady.
I have no knowledge of the Ernest Hemingway short story this is (loosely) based on but I do know he apparently loved the motion picture, and now I can understand why.
Monday, February 9, 2015
The Innkeepers/The Sacrament
The Innkeepers (2011)
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Ti West
Starring: Sara Paxton, Pat Healy, Kelly McGillis, Alison Bartlett
From: Dark Sky
The Sacrament (2013)
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Ti West
Starring: Joe Swanberg, AJ Bowen, Kentucker Audley, Gene Jones
From: Worldview Entertainment
Yep, I saw two films last night, from the same director... a director I haven't liked up to yesterday but I still wanted to give it a shot. Turns out, I'll never see a film from Ti West ever again! I have both Letterboxd reviews below, in chronological order. I'll be back Wednesday night as I need a respite after last night.
First, The Innkeepers:
To give a brief refresher, the only Ti West films I had seen before last night (when I saw his last two full length works on Instant) was his shorts in VHS and The ABC's of Death, which I thought were atrocious, and The House of the Devil, which I thought was poorly shot, boring and had an awful final act. Yet, many people sing his graces. Maybe I am brave and maybe I am a masochist but I decided to give his other movies a shot.
I now wish I didn't.
I will admit that this was better made than Devil and actually had things happen throughout. I was OK with it taking its time introducing the characters and the story. Problem is, I had enough time to realize that the two young leads investigating apparent hauntings in an old hotel about to be closed down (and with their demeanor and the way they treat guests, no wonder the place doesn't get guests anymore!) are both hipster D-bag A-holes. The guy... his hairstyle was so distracting! He was starting to bald so having a fauxhawk sort of thing... just atrocious. And they were both so aggravating, annoying, and even acted inconsistent and nonsensical... I've said it before in other reviews but when you can't stand the lead characters, that's a huge problem. And what exactly was the point of Lena Dunham's cameo, anyhow?
As for the story, just because things happen doesn't mean it's any good, or even that it's any exciting. The ending is creepy but the final few minutes weren't really needed, or at least needed to be shorter. So yeah, I once again don't get why so many people love Ti West.
There are two compliments I can give it, though. It does accurately portray what a personal paranormal website looks like, as I've actually come across some of them before. And, them drinking Schlitz Beer was funny and not as cliché (or expected with those hipsters) as consuming Pabst Blue Ribbon.
Now, The Sacrament:
Oh, where do I even start with this? I suppose I should do it where the first part is a regular review then the last part I get into some spoilers and the biggest issue I have with the whole film.
I heard all sorts of things about this film, both positive and negative. I couldn't help but hear what the movie is all about and despite being tainted with that I still went in with an open mind, hoping to enjoy this. The found footage genre has started to become tired by now, especially considering most of those films aren't too good. Again, I went in with an open mind.
Well, there's editing and many other signs with belie what is said at the very beginning, in that this is “immersion” into the story of VICE Magazine doing a story on how the sister of someone on staff is at a “commune” in rural Mississippi (although at times I wasn't quite sure if they knew that while filming. There was more than one hint that this wasn't in the United States and may have been, say, a small country in South America... for example, if they're in the state of Mississippi in the United States, what was the big deal with the passports? Why did everyone have their passports to begin with?) but of course it's actually a cult... it's supposed to be a small thing where only three people from VICE and one camera are filming it but all throughout there are such things as graphics to tell the time, musical cues, and multiple camera setups, and those are rarely explained away in the story.
As for the trio, they act pretty dumb and again, aren't likable protagonists. That's not even getting into how the overall story makes zero sense once you see how it plays out. The movie certainly shows the dangers of cults and what can happen when a charismatic leader brainwashes people with the power of saying the right things, but while this is certainly different from other films West has done, I once again fail to comprehend his popularity. This is just a bad movie which completely falls apart in the last half hour or so before the end credits roll. I think I am officially done with Ti West for good. Others can love him and that is OK, but me I do not get it at all.
Now, onto the major problem I had with this film, and from here on out there be SPOILERS, so you've been warned.
This is Jonestown. Really, it follows the events of Jonestown in South America rather closely; I'm sure you all know of it even if you don't think you do. It's where the phrase “drinking the Kool-Aid” came from and it's where in 1978, Reverend Jim Jones down in a settlement in Gyuana, South America ordered his followers (almost 1,000) to drink a cyanide-laced beverage and they either did so or were gunned down if they refused and Jones himself killed himself with a gun, which of course happened in this film too. Yes, they actually ripped off that horrific tragedy and actually exploited it via a crappy horror movie. I know that others have talked about it here but what a gross thing to do as you get to see everyone die agonizing painful deaths, either by poison or even worse. The movie would have sucked even if it wasn't based on an actual event-for the reasons listed already-but the fact that it was... I was disgusted by the end.
It's a shame as the dangers of such leaders should be broadcasted and Gene Jones as Not Jim Jones did a good job and you got to see through what he said how he was manipulative. The rest of the movie being so bad made it irrelevant, though.
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Ti West
Starring: Sara Paxton, Pat Healy, Kelly McGillis, Alison Bartlett
From: Dark Sky
The Sacrament (2013)
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Ti West
Starring: Joe Swanberg, AJ Bowen, Kentucker Audley, Gene Jones
From: Worldview Entertainment
Yep, I saw two films last night, from the same director... a director I haven't liked up to yesterday but I still wanted to give it a shot. Turns out, I'll never see a film from Ti West ever again! I have both Letterboxd reviews below, in chronological order. I'll be back Wednesday night as I need a respite after last night.
First, The Innkeepers:
To give a brief refresher, the only Ti West films I had seen before last night (when I saw his last two full length works on Instant) was his shorts in VHS and The ABC's of Death, which I thought were atrocious, and The House of the Devil, which I thought was poorly shot, boring and had an awful final act. Yet, many people sing his graces. Maybe I am brave and maybe I am a masochist but I decided to give his other movies a shot.
I now wish I didn't.
I will admit that this was better made than Devil and actually had things happen throughout. I was OK with it taking its time introducing the characters and the story. Problem is, I had enough time to realize that the two young leads investigating apparent hauntings in an old hotel about to be closed down (and with their demeanor and the way they treat guests, no wonder the place doesn't get guests anymore!) are both hipster D-bag A-holes. The guy... his hairstyle was so distracting! He was starting to bald so having a fauxhawk sort of thing... just atrocious. And they were both so aggravating, annoying, and even acted inconsistent and nonsensical... I've said it before in other reviews but when you can't stand the lead characters, that's a huge problem. And what exactly was the point of Lena Dunham's cameo, anyhow?
As for the story, just because things happen doesn't mean it's any good, or even that it's any exciting. The ending is creepy but the final few minutes weren't really needed, or at least needed to be shorter. So yeah, I once again don't get why so many people love Ti West.
There are two compliments I can give it, though. It does accurately portray what a personal paranormal website looks like, as I've actually come across some of them before. And, them drinking Schlitz Beer was funny and not as cliché (or expected with those hipsters) as consuming Pabst Blue Ribbon.
Now, The Sacrament:
Oh, where do I even start with this? I suppose I should do it where the first part is a regular review then the last part I get into some spoilers and the biggest issue I have with the whole film.
I heard all sorts of things about this film, both positive and negative. I couldn't help but hear what the movie is all about and despite being tainted with that I still went in with an open mind, hoping to enjoy this. The found footage genre has started to become tired by now, especially considering most of those films aren't too good. Again, I went in with an open mind.
Well, there's editing and many other signs with belie what is said at the very beginning, in that this is “immersion” into the story of VICE Magazine doing a story on how the sister of someone on staff is at a “commune” in rural Mississippi (although at times I wasn't quite sure if they knew that while filming. There was more than one hint that this wasn't in the United States and may have been, say, a small country in South America... for example, if they're in the state of Mississippi in the United States, what was the big deal with the passports? Why did everyone have their passports to begin with?) but of course it's actually a cult... it's supposed to be a small thing where only three people from VICE and one camera are filming it but all throughout there are such things as graphics to tell the time, musical cues, and multiple camera setups, and those are rarely explained away in the story.
As for the trio, they act pretty dumb and again, aren't likable protagonists. That's not even getting into how the overall story makes zero sense once you see how it plays out. The movie certainly shows the dangers of cults and what can happen when a charismatic leader brainwashes people with the power of saying the right things, but while this is certainly different from other films West has done, I once again fail to comprehend his popularity. This is just a bad movie which completely falls apart in the last half hour or so before the end credits roll. I think I am officially done with Ti West for good. Others can love him and that is OK, but me I do not get it at all.
Now, onto the major problem I had with this film, and from here on out there be SPOILERS, so you've been warned.
This is Jonestown. Really, it follows the events of Jonestown in South America rather closely; I'm sure you all know of it even if you don't think you do. It's where the phrase “drinking the Kool-Aid” came from and it's where in 1978, Reverend Jim Jones down in a settlement in Gyuana, South America ordered his followers (almost 1,000) to drink a cyanide-laced beverage and they either did so or were gunned down if they refused and Jones himself killed himself with a gun, which of course happened in this film too. Yes, they actually ripped off that horrific tragedy and actually exploited it via a crappy horror movie. I know that others have talked about it here but what a gross thing to do as you get to see everyone die agonizing painful deaths, either by poison or even worse. The movie would have sucked even if it wasn't based on an actual event-for the reasons listed already-but the fact that it was... I was disgusted by the end.
It's a shame as the dangers of such leaders should be broadcasted and Gene Jones as Not Jim Jones did a good job and you got to see through what he said how he was manipulative. The rest of the movie being so bad made it irrelevant, though.
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Waterhole #3
Waterhole #3 (1967)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: William A. Graham
Starring: James Coburn, Carroll O'Connor, Margaret Blye, Claude Akins, Timothy Carey
From: Paramount
This is definitely a random film. I only heard about it like a week ago, then saw it was on cable last night. I explain it all in the Letterboxd review below. I'll return tomorrow night.
I'll be honest here, I randomly stumbled upon this film recently while looking through Amazon Instant Video. Its cast (the leads are James Coburn and Carroll O'Connor and it features Claude Akins, James Whitmore, Bruce Dern and Joan Blondell) and it being a western got my attention. When I saw that an Encore channel was playing it late last night I had to check it out, as doing so for free was the thing for me.
The plot isn't complex-Coburn finds a treasure map and he, the town sheriff, the sheriff's daughter and some bandits all are on the lookout for him and the gold-but the main point is humor as this is a comedy-western, produced by Blake Edwards' production company. There's even a balladeer who you often hear; he was Roger Miller, best known either as the singer of King of the Road or the singer of that hilarious country/Giorgio Moroder song from Superman III. A lot of the humor was, well, humorous, while you got some cliché moments you expect and sometimes those stereotypes are flipped. The movie isn't great but at least I was entertained. It does have a fun ending so that was good.
I do have to address the elephant in the room, though. The sheriff's adult daughter factors into the plot. When she and Coburn's character first meet, he “forces himself” on her and they have a rather uneasy relationship. She even claims “rape” but what you see of it you aren't quite sure. In any case, she says it happened and no matter if she's telling the truth or lying, it's a pretty gross plot point, albeit not as bad as it could have been. I had to mention it here as it certainly caught me off guard; I tried to accept it as a sign of the times and not flip my lid about it, but I still wish it wouldn't have been done. Your mileage my vary, of course.
Even with that, I'll still rate it 3 stars and move on.
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: William A. Graham
Starring: James Coburn, Carroll O'Connor, Margaret Blye, Claude Akins, Timothy Carey
From: Paramount
This is definitely a random film. I only heard about it like a week ago, then saw it was on cable last night. I explain it all in the Letterboxd review below. I'll return tomorrow night.
I'll be honest here, I randomly stumbled upon this film recently while looking through Amazon Instant Video. Its cast (the leads are James Coburn and Carroll O'Connor and it features Claude Akins, James Whitmore, Bruce Dern and Joan Blondell) and it being a western got my attention. When I saw that an Encore channel was playing it late last night I had to check it out, as doing so for free was the thing for me.
The plot isn't complex-Coburn finds a treasure map and he, the town sheriff, the sheriff's daughter and some bandits all are on the lookout for him and the gold-but the main point is humor as this is a comedy-western, produced by Blake Edwards' production company. There's even a balladeer who you often hear; he was Roger Miller, best known either as the singer of King of the Road or the singer of that hilarious country/Giorgio Moroder song from Superman III. A lot of the humor was, well, humorous, while you got some cliché moments you expect and sometimes those stereotypes are flipped. The movie isn't great but at least I was entertained. It does have a fun ending so that was good.
I do have to address the elephant in the room, though. The sheriff's adult daughter factors into the plot. When she and Coburn's character first meet, he “forces himself” on her and they have a rather uneasy relationship. She even claims “rape” but what you see of it you aren't quite sure. In any case, she says it happened and no matter if she's telling the truth or lying, it's a pretty gross plot point, albeit not as bad as it could have been. I had to mention it here as it certainly caught me off guard; I tried to accept it as a sign of the times and not flip my lid about it, but I still wish it wouldn't have been done. Your mileage my vary, of course.
Even with that, I'll still rate it 3 stars and move on.
Friday, February 6, 2015
Aeon Flux
Aeon Flux (2005)
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: Karyn Kusama
Starring: Charlize Theron, Marton Csokas, Jonny Lee Miller, Francis McDormand
From: Paramount
This is a movie that I accidentally watched. Really. I explain it in the Letterboxd review below. As I'll be watching something for Letterboxd that I've already reviewed here, I'll return Sunday night to this site.
I'll be honest here, me watching this late last night on a Showtime station was in error. I saw that this was on and I decided to watch it, as I had remembered long ago seeing a really wacky mid aughts sci-fi film that played in a nightclub-of all places-and without the sound on it just looked bugf*** insane and really colorful. I don't know why I thought it was this movie, and while watching it I realized I was a dumbass and I was of course thinking of Ultraviolet, which I definitely will watch one of these days to see if it's as nonsensical when you can hear the movie too. As I had started this already I figured I should stick it out to the end.
Also, I have never watched the 90's MTV cartoon this is based on, although I understand that is OK as it's only loosely based on that original property. I just wanted to make clear I won't be comparing the two. This story involves a dystopian future, a secret underground society wishing to eradicate the rule of the family that has controlled the one remaining city of Earth for the past 400 years, cloning, DNA... and yada yada yada. The plot wasn't the most engaging to me, to be honest. I was disappointed in that the action scenes were edited to be too disjointed far too often. What an unfortunate trend
I can't say I hated it, though; I never wanted to turn it off, even when it became rather dull at times. At least I was able to look at the sometimes wacky sets (looking at Charlize Theron wasn't bad either!), chuckle at all the silly moments (what a goofy minor role for Pete Postlethwaite), hope that Francis McDormand received a nice paycheck for wearing that orange wig, and at least see some action setpieces that were unique, if not necessarily great. The cast at least being a little diverse was nice too.
Overall, though, there's no real reason to watch this unless you are a huge fan of Ms. Theron. It's just too generic and flavorless (an unfortunate trend in too much big studio sci-fi in this century) and not that interesting for most people. From what I hear not even the show's fans care for this, so it's probably best if you skip this one.
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: Karyn Kusama
Starring: Charlize Theron, Marton Csokas, Jonny Lee Miller, Francis McDormand
From: Paramount
This is a movie that I accidentally watched. Really. I explain it in the Letterboxd review below. As I'll be watching something for Letterboxd that I've already reviewed here, I'll return Sunday night to this site.
I'll be honest here, me watching this late last night on a Showtime station was in error. I saw that this was on and I decided to watch it, as I had remembered long ago seeing a really wacky mid aughts sci-fi film that played in a nightclub-of all places-and without the sound on it just looked bugf*** insane and really colorful. I don't know why I thought it was this movie, and while watching it I realized I was a dumbass and I was of course thinking of Ultraviolet, which I definitely will watch one of these days to see if it's as nonsensical when you can hear the movie too. As I had started this already I figured I should stick it out to the end.
Also, I have never watched the 90's MTV cartoon this is based on, although I understand that is OK as it's only loosely based on that original property. I just wanted to make clear I won't be comparing the two. This story involves a dystopian future, a secret underground society wishing to eradicate the rule of the family that has controlled the one remaining city of Earth for the past 400 years, cloning, DNA... and yada yada yada. The plot wasn't the most engaging to me, to be honest. I was disappointed in that the action scenes were edited to be too disjointed far too often. What an unfortunate trend
I can't say I hated it, though; I never wanted to turn it off, even when it became rather dull at times. At least I was able to look at the sometimes wacky sets (looking at Charlize Theron wasn't bad either!), chuckle at all the silly moments (what a goofy minor role for Pete Postlethwaite), hope that Francis McDormand received a nice paycheck for wearing that orange wig, and at least see some action setpieces that were unique, if not necessarily great. The cast at least being a little diverse was nice too.
Overall, though, there's no real reason to watch this unless you are a huge fan of Ms. Theron. It's just too generic and flavorless (an unfortunate trend in too much big studio sci-fi in this century) and not that interesting for most people. From what I hear not even the show's fans care for this, so it's probably best if you skip this one.
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Computer Chess
Computer Chess (2013)
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: Andrew Bujalski
Starring: Kriss Schuldermann, Tom Fletcher, Wiley Wiggins, Kevin Bewersdorf, Patrick Reister
From: It was put out by Kino Lorber
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: Andrew Bujalski
Starring: Kriss Schuldermann, Tom Fletcher, Wiley Wiggins, Kevin Bewersdorf, Patrick Reister
From: It was put out by Kino Lorber
Here's something quite out of the usual for me. It is a film I heard about on Letterboxd last year and while I understood it was strange I still wanted to see it. I finally got to it so I could take it out of my queue. It is allegedly a comedy but the funniest thing was seeing someone who was a background character and he basically was a huskier version of a pal of mine. The Letterboxd review is below and I'll return tomorrow night.
I already know this won't be a popular review among many who read this; no offense to those people I follow who have seen this and loved it; me, I thought it was pretentious wanking and awkward surrealist avant-garde crap! But let me explain myself...
I recently got a Netflix gift card from a Gamestop (I did not know those cards were even a thing) so I now have Instant for the next few months. I usually just get it for a random month at a time a few months a year. I decided to be different and watch this, something that was in my queue since last year, mainly because I heard about it here on Letterboxd and it just sounded like an odd premise so I'd give it a shot, even though I hadn't seen any of the director's other works; hell, I haven't seen any mumblecore movies period. Judging by this and what I understand them to be, maybe they just aren't for me.
That said, let me explain that I would have much rather this be a straight-up black and white mockumentary set in (apparently; I just got the vibe it was early 80's) 1980 about several teams which converge and do battle with their chess computer programs, where the program tells the player which move to make and the most successful program wins, and then does battle with the A-hole who runs things, an alleged chess Grandmaster. Esoteric, for sure. Then again, the movie as is has too many A-hole characters; also, I would have preferred it be filmed better and not have such things as totally unrealistic and too long reaction shots.
But, my biggest issue is that this actually is about “big concepts”, throwing random unusualness at the screen and spewing existentialist crap... you see surreal touches throughout and it becomes more prominent the further you get in the plot and by the end I just thought it was all inane, not to mention tedious.
It doesn't mean anything-at least not to me-and like I just it's just pretentious twaddle by someone who comes across as not as smart as they'd like to be. Nothing gets explained but then again the movie introduces many plot threads and most have no hint of resolution so it really isn't a surprise. I was just frustrated with how aggressively douchey and “try way too hard” the end product was and the denouement was a whole lot of bollocks. In addition, I wish this was actually being funny and not thinking that just being quirky, surrealistic and strange is gut-busting hilarious.
Again, I wish this would have been a mockumentary-filmed by someone better-with some awkward nerds and how they dealt with various normal events, not crap involving cats or unrealistic spiritual groups. At least it did look like something from the early 80's and the cast of mainly non-actors did seem authentic in being gawky and ungainly.
I have no ill will towards those that love this. I am pretty atypical in general myself (not as bad as those in this movie, or at least that's what I choose to believe) and many times before I do not get what is “the popular opinion”. It's nice that this is different and not the norm and there are people who dig it. I just thought it ended up being pointless in the end & I don't comprehend the praise, that's all.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Netflix Gift Cards?
Monday night I was in a Gamestop, originally to get something else. Then I looked in the rack of gift cards they had and discovered that there are now Netflix gift cards; I picked up one and the only amount they had was for 30 bucks so now I have Instant for the next few months.
Between that, the Redbox for the new films, other sources for online watching and all the motion pictures I have at home, my February should be pretty busy. I will return tomorrow night with a review.
Between that, the Redbox for the new films, other sources for online watching and all the motion pictures I have at home, my February should be pretty busy. I will return tomorrow night with a review.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Road To Revenge
Road to Revenge (1993)
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: John De Hart
Starring: John De Hart, Wings Hauser, William Smith, Pamela Jean Bryant
From: Monarch Enterprises
I have finally returned and thanks to Letterboxd I was alerted to a film that'd be better known if someone like the Alamo Drafthouse showed it and it received a lot of attention (a la Miami Connection) but as is, shows that you can still find bad filmmaking gold out there. The Letterboxd review is below and I'll return tomorrow night.
I realize that as of late I haven't really been watching movies. I've just been preoccupied with other things. But, now my schedule is more clear and I should be able to do them more often than I have the past two or so weeks. What better way to do this than watch some obscure movie I hadn't even heard of until someone I follow here reviewed it last week and gave it a glowing review... he loved it but compared it to The Room!
Yes, this is one of those “so awful it's hilarious” films, a la Miami Connection or Birdemic. I then skimmed through the movie and between that and finding out the character name for WINGS HAUSER was HUCK FINNEY, I knew I had to watch it as soon as I could. Believe me, the rating is due solely to entertainment value and not on a technical critical scale.
To sum it up, this was the passion project of some random guy named John De Hart, a dude that looks about 50 years old and with his mustache comes across as a high school shop teacher, even though he's apparently a lawyer in real life. Yet he's our hero, an ex-cop/country music singer/”martial arts master” who hangs out with his buddy Huck Finney as they do battle with their former co-worker, an ex cop turned judge (William Smith, as of course he'd be in a film like this) and the following takes place:
Plenty of bare breasts
Country music, most of it quite bad; hearing the same few songs over and over got old pretty quickly
A coven and devil worshipping! Yes, the judge does this, along with some drug dealing on the side
Sleaze
Some acting that's about the level of what you expect to find in a porno
Random quoting of Shakespeare
Several incredibly bad jokes
Hilarious fashion choices
Gross sex scenes with the old star and a much younger blonde; of course the star would have himself dating and making out with the former Playmate known as Pamela Jean Bryant
And so much more that I won't ruin here
The movie is indeed amazingly inept. I won't break down all the ways this is so but many basic errors and missteps are seen and heard. The story is threadbare and laughably goofy. The auteur known as John De Hart has the karate skills, acting acumen and charisma of a kumquat, but what's worse is the musical number you see him perform early on. His stage presence is even worse and more awkward than that of Lana Del Rey! It's like he was threatened with death if he didn't perform, it's astounding.
William Smith is a great veteran so he does the best that he can, literally growling his lines. But it is Wings Hauser who is the real highlight. His character is that of a loose cannon who loves drinking and acting crazy. Not to besmirch his name but I wonder if he was drunk for the entire duration this was filmed. It would describe his over the top performance and all the wacky things he does.
At least I can give credit to the movie for not only using the term “guttersnipe” but also have its opening credits song be the version of Who Do You Love by The Doors. The tune is great in general and I dig the version that Jim Morrison sang in concert, several versions of which can be found on various albums. After the film was over, I was wishing I could have heard more Doors songs rather than the crap we got sonically!
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: John De Hart
Starring: John De Hart, Wings Hauser, William Smith, Pamela Jean Bryant
From: Monarch Enterprises
I have finally returned and thanks to Letterboxd I was alerted to a film that'd be better known if someone like the Alamo Drafthouse showed it and it received a lot of attention (a la Miami Connection) but as is, shows that you can still find bad filmmaking gold out there. The Letterboxd review is below and I'll return tomorrow night.
I realize that as of late I haven't really been watching movies. I've just been preoccupied with other things. But, now my schedule is more clear and I should be able to do them more often than I have the past two or so weeks. What better way to do this than watch some obscure movie I hadn't even heard of until someone I follow here reviewed it last week and gave it a glowing review... he loved it but compared it to The Room!
Yes, this is one of those “so awful it's hilarious” films, a la Miami Connection or Birdemic. I then skimmed through the movie and between that and finding out the character name for WINGS HAUSER was HUCK FINNEY, I knew I had to watch it as soon as I could. Believe me, the rating is due solely to entertainment value and not on a technical critical scale.
To sum it up, this was the passion project of some random guy named John De Hart, a dude that looks about 50 years old and with his mustache comes across as a high school shop teacher, even though he's apparently a lawyer in real life. Yet he's our hero, an ex-cop/country music singer/”martial arts master” who hangs out with his buddy Huck Finney as they do battle with their former co-worker, an ex cop turned judge (William Smith, as of course he'd be in a film like this) and the following takes place:
Plenty of bare breasts
Country music, most of it quite bad; hearing the same few songs over and over got old pretty quickly
A coven and devil worshipping! Yes, the judge does this, along with some drug dealing on the side
Sleaze
Some acting that's about the level of what you expect to find in a porno
Random quoting of Shakespeare
Several incredibly bad jokes
Hilarious fashion choices
Gross sex scenes with the old star and a much younger blonde; of course the star would have himself dating and making out with the former Playmate known as Pamela Jean Bryant
And so much more that I won't ruin here
The movie is indeed amazingly inept. I won't break down all the ways this is so but many basic errors and missteps are seen and heard. The story is threadbare and laughably goofy. The auteur known as John De Hart has the karate skills, acting acumen and charisma of a kumquat, but what's worse is the musical number you see him perform early on. His stage presence is even worse and more awkward than that of Lana Del Rey! It's like he was threatened with death if he didn't perform, it's astounding.
William Smith is a great veteran so he does the best that he can, literally growling his lines. But it is Wings Hauser who is the real highlight. His character is that of a loose cannon who loves drinking and acting crazy. Not to besmirch his name but I wonder if he was drunk for the entire duration this was filmed. It would describe his over the top performance and all the wacky things he does.
At least I can give credit to the movie for not only using the term “guttersnipe” but also have its opening credits song be the version of Who Do You Love by The Doors. The tune is great in general and I dig the version that Jim Morrison sang in concert, several versions of which can be found on various albums. After the film was over, I was wishing I could have heard more Doors songs rather than the crap we got sonically!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)