Below I talk about the 30 minute short known as Kung Fury, which was released yesterday and got a lot of publicity. At the time I thought it was 3 out of 5 stars but in hindsight I might have been generous there. Read my thoughts about this Swedish pastiche of the 1980's (how accurate it is... it's up to you; it takes the kitchen sink approach as it has everything from Adolf Hitler and vikings to a dinosaur cop and a killer arcade machine) below from my Letterboxd review:
Well then... I'll be honest here, me and others who enjoy the 80's noted that this would likely be something that would try WAY too hard to be “cool” and I have stated numerous times in the past that this can rub me the wrong way. Not always but it usually does. Well, I did not expect it to come out today for starters, or be on YouTube, or be 29 minutes before the end credits begin.
Now, the synthwave moment, where people try to emulate the music of that coked-out decade, is pretty rad and all, and I think it's groovy. When it comes to movies or other forms try to emulate that decade, that's when things get dicey for me. After seeing this film, I can say that it's likely I'll never see another thing in my entire life that tries SO hard to be “awesome” as this does. I didn't hate this by any means; I was afraid I would give this a low rating. I mean, the synnthwave soundtrack (mainly from Mitch Murder) is tubular and they obviously know the decade well considering the style they used, such as all the one-liners or other things that I won't spoil here.
It's just that I should be very thankful this is only 31 minutes, as if it was 91 minutes long I am sure I would have given it a low rating. Even at its half hour length it started to wear out its welcome a few times. There are some failed moments of humor, I thought, and bits that stretched out for too long.
But hey, it's still nice that something from Sweden got made thanks to over 17,000 people giving it money on Kickstarter and it being entirely greenscreened didn't make it look as bad as I was fearing. However, I personally prefer either those goofy-ass 80's movies like The Miami Connection where such silliness came naturally or something like the all-time great Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon, where things aren't so forced and you could believe the general plot of the game could be from an 80's movie... which you definitely could not do here.
Friday, May 29, 2015
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Tales From The Darkside: The Movie
Tales from the Darkside: The Movie (1990)
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: John Harrison
Starring: This anthology has the likes of Steve Buscemi, Christian Slater, David Johansen, James Remar, and Deborah Harry
From: Paramount
I again don't have too much to say, except that I was glad I got to see a GOOD horror anthology. Below I talk about this film.
Well then... I'll be honest here, me and others who enjoy the 80's noted that this would likely be something that would try WAY too hard to be “cool” and I have stated numerous times in the past that this can rub me the wrong way. Not always but it usually does. Well, I did not expect it to come out today for starters, or be on YouTube, or be 29 minutes before the end credits begin.
Now, the synthwave moment, where people try to emulate the music of that coked-out decade, is pretty rad and all, and I think it's groovy. When it comes to movies or other forms try to emulate that decade, that's when things get dicey for me. After seeing this film, I can say that it's likely I'll never see another thing in my entire life that tries SO hard to be “awesome” as this does. I didn't hate this by any means; I was afraid I would give this a low rating. I mean, the synnthwave soundtrack (mainly from Mitch Murder) is tubular and they obviously know the decade well considering the style they used, such as all the one-liners or other things that I won't spoil here.
It's just that I should be very thankful this is only 31 minutes, as if it was 91 minutes long I am sure I would have given it a low rating. Even at its half hour length it started to wear out its welcome a few times. There are some failed moments of humor, I thought, and bits that stretched out for too long.
But hey, it's still nice that something from Sweden got made thanks to over 17,000 people giving it money on Kickstarter and it being entirely greenscreened didn't make it look as bad as I was fearing. However, I personally prefer either those goofy-ass 80's movies like The Miami Connection where such silliness came naturally or something like the all-time great Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon, where things aren't so forced and you could believe the general plot of the game could be from an 80's movie... which you definitely could not do here.
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: John Harrison
Starring: This anthology has the likes of Steve Buscemi, Christian Slater, David Johansen, James Remar, and Deborah Harry
From: Paramount
I again don't have too much to say, except that I was glad I got to see a GOOD horror anthology. Below I talk about this film.
Well then... I'll be honest here, me and others who enjoy the 80's noted that this would likely be something that would try WAY too hard to be “cool” and I have stated numerous times in the past that this can rub me the wrong way. Not always but it usually does. Well, I did not expect it to come out today for starters, or be on YouTube, or be 29 minutes before the end credits begin.
Now, the synthwave moment, where people try to emulate the music of that coked-out decade, is pretty rad and all, and I think it's groovy. When it comes to movies or other forms try to emulate that decade, that's when things get dicey for me. After seeing this film, I can say that it's likely I'll never see another thing in my entire life that tries SO hard to be “awesome” as this does. I didn't hate this by any means; I was afraid I would give this a low rating. I mean, the synnthwave soundtrack (mainly from Mitch Murder) is tubular and they obviously know the decade well considering the style they used, such as all the one-liners or other things that I won't spoil here.
It's just that I should be very thankful this is only 31 minutes, as if it was 91 minutes long I am sure I would have given it a low rating. Even at its half hour length it started to wear out its welcome a few times. There are some failed moments of humor, I thought, and bits that stretched out for too long.
But hey, it's still nice that something from Sweden got made thanks to over 17,000 people giving it money on Kickstarter and it being entirely greenscreened didn't make it look as bad as I was fearing. However, I personally prefer either those goofy-ass 80's movies like The Miami Connection where such silliness came naturally or something like the all-time great Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon, where things aren't so forced and you could believe the general plot of the game could be from an 80's movie... which you definitely could not do here.
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Housebound
Housebound (2014)
Runtime: 107 minutes
Directed by: Gerald Johnstone
Starring: Morgana O'Reilly, Rima Te Wiata, Glen-Paul Waru, Ross Harper, Cameron Rhodes
From: Semi-Professional
If you guys want to read a review apparently so good that it inspired several people I follow/follow me on Letterboxd to add it to their watchlist (a first), check this out:
I try not to think of how I am going to rate a movie as I am watching it. Sometimes it happens, though. No matter that, it's a rare thing for me for think of a movie one way then it change for the better due to how it finishes. What happens too often is that I am turned off pretty early and the movie never recovers. But this is an uncommon film where I thought I would just rate it “fine” early on but once I saw where it was going then the final act hit, I can give it a high rating.
In short, this is a New Zealand motion picture where a young female felon (Kylie) is arrested and she's been in trouble often. She gets 8 months of house arrest with her mother and stepfather, whom she both hates. Kylie is a pretty loathsome character early on; it was amusing at times but overbearing at others. As the plot progresses, though, things do change. The big mystery is if the house is haunted or not. The mom believes so, Kylie doesn't.
I won't reveal more about the plot as the key component of the film is how you expect it to be one thing and several times things are flipped and it goes in completely unexpected directions. I'll just leave it at that; even if it's quite absurd it is also quite entertaining and it does get funnier as it goes along so if you don't enjoy it at first you may change your mind the further along you watch the film.
I have to give credit to the cast of unknowns (especially Morgana O'Reilly, who doesn't have the easiest role and despite the opening act I ended up enjoying her character and she ended up as “bitchy smartass” instead of “awful bitchy person”) for helping make this film work and I am glad this was a pleasant surprise as I was worried this would be another “miss that most think is a hit”.
Runtime: 107 minutes
Directed by: Gerald Johnstone
Starring: Morgana O'Reilly, Rima Te Wiata, Glen-Paul Waru, Ross Harper, Cameron Rhodes
From: Semi-Professional
If you guys want to read a review apparently so good that it inspired several people I follow/follow me on Letterboxd to add it to their watchlist (a first), check this out:
I try not to think of how I am going to rate a movie as I am watching it. Sometimes it happens, though. No matter that, it's a rare thing for me for think of a movie one way then it change for the better due to how it finishes. What happens too often is that I am turned off pretty early and the movie never recovers. But this is an uncommon film where I thought I would just rate it “fine” early on but once I saw where it was going then the final act hit, I can give it a high rating.
In short, this is a New Zealand motion picture where a young female felon (Kylie) is arrested and she's been in trouble often. She gets 8 months of house arrest with her mother and stepfather, whom she both hates. Kylie is a pretty loathsome character early on; it was amusing at times but overbearing at others. As the plot progresses, though, things do change. The big mystery is if the house is haunted or not. The mom believes so, Kylie doesn't.
I won't reveal more about the plot as the key component of the film is how you expect it to be one thing and several times things are flipped and it goes in completely unexpected directions. I'll just leave it at that; even if it's quite absurd it is also quite entertaining and it does get funnier as it goes along so if you don't enjoy it at first you may change your mind the further along you watch the film.
I have to give credit to the cast of unknowns (especially Morgana O'Reilly, who doesn't have the easiest role and despite the opening act I ended up enjoying her character and she ended up as “bitchy smartass” instead of “awful bitchy person”) for helping make this film work and I am glad this was a pleasant surprise as I was worried this would be another “miss that most think is a hit”.
GoldenEye
GoldenEye (1995)
Runtime: 130 minutes
Directed by: Martin Campbell
Starring: Pierce Brosnan, Sean Bean, Izabella Scorupco, Famke Janssen, Judi Dench
From: MGM/UA
This week I decided to rewatch all the Bond movies, so that they all can have similar length reviews on Letterboxd. I tackled the first two in the series... then this, which I hadn't reviewed before here and in fact hadn't seen it in years. The Letterboxd review is below.
In what may be the last Bond movie I'll review for awhile I decided to see this for the first time in years. It's a popular entry in the franchise; it's the first in 6 years due to legal issues and you have a new Bond in Pierce Brosnan, who did a great job with the role even if you can accurately complain about the films/scripts he had to be involved with. Poor Timothy Dalton getting short-shrifted due to no fault of his own and his two movies aren't always rated well even though I do like both.
Furthermore there's the 007: GoldenEye game for the N64, which even now is a cult favorite and at least at the time of the mid 90's was awesome. I am glad that even with the 90's-ness of it (talk of sexual harassment, the new M being a woman and saying 007 has antiquated views, not to mention what computer geeks of the time were thought of) I can still enjoy it.
The plot isn't too complex: you see a mid 80's mission in the Soviet Union where Bond's partner 006 (Alec) dies during a missing. Back in the mid 90's the Cold War is over but in Russia there's still trouble as the titular weapon (it delivers an EMP) by mysterious forces... led by Alec; he's played by Sean Bean so you can probably figure out his ultimate fate. 007 has an unwitting partner in an attractive-but of course-computer programmer Natalya (Izabella Scorupco) who saw what the villains did.
The movie for the most part is successful at being a Bond motion picture for the 90's, with the technology and all the other aspects that were different from the past. The story takes you from Monaco to Russia then the Caribbean.
Some of the effects don't look so hot in 2015 and you can complain about the story but otherwise it's still fun, with colorful characters (played by the likes of Joe Don Baker, Robbie Coltrane and the ravishing Famke Janssen as the crazed sex vixen known as Xenia Onatopp, a name you can only get in this series) and memorable action scenes, from an insane bungee jump-and there's a 90's fad-to a long scene involving a tank... showing that the 6th Fast & Furious movie wasn't the first to do such things. There are even some brutal moments too.
I imagine everyone will agree that this is clearly the best Brosnan Bond, with things starting to fall apart; when I review the other three I'll explain why, and oh boy am I not looking forward to seeing Die Another Day another time.
Runtime: 130 minutes
Directed by: Martin Campbell
Starring: Pierce Brosnan, Sean Bean, Izabella Scorupco, Famke Janssen, Judi Dench
From: MGM/UA
This week I decided to rewatch all the Bond movies, so that they all can have similar length reviews on Letterboxd. I tackled the first two in the series... then this, which I hadn't reviewed before here and in fact hadn't seen it in years. The Letterboxd review is below.
In what may be the last Bond movie I'll review for awhile I decided to see this for the first time in years. It's a popular entry in the franchise; it's the first in 6 years due to legal issues and you have a new Bond in Pierce Brosnan, who did a great job with the role even if you can accurately complain about the films/scripts he had to be involved with. Poor Timothy Dalton getting short-shrifted due to no fault of his own and his two movies aren't always rated well even though I do like both.
Furthermore there's the 007: GoldenEye game for the N64, which even now is a cult favorite and at least at the time of the mid 90's was awesome. I am glad that even with the 90's-ness of it (talk of sexual harassment, the new M being a woman and saying 007 has antiquated views, not to mention what computer geeks of the time were thought of) I can still enjoy it.
The plot isn't too complex: you see a mid 80's mission in the Soviet Union where Bond's partner 006 (Alec) dies during a missing. Back in the mid 90's the Cold War is over but in Russia there's still trouble as the titular weapon (it delivers an EMP) by mysterious forces... led by Alec; he's played by Sean Bean so you can probably figure out his ultimate fate. 007 has an unwitting partner in an attractive-but of course-computer programmer Natalya (Izabella Scorupco) who saw what the villains did.
The movie for the most part is successful at being a Bond motion picture for the 90's, with the technology and all the other aspects that were different from the past. The story takes you from Monaco to Russia then the Caribbean.
Some of the effects don't look so hot in 2015 and you can complain about the story but otherwise it's still fun, with colorful characters (played by the likes of Joe Don Baker, Robbie Coltrane and the ravishing Famke Janssen as the crazed sex vixen known as Xenia Onatopp, a name you can only get in this series) and memorable action scenes, from an insane bungee jump-and there's a 90's fad-to a long scene involving a tank... showing that the 6th Fast & Furious movie wasn't the first to do such things. There are even some brutal moments too.
I imagine everyone will agree that this is clearly the best Brosnan Bond, with things starting to fall apart; when I review the other three I'll explain why, and oh boy am I not looking forward to seeing Die Another Day another time.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
The Fourth Kind
The Fourth Kind (2009)
19% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 111 reviews)
Runtime: 98 minutes
Directed by: Olatunde Osunsanmi
Starring: Milla Jovovich, Will Patton, Elias Koteas, Corey Johnson, Enzo Cilenti
From: Universal
I don't have too much to say here except that this was even worse than I expected. Read why below:
I'll be real here and tell you that I only watched this because it was in the recommendations section of Netflix Instant, due to what I have been watching as of late. As you can see with my one star rating, if I “thanked” Instant for this, then it'd only be in a sarcastic sense.
Since the movie came out and it got a lot of bad publicity due to the strong attempts from the filmmakers and the studios involved to make this hokum appear to be legit (to the point of creating fake headlines from real newspaper and producing other bogus evidence), I have avoided watching it as the general buzz was bad. Yet I still took a chance, and oh what a mistake that was! The story-completely fake despite all their attempts otherwise-revolves around a psychologist in Nome, Alaska, where she does a mysterious study and also notices similar odd experiences among several of her patients. Considering that the title refers to the “close encounter” scale created by UFO researcher J. Allen Hynek (which is of course where the title Close Encounters of the Third Kind came from) and while not part of that scale, others later included a fourth kind to represent alien abductions. Sorry for the spoiler but when it's right in the title...
I had a feeling this would be bad... it exceeded my expectations into being quite bad. For me, the biggest reason is that this is just not scary at all. When the most frightening moments include an owl naturally turning its head almost 180 degrees or a character barfing... that is a problem. They went so far as to create faux footage that was allegedly “real” and that was incorporated into the film often under the usage of split screens but I would have figured out without being told that it was all flim-flam and poppycock. It is just painfully and howlingly bad and a gigantic waste of time you couldn't possibly believe was real.
Not to mention, Nome is like 51 percent Native American, as in non-white people, and yet because it's Hollywood you have a cast that except for the one black man was as white as all the snow on the ground in Alaska. That's one thing, but the movie seems to think that Anchorage is close by Nome (incorrect) or that Nome has mountains and trees all around it, which is the complete opposite of how it actually looks. It's just insulting.
The movie made the residents of that town upset as they felt this trivialized the actual missing people in Nome; I mean, they vanished due to natural reasons, not due to aliens, I am pretty sure of that. My opinion of aliens... the universe is so vast there has to be life elsewhere besides Earth, and unexplained things have happened, but I've never seen any definitive proof. That doesn't really matter when it comes to this film, though, as no matter your opinion of such things this is just not an effective film at all.
19% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 111 reviews)
Runtime: 98 minutes
Directed by: Olatunde Osunsanmi
Starring: Milla Jovovich, Will Patton, Elias Koteas, Corey Johnson, Enzo Cilenti
From: Universal
I don't have too much to say here except that this was even worse than I expected. Read why below:
I'll be real here and tell you that I only watched this because it was in the recommendations section of Netflix Instant, due to what I have been watching as of late. As you can see with my one star rating, if I “thanked” Instant for this, then it'd only be in a sarcastic sense.
Since the movie came out and it got a lot of bad publicity due to the strong attempts from the filmmakers and the studios involved to make this hokum appear to be legit (to the point of creating fake headlines from real newspaper and producing other bogus evidence), I have avoided watching it as the general buzz was bad. Yet I still took a chance, and oh what a mistake that was! The story-completely fake despite all their attempts otherwise-revolves around a psychologist in Nome, Alaska, where she does a mysterious study and also notices similar odd experiences among several of her patients. Considering that the title refers to the “close encounter” scale created by UFO researcher J. Allen Hynek (which is of course where the title Close Encounters of the Third Kind came from) and while not part of that scale, others later included a fourth kind to represent alien abductions. Sorry for the spoiler but when it's right in the title...
I had a feeling this would be bad... it exceeded my expectations into being quite bad. For me, the biggest reason is that this is just not scary at all. When the most frightening moments include an owl naturally turning its head almost 180 degrees or a character barfing... that is a problem. They went so far as to create faux footage that was allegedly “real” and that was incorporated into the film often under the usage of split screens but I would have figured out without being told that it was all flim-flam and poppycock. It is just painfully and howlingly bad and a gigantic waste of time you couldn't possibly believe was real.
Not to mention, Nome is like 51 percent Native American, as in non-white people, and yet because it's Hollywood you have a cast that except for the one black man was as white as all the snow on the ground in Alaska. That's one thing, but the movie seems to think that Anchorage is close by Nome (incorrect) or that Nome has mountains and trees all around it, which is the complete opposite of how it actually looks. It's just insulting.
The movie made the residents of that town upset as they felt this trivialized the actual missing people in Nome; I mean, they vanished due to natural reasons, not due to aliens, I am pretty sure of that. My opinion of aliens... the universe is so vast there has to be life elsewhere besides Earth, and unexplained things have happened, but I've never seen any definitive proof. That doesn't really matter when it comes to this film, though, as no matter your opinion of such things this is just not an effective film at all.
Monday, May 25, 2015
The Quiet Ones
The Quiet Ones (2014)
36% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 69 reviews)
Runtime: 98 minutes
Directed by: John Pogue
Starring: Jared Harris, Sam Clafin, Olivia Cooke, Erin Richards, Rory Fleck-Byrne
From: Exclusive Media Group/Traveling Show Picture Company/Hammer
Even though the general buzz on this film has been bad since it was released last spring I was still interested in it so I decided to give it a shot and while it's not a must-see I am glad I did.
They claim it's based on a true story but what is here and what actually happened... very different. Instead of a controversial experiment in Canada where they try to manifest an entity-a fictional character-they created themselves, the movie is set in the swinging 70's of Britain (w/ groovy clothing and songs from such artists as Slade, T. Rex and The Jimmy Castor Bunch, which I did approve of); a tweedy Oxford professor (Jared Harris), two students (male and female and they were a couple) and a male cameraman are attempting to draw out an evil entity known as Evey from a young troubled lady (Olivia Cooke) and of course complications happen.
I know many thought this was “too slow” or “boring” but I personally did not really feel that way. Maybe it was the British 70's-ness of it that I found interesting or maybe it was me being amused at how the randiness of most of the characters was a key part of the plot. The story itself is pretty ridiculous and they go the jump scare route too often, but at least I was entertained by this story where part of it is found footage from a giant 70's camera and the rest is more traditional.
What does help is that everyone in the small cast does well, especially Harris as the eccentric professor you can't quite trust and Cooke as the poor troubled girl who said a lot just by her posture and expressions without saying a word. Maybe it was the lowered expectations but I thought this was at least acceptable and not a waste of time.
36% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 69 reviews)
Runtime: 98 minutes
Directed by: John Pogue
Starring: Jared Harris, Sam Clafin, Olivia Cooke, Erin Richards, Rory Fleck-Byrne
From: Exclusive Media Group/Traveling Show Picture Company/Hammer
Even though the general buzz on this film has been bad since it was released last spring I was still interested in it so I decided to give it a shot and while it's not a must-see I am glad I did.
They claim it's based on a true story but what is here and what actually happened... very different. Instead of a controversial experiment in Canada where they try to manifest an entity-a fictional character-they created themselves, the movie is set in the swinging 70's of Britain (w/ groovy clothing and songs from such artists as Slade, T. Rex and The Jimmy Castor Bunch, which I did approve of); a tweedy Oxford professor (Jared Harris), two students (male and female and they were a couple) and a male cameraman are attempting to draw out an evil entity known as Evey from a young troubled lady (Olivia Cooke) and of course complications happen.
I know many thought this was “too slow” or “boring” but I personally did not really feel that way. Maybe it was the British 70's-ness of it that I found interesting or maybe it was me being amused at how the randiness of most of the characters was a key part of the plot. The story itself is pretty ridiculous and they go the jump scare route too often, but at least I was entertained by this story where part of it is found footage from a giant 70's camera and the rest is more traditional.
What does help is that everyone in the small cast does well, especially Harris as the eccentric professor you can't quite trust and Cooke as the poor troubled girl who said a lot just by her posture and expressions without saying a word. Maybe it was the lowered expectations but I thought this was at least acceptable and not a waste of time.
Starry Eyes
Starry Eyes (2014)
Runtime: 98 minutes
Directed by: Kevin Kolsch/Dennis Widmyer
Starring: Alex Essoe, Amanda Fuller, Noah Segan, Fabianne Therese, Shane Coffey
From: Several different companies
I have finally started to catch up on recent horror films, and I hope to continue this for the next few days. I picked this one as it has gotten a lot of publicity. Unfortunately...
Look, despite what people may think I do not actively seek or want many of the “modern” films I see to be disappointments or make me mad. That's not want I want and yet it has happened often as of late. I was hoping this wouldn't be the case with this highly regarded horror film. Alas...
Basically, the main idea here is that Hollywood and the movie-making industry is pretty terrible and an awful place for young actresses... which I do think is true from all I've heard and seen. The way it's presented here, however... a young lady named Sarah works at a Hooters-esque place and she goes to auditions but she's never hired. Finally, she gets hired for what looks like a big gig, but then weird things start happening.
I'll list the positives: the old school score was cool, there were some memorable moments and Alex Essoe as Sarah did a swell job with what was a difficult role. Regrettably, I did not enjoy watching this overall. The story was not enjoyable to watch and once you discover what the whole plot is, you discover it makes little sense. I just grew more and more frustrated as the plot progresses, especially after there's a big shift in the final act and the style totally changes. The fact that some moments were lifted from earlier and better films didn't help either.
Also, this is just me and my tastes but the friends of Sarah are by and large pretty terrible people, and not just because they are hipsters but that's a big reason why! It adds to the unpleasantness. As I have said more than once or twice before, I am glad that others love it but I am just unable to. Even with the retro-sounding score and opening/closing credits, I need more than that to be enthralled with a motion picture.
Runtime: 98 minutes
Directed by: Kevin Kolsch/Dennis Widmyer
Starring: Alex Essoe, Amanda Fuller, Noah Segan, Fabianne Therese, Shane Coffey
From: Several different companies
I have finally started to catch up on recent horror films, and I hope to continue this for the next few days. I picked this one as it has gotten a lot of publicity. Unfortunately...
Look, despite what people may think I do not actively seek or want many of the “modern” films I see to be disappointments or make me mad. That's not want I want and yet it has happened often as of late. I was hoping this wouldn't be the case with this highly regarded horror film. Alas...
Basically, the main idea here is that Hollywood and the movie-making industry is pretty terrible and an awful place for young actresses... which I do think is true from all I've heard and seen. The way it's presented here, however... a young lady named Sarah works at a Hooters-esque place and she goes to auditions but she's never hired. Finally, she gets hired for what looks like a big gig, but then weird things start happening.
I'll list the positives: the old school score was cool, there were some memorable moments and Alex Essoe as Sarah did a swell job with what was a difficult role. Regrettably, I did not enjoy watching this overall. The story was not enjoyable to watch and once you discover what the whole plot is, you discover it makes little sense. I just grew more and more frustrated as the plot progresses, especially after there's a big shift in the final act and the style totally changes. The fact that some moments were lifted from earlier and better films didn't help either.
Also, this is just me and my tastes but the friends of Sarah are by and large pretty terrible people, and not just because they are hipsters but that's a big reason why! It adds to the unpleasantness. As I have said more than once or twice before, I am glad that others love it but I am just unable to. Even with the retro-sounding score and opening/closing credits, I need more than that to be enthralled with a motion picture.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Invasion Of Astro-Monster
Invasion of Astro-Monster (Kaiju Daisenso) (1965)
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Ishiro Honda
Starring: Akira Takarada, Nick Adams, Jun Tazaki, Akira Kubo, Kumi Mizuno
From: Toho/UPA
I don't have too much to say about this film also known as Godzilla vs. Monster Zero so the Letterboxd review is below:
(Note 1: The version I saw is the original Toho cut)
(Note 2: Earlier in the month I was hoping to see some Godzilla films on Hulu that would expire at the end of this month. Well, for various reasons those plans changed, but that is alright as I can always track them down at a later date.)
As I have this movie on disc and nothing better to do on this lazy Sunday, why not watch this Godzilla film?
This plot was rather wacky: Astronauts Fuji (Akira Takarada) and Glenn (Nick Adams; this was a co-production with UPA from the United States) fly out to a mysterious Planet X, which is inhabited by an intelligent yet wacky-looking group of humanoids known as the Xiliens. They wish for assistance for their little King Ghidorah problem but it turns out to be a ruse and they actually wish to use King and control the minds of both Godzilla & Rodan in order to rule Earth.
Thankfully the goofy plot and characters were interesting; the quaint charm of the 60's sci-fi special effects did help, as there actually isn't too much in the way of kaiju action, although what we got was good, and this is the film where we got the famous .gif of Godzilla doing that rather odd dance, which I just
Even though this isn't the best film in the franchise, such things as the special effects and the score from the always good Akira Ifukube help make it at least acceptable.
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Ishiro Honda
Starring: Akira Takarada, Nick Adams, Jun Tazaki, Akira Kubo, Kumi Mizuno
From: Toho/UPA
I don't have too much to say about this film also known as Godzilla vs. Monster Zero so the Letterboxd review is below:
(Note 1: The version I saw is the original Toho cut)
(Note 2: Earlier in the month I was hoping to see some Godzilla films on Hulu that would expire at the end of this month. Well, for various reasons those plans changed, but that is alright as I can always track them down at a later date.)
As I have this movie on disc and nothing better to do on this lazy Sunday, why not watch this Godzilla film?
This plot was rather wacky: Astronauts Fuji (Akira Takarada) and Glenn (Nick Adams; this was a co-production with UPA from the United States) fly out to a mysterious Planet X, which is inhabited by an intelligent yet wacky-looking group of humanoids known as the Xiliens. They wish for assistance for their little King Ghidorah problem but it turns out to be a ruse and they actually wish to use King and control the minds of both Godzilla & Rodan in order to rule Earth.
Thankfully the goofy plot and characters were interesting; the quaint charm of the 60's sci-fi special effects did help, as there actually isn't too much in the way of kaiju action, although what we got was good, and this is the film where we got the famous .gif of Godzilla doing that rather odd dance, which I just
Even though this isn't the best film in the franchise, such things as the special effects and the score from the always good Akira Ifukube help make it at least acceptable.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
Left Behind
Left Behind (2014)
Runtime: 110 agonizing minutes
Directed by: Vic Armstrong
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Chad Michael Murray, Cassi Thomson, Nicky Whelan, Lea Thompson
From: Several different companies which should be ashamed of themselves
Even though it came out just last fall this already is an infamous movie, not due to any offensiveness but due to how bad it is. They were right! This is just horrible. I explain why in my Letterboxd review below.
I have several things to say before I get to the review proper:
It was years before I discovered this but in the canon of the original novels Rayford Steele (the character played by Nicolas Cage here) is from Belvidere, Illinois. I bring that up as the town I grew up in... Belvidere, Illinois! I swear this is true. I have no idea how the writers of the novels picked my town but they did.
My opinion (and your opinion) of religion won't and shouldn't have any effect on the review.
The main reason I saw this: to see if it was as bad as I had heard. Well, it is! I have never seen any of the previous Left Behind movies and I certainly haven't read any of the novels.
I don't even want to delve too deeply into the plot, except that The Rapture happens (meaning that everyone who is worthy goes to heaven and they leave their clothes behind) and those that get... left behind are made out to be pretty terrible people, so you get to see a lot of that here before, during, and after the big event. It's done in the worst of ways so you don't enjoy watching and hearing these dumb A-holes act like dumb A-holes.
As everyone else has said this is just inept all around, from most of the performances to the “special” effects and everything else. Believe me, the conversations over whether God exists and if He does have an impact on the world, those aren't exactly thought-provoking or intellectually stimulating theological vs. secular discussions. Furthermore, what's supposed to be New York state clearly isn't that... oh and there's also how no one in the movie is smart and it takes people ages to figure out that The Rapture happened, and as someone I follow explained in their review, the movie is much more about “tell” than “show” so things are done in the most blunt fashion possible, and also there's a pretty awful musical score throughout.
So yeah, there's a lot of nothing that happens in the film. It's more Nic Cage piloting a plane full of idiots and broad stereotypes than how on the ground most everyone still remaining immediately turns into a felon and Nic Cage's daughter tries finding her little brother among the chaos despite it being obvious that something supernatural happened as he vanished out of his clothes... it's just stupid, totally unnatural and much of it makes zero sense at all.
Director Vic Armstrong is a veteran stuntman and he's either been a director or a second unit director many times before so I don't know what went here but go wrong things did. Nic Cage is subdued here so this is just mind-boggingly awful.
An important point you can learn here is that the entire movie being a first act to a story that most likely won't be completed with any sequels...that's a bad idea. Even with the ending of this film being astoundingly awful to an incredible degree in a number of ways, there is no real good reason to ever see this. Save yourself from experiencing this agony.
Runtime: 110 agonizing minutes
Directed by: Vic Armstrong
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Chad Michael Murray, Cassi Thomson, Nicky Whelan, Lea Thompson
From: Several different companies which should be ashamed of themselves
Even though it came out just last fall this already is an infamous movie, not due to any offensiveness but due to how bad it is. They were right! This is just horrible. I explain why in my Letterboxd review below.
I have several things to say before I get to the review proper:
It was years before I discovered this but in the canon of the original novels Rayford Steele (the character played by Nicolas Cage here) is from Belvidere, Illinois. I bring that up as the town I grew up in... Belvidere, Illinois! I swear this is true. I have no idea how the writers of the novels picked my town but they did.
My opinion (and your opinion) of religion won't and shouldn't have any effect on the review.
The main reason I saw this: to see if it was as bad as I had heard. Well, it is! I have never seen any of the previous Left Behind movies and I certainly haven't read any of the novels.
I don't even want to delve too deeply into the plot, except that The Rapture happens (meaning that everyone who is worthy goes to heaven and they leave their clothes behind) and those that get... left behind are made out to be pretty terrible people, so you get to see a lot of that here before, during, and after the big event. It's done in the worst of ways so you don't enjoy watching and hearing these dumb A-holes act like dumb A-holes.
As everyone else has said this is just inept all around, from most of the performances to the “special” effects and everything else. Believe me, the conversations over whether God exists and if He does have an impact on the world, those aren't exactly thought-provoking or intellectually stimulating theological vs. secular discussions. Furthermore, what's supposed to be New York state clearly isn't that... oh and there's also how no one in the movie is smart and it takes people ages to figure out that The Rapture happened, and as someone I follow explained in their review, the movie is much more about “tell” than “show” so things are done in the most blunt fashion possible, and also there's a pretty awful musical score throughout.
So yeah, there's a lot of nothing that happens in the film. It's more Nic Cage piloting a plane full of idiots and broad stereotypes than how on the ground most everyone still remaining immediately turns into a felon and Nic Cage's daughter tries finding her little brother among the chaos despite it being obvious that something supernatural happened as he vanished out of his clothes... it's just stupid, totally unnatural and much of it makes zero sense at all.
Director Vic Armstrong is a veteran stuntman and he's either been a director or a second unit director many times before so I don't know what went here but go wrong things did. Nic Cage is subdued here so this is just mind-boggingly awful.
An important point you can learn here is that the entire movie being a first act to a story that most likely won't be completed with any sequels...that's a bad idea. Even with the ending of this film being astoundingly awful to an incredible degree in a number of ways, there is no real good reason to ever see this. Save yourself from experiencing this agony.
Friday, May 22, 2015
Godzilla vs. Biollante
Godzilla vs. Biollante (1989)
Runtime: 104 minutes
Directed by: Kazuki Ohmori
Starring: Koji Takahashi, Kunihiko Mitamura, Yoshiko Tanaka, Masanobu Takashima, Megumi Odaka
From: Toho
I don't have too much to say here, except that the Letterboxd review below explains just how manic and loony this movie is.
“Goddammit, Godzilla!”- Actual quote from this movie
You know, sometimes I don't quite know how to rate a film. This is one of those times. There's a good reason why... this has such a cracked plot it makes my head spin! I guess I'll go with 3 1/2 stars and here's why.
I don't want to spoil too much about this movie that directly follows the last one (the Godzilla of 1984), but this is about genetic engineering and how a crazed scientist thought that combining human, Godzilla, and rose cells could possibly have been a good idea. That is not the only odd thing about it by any means. This is just a few of the many disparate and sometimes curious elements that are present here:
* ESP
* ESP WITH PLANTS
* Random rock music
* Terrorism
* A fake Middle Eastern country
* A nuclear plant whose name I am not 100% sure of as it was seen via late 80's computer graphics but I swore it said OBAMA
* America is portrayed as the villains
* A reference to a then-open clinic in the United States that was a sperm bank only for such lofty people as Nobel Prize winners (the Repository for Germinal Choice)
* Appearances by popular Japanese figures
The movie is able to balance all this and many different characters rather well; it's never confused but it is muddled and definitely uneven. As for the kaiju vs. kaiju action, it's different from the norm. If you prefer G wrecking a city, that was well-done. “Boring” is never a word you can accurately use to describe this; the oddness is almost always ever-present so you can sit back and wonder what unexpected direction or unanticipated moment will happen next.
Runtime: 104 minutes
Directed by: Kazuki Ohmori
Starring: Koji Takahashi, Kunihiko Mitamura, Yoshiko Tanaka, Masanobu Takashima, Megumi Odaka
From: Toho
I don't have too much to say here, except that the Letterboxd review below explains just how manic and loony this movie is.
“Goddammit, Godzilla!”- Actual quote from this movie
You know, sometimes I don't quite know how to rate a film. This is one of those times. There's a good reason why... this has such a cracked plot it makes my head spin! I guess I'll go with 3 1/2 stars and here's why.
I don't want to spoil too much about this movie that directly follows the last one (the Godzilla of 1984), but this is about genetic engineering and how a crazed scientist thought that combining human, Godzilla, and rose cells could possibly have been a good idea. That is not the only odd thing about it by any means. This is just a few of the many disparate and sometimes curious elements that are present here:
* ESP
* ESP WITH PLANTS
* Random rock music
* Terrorism
* A fake Middle Eastern country
* A nuclear plant whose name I am not 100% sure of as it was seen via late 80's computer graphics but I swore it said OBAMA
* America is portrayed as the villains
* A reference to a then-open clinic in the United States that was a sperm bank only for such lofty people as Nobel Prize winners (the Repository for Germinal Choice)
* Appearances by popular Japanese figures
The movie is able to balance all this and many different characters rather well; it's never confused but it is muddled and definitely uneven. As for the kaiju vs. kaiju action, it's different from the norm. If you prefer G wrecking a city, that was well-done. “Boring” is never a word you can accurately use to describe this; the oddness is almost always ever-present so you can sit back and wonder what unexpected direction or unanticipated moment will happen next.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
The Last Rebel
The Last Rebel (1971)
Runtime: 90 minutes
Directed by: Denys McCoy
Starring: Joe Namath, Jack Elam, Woody Strode, Ty Hardin
From: Several different defunct companies
Sometimes I do enjoy watching rather obscure films, as sometimes they could actually be hidden gems. This was more like a lump of coal that no one should see, but it's not always that bad. The Letterboxd review is below.
This super obscure (at least here; I am only the second person to even give this a rating) American Western-but filmed in Italy-was a last minute watch. It was on cable and I was interested by its cast. It had familiar faces Jack Elam and Woody Strode but the lead was none other than Joe Namath. As people worldwide are part of this site, Namath was a famous American football quarterback of the 60's and early 70's who had (actually, still has) a loud showboat personality so it's no surprise he tried acting, even though he wasn't too spectacular at it.
I heard this was pretty bad and it was. It's just a not too interesting story poorly told; unfortunately it's too confused too often. I'll just say it's about a pair of Confederate soldiers right after the Civil War ends. While Namath's character isn't prejudiced, Elam's character is. You do hear the N word a number of times, which made me wish there was a Django Unchained-like movie back in the past and Strode would have been the lead. Maybe that would have been pretty awesome. Anyhow, a large sum of cash is involved and yeah... like I said it's just poorly told.
The only other thing I feel like saying about this deservedly forgotten motion picture is that on its own I suppose the oddball rockin' music that's the score is alright; in the movie it comes off as loud and obtrusive.
Runtime: 90 minutes
Directed by: Denys McCoy
Starring: Joe Namath, Jack Elam, Woody Strode, Ty Hardin
From: Several different defunct companies
Sometimes I do enjoy watching rather obscure films, as sometimes they could actually be hidden gems. This was more like a lump of coal that no one should see, but it's not always that bad. The Letterboxd review is below.
I heard this was pretty bad and it was. It's just a not too interesting story poorly told; unfortunately it's too confused too often. I'll just say it's about a pair of Confederate soldiers right after the Civil War ends. While Namath's character isn't prejudiced, Elam's character is. You do hear the N word a number of times, which made me wish there was a Django Unchained-like movie back in the past and Strode would have been the lead. Maybe that would have been pretty awesome. Anyhow, a large sum of cash is involved and yeah... like I said it's just poorly told.
The only other thing I feel like saying about this deservedly forgotten motion picture is that on its own I suppose the oddball rockin' music that's the score is alright; in the movie it comes off as loud and obtrusive.
The African Queen
The African Queen (1951)
Runtime: 105 minutes
Directed by: John Huston
Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Katharine Hepburn, Robert Morley, Peter Bull
From: Romulus Films/Horizon Pictures
This is a film I thankfully have seen before. But, when the time came for me to watch it on cable, I was happy to do so and see this great motion picture again. The Letterboxd review is below.
Don't worry, I have seen this classic film before; in fact, the first time I only saw parts of it but it was WAY back when (meaning I was a little kid) it was on television one night. Sure, rights issues meant it took a long while to make it to disc but this was not my first viewing in full.
The plot is simple yet effective: World War I has just started and in deepest darkest Africa you get to meet such characters as a brother and sister pair of missionaries (Katharine Hepburn and Robert Morley) and a captain of a small boat (Humphrey Bogart) named The African Queen. The Germans come in, bad things happen, and Hepburn leaves with Bogey on his boat, and as she's British (he's Canadian) she is looking for revenge.
The movie is as great as its reputation suggests it is. It's an always engrossing story and much of it was filmed either in Uganda or what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which provides plenty of beautiful scenery. Famed director John Huston does masterful work putting this all together.
But it's the tremendous performance of the two leads that makes this a rousing success. Both are perfect in their roles; Hepburn is a spinster type while Bogie is uncouth and loves his gin... to think that in real life he and Huston loved Scotch and that was a major part of their diet while they were down in Africa shooting this. It's quite the adventure, with as many twists and turns as the Ulanga River they traverse. Much of the time it's just the two stars on screen and it's never boring due to the characters they play and what great thespians both are. Bogie may have been the only one to win an Academy Award but both did an incredible job and that is why this is still a great movie all those years later.
Runtime: 105 minutes
Directed by: John Huston
Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Katharine Hepburn, Robert Morley, Peter Bull
From: Romulus Films/Horizon Pictures
This is a film I thankfully have seen before. But, when the time came for me to watch it on cable, I was happy to do so and see this great motion picture again. The Letterboxd review is below.
Don't worry, I have seen this classic film before; in fact, the first time I only saw parts of it but it was WAY back when (meaning I was a little kid) it was on television one night. Sure, rights issues meant it took a long while to make it to disc but this was not my first viewing in full.
The plot is simple yet effective: World War I has just started and in deepest darkest Africa you get to meet such characters as a brother and sister pair of missionaries (Katharine Hepburn and Robert Morley) and a captain of a small boat (Humphrey Bogart) named The African Queen. The Germans come in, bad things happen, and Hepburn leaves with Bogey on his boat, and as she's British (he's Canadian) she is looking for revenge.
The movie is as great as its reputation suggests it is. It's an always engrossing story and much of it was filmed either in Uganda or what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which provides plenty of beautiful scenery. Famed director John Huston does masterful work putting this all together.
But it's the tremendous performance of the two leads that makes this a rousing success. Both are perfect in their roles; Hepburn is a spinster type while Bogie is uncouth and loves his gin... to think that in real life he and Huston loved Scotch and that was a major part of their diet while they were down in Africa shooting this. It's quite the adventure, with as many twists and turns as the Ulanga River they traverse. Much of the time it's just the two stars on screen and it's never boring due to the characters they play and what great thespians both are. Bogie may have been the only one to win an Academy Award but both did an incredible job and that is why this is still a great movie all those years later.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Dances With Wolves
Dances with Wolves (1990)
Runtime: I saw the 234 minute version
Directed by: Kevin Costner
Starring: Kevin Costner, Graham Greene, Mary McDonnell, Rodney A. Grant, Floyd Red Crow Westerman
From: Orion
I am glad I had enough free time to watch this all in the span of one night, on a Blu-ray that makes the picture and sound pretty tremendous. Even with the backlash some have against this, I do not agree with it. The Letterboxd review which I explain why is below.
(Note: The cut of the movie I am reviewing is the 234 minute version, known under several different names, from “Director's Cut” to “Special Edition” to “Final Cut')
In these modern times I have heard some criticisms of this movie, from it being centered around a “white savior” storyline to historical inaccuracies, down to its epic length. I understand all those complaints and also the big one of people feeling this “robbed” Goodfellas of all the awards it deserved. Now, Goodfellas is one of my all-time favorites and I do think it's the better film... yet I can still enjoy this film for what it is and I am even fine with it being almost 4 hours long. Besides, there have been far more egregious examples of the Oscars "getting it wrong" throughout its entire history.
The story isn't anything complex, but that's OK: John Dunbar (Kevin Costner) is unwittingly a Civil War hero so he was allowed to pick an assignment and he went out to the Plains because that was of interest to him. Through a series of circumstances he ends up alone in the middle of nowhere by himself and he gets to know the Sioux Indians and decides that's the life he prefers leading.
I thought the story was always interesting despite the epic length and its pacing being deliberate. It never seemed that long to me. The performances were all swell but I have to give the highest marks to the cinematography of beautiful rural South Dakota, the biggest scenes (the stampede of buffalo being the best one) and the great score from John Barry.
As for the fact that many of the “white people” in the film are portrayed as being really awful... I have no beef with that. Unfortunately Native Americans were treated that awfully back then so that seemed pretty authentic, as was the mature portrayal of the Sioux. While there likely will always be a backlash against it, I will always appreciate that a first time director/producer can star in a 3 hour Western back when both were pretty much never on the big screen and not only was it a hit but it still holds up pretty well 25 years later.
Runtime: I saw the 234 minute version
Directed by: Kevin Costner
Starring: Kevin Costner, Graham Greene, Mary McDonnell, Rodney A. Grant, Floyd Red Crow Westerman
From: Orion
I am glad I had enough free time to watch this all in the span of one night, on a Blu-ray that makes the picture and sound pretty tremendous. Even with the backlash some have against this, I do not agree with it. The Letterboxd review which I explain why is below.
(Note: The cut of the movie I am reviewing is the 234 minute version, known under several different names, from “Director's Cut” to “Special Edition” to “Final Cut')
In these modern times I have heard some criticisms of this movie, from it being centered around a “white savior” storyline to historical inaccuracies, down to its epic length. I understand all those complaints and also the big one of people feeling this “robbed” Goodfellas of all the awards it deserved. Now, Goodfellas is one of my all-time favorites and I do think it's the better film... yet I can still enjoy this film for what it is and I am even fine with it being almost 4 hours long. Besides, there have been far more egregious examples of the Oscars "getting it wrong" throughout its entire history.
The story isn't anything complex, but that's OK: John Dunbar (Kevin Costner) is unwittingly a Civil War hero so he was allowed to pick an assignment and he went out to the Plains because that was of interest to him. Through a series of circumstances he ends up alone in the middle of nowhere by himself and he gets to know the Sioux Indians and decides that's the life he prefers leading.
I thought the story was always interesting despite the epic length and its pacing being deliberate. It never seemed that long to me. The performances were all swell but I have to give the highest marks to the cinematography of beautiful rural South Dakota, the biggest scenes (the stampede of buffalo being the best one) and the great score from John Barry.
As for the fact that many of the “white people” in the film are portrayed as being really awful... I have no beef with that. Unfortunately Native Americans were treated that awfully back then so that seemed pretty authentic, as was the mature portrayal of the Sioux. While there likely will always be a backlash against it, I will always appreciate that a first time director/producer can star in a 3 hour Western back when both were pretty much never on the big screen and not only was it a hit but it still holds up pretty well 25 years later.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
The Specialist
The Specialist (1994)
Runtime: 110 minutes
Directed by: Luis Llosa
Starring: Sly Stallone, Sharon Stone, James Woods, Rod Steiger, Eric Roberts
From: Warner Brothers
Yep, this is a random movie I watched today, although below in my Letterboxd review I explain why I picked this one out. As the opening credits say this is “suggested by” a series of novels of the same name; I take it to mean that at best it's loosely based but the books are better.
I'll be honest here, I pretty much picked this movie out at random among the large collection of discs I have... although I certainly have heard about this from several people in a messageboard thread, who gave varying opinions of the film but all noted that actors Rod Steiger and especially James Woods hammed it up to an incredible degree here, and this was in fact correct; it certainly helps this movie even make it to the 2 ½ star range.
The tale is a standard one of revenge: Ray Quick (Sly Stallone) and Ned Trent (James Woods) used to work together in the CIA as bomb experts but they had a falling out as Trent did something bad, so both left. Years later May Munro (Sharon Stone) asks Quick to help her kill the people that murdered her parents when she was a child. Believe it or not, Rod Steiger and Eric Roberts are supposed to be father and son crime lords... not to mention both are supposed to be Hispanic; Steiger's attempt at an accent was something else.
It's a pretty ridiculous tale but it's greatly helped out by such things as a nice John Barry score and especially the performance of Woods, who is gleefully over the top as a crazed man looking for revenge himself. The chess game that he and Quick play was quite interesting. It's certainly better than the budding romance between Ray and May, which is just silly at best. There are “erotic” moments between them. Like I said it's some of the performances and unintentional humor that help lift this goofiness to even an average rating.
Oh, and I did laugh at how early to mid 90's this was, from the fashion (Sly wears a shirt that you swore he must have worn at a Planet Hollywood opening back in the day in say, Kuala Lumpur or Mumbai) to the music and also how you see the at the time modern Internet terminal, complete with 14.4k modem. Quick also adopts a feral housecat (which he names Timer!) and uses the city bus as his mode of transportation. Those laughs did help, for sure.
Runtime: 110 minutes
Directed by: Luis Llosa
Starring: Sly Stallone, Sharon Stone, James Woods, Rod Steiger, Eric Roberts
From: Warner Brothers
Yep, this is a random movie I watched today, although below in my Letterboxd review I explain why I picked this one out. As the opening credits say this is “suggested by” a series of novels of the same name; I take it to mean that at best it's loosely based but the books are better.
I'll be honest here, I pretty much picked this movie out at random among the large collection of discs I have... although I certainly have heard about this from several people in a messageboard thread, who gave varying opinions of the film but all noted that actors Rod Steiger and especially James Woods hammed it up to an incredible degree here, and this was in fact correct; it certainly helps this movie even make it to the 2 ½ star range.
The tale is a standard one of revenge: Ray Quick (Sly Stallone) and Ned Trent (James Woods) used to work together in the CIA as bomb experts but they had a falling out as Trent did something bad, so both left. Years later May Munro (Sharon Stone) asks Quick to help her kill the people that murdered her parents when she was a child. Believe it or not, Rod Steiger and Eric Roberts are supposed to be father and son crime lords... not to mention both are supposed to be Hispanic; Steiger's attempt at an accent was something else.
It's a pretty ridiculous tale but it's greatly helped out by such things as a nice John Barry score and especially the performance of Woods, who is gleefully over the top as a crazed man looking for revenge himself. The chess game that he and Quick play was quite interesting. It's certainly better than the budding romance between Ray and May, which is just silly at best. There are “erotic” moments between them. Like I said it's some of the performances and unintentional humor that help lift this goofiness to even an average rating.
Oh, and I did laugh at how early to mid 90's this was, from the fashion (Sly wears a shirt that you swore he must have worn at a Planet Hollywood opening back in the day in say, Kuala Lumpur or Mumbai) to the music and also how you see the at the time modern Internet terminal, complete with 14.4k modem. Quick also adopts a feral housecat (which he names Timer!) and uses the city bus as his mode of transportation. Those laughs did help, for sure.
Monday, May 18, 2015
42nd Street
42nd Street (1933)
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Lloyd Bacon
Starring: Warner Baxter, Bebe Daniels, George Brent, Ruby Keeler, Guy Kibbee
From: Warner Brothers
For tonight I was quite old school with this memorable early 1930's film. I don't have too much to say about it except that my Letterboxd review is below. I did want to mention though that from now until the end of the month I may binge watch a good amount so the best way to do this is to check back here every 24 hours or so and I may have one review up, multiple reviews, or maybe none. It all depends. This starts tomorrow.
For many years I've known the name Busby Berkeley and how he staged many elaborate musical dance numbers on the screen way back when but aside from seeing various clips I had never watched a movie in full that he was involved with. As last year I purchased a box set of some of his films, I went with this one as it was the earliest chronologically.
The story isn't too complex. A rich old man is dating a Broadway performer and he agrees to bankroll a new production known as Pretty Lady and of course she's the star. You know, I am sure all of that happens even today in every form of entertainment. Anyhow, famous director Julian Marsh (Warner Baxter) is hired; because of the stock market crash he's broke so the man of more than one nervous breakdown needs this to be a hit so he can quit; that makes him even more irascible than usual. You get to see everyone practice long hard hours and among all the stress and frustration and unexpected calamities there's also romance among the various cast members and in her film debut Ruby Keeler is Peggy Sawyer, making her debut on stage.
This is quality Pre-Code entertainment, meaning that it's fast-paced, quick-witted and filled with many great lines, some of them pretty risque for the time. The story isn't too original by today's standards but that's OK as it's fun. There are plenty of faces I recognized, from Baxter, Keeler and Guy Kibbee to George Brent, Ginger Rogers (as “Anytime Annie; like I said, this was before the Hays Code) and Dick Powell. Marsh isn't always the nicest character but due to the depth of said character and Baxter's performance you see he's not such a bad guy overall.
As for the Berkeley musical numbers, they were definitely nicely done-elaborate and well choreographed productions, especially considering the giant cameras used at the time. There's overhead shots, the camera goes through dancers' legs, everything moving quickly... even today it's mesmerizing. It helps that the songs are pretty catchy. So yeah, I enjoyed watching this old fashioned tale.
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Lloyd Bacon
Starring: Warner Baxter, Bebe Daniels, George Brent, Ruby Keeler, Guy Kibbee
From: Warner Brothers
For tonight I was quite old school with this memorable early 1930's film. I don't have too much to say about it except that my Letterboxd review is below. I did want to mention though that from now until the end of the month I may binge watch a good amount so the best way to do this is to check back here every 24 hours or so and I may have one review up, multiple reviews, or maybe none. It all depends. This starts tomorrow.
For many years I've known the name Busby Berkeley and how he staged many elaborate musical dance numbers on the screen way back when but aside from seeing various clips I had never watched a movie in full that he was involved with. As last year I purchased a box set of some of his films, I went with this one as it was the earliest chronologically.
The story isn't too complex. A rich old man is dating a Broadway performer and he agrees to bankroll a new production known as Pretty Lady and of course she's the star. You know, I am sure all of that happens even today in every form of entertainment. Anyhow, famous director Julian Marsh (Warner Baxter) is hired; because of the stock market crash he's broke so the man of more than one nervous breakdown needs this to be a hit so he can quit; that makes him even more irascible than usual. You get to see everyone practice long hard hours and among all the stress and frustration and unexpected calamities there's also romance among the various cast members and in her film debut Ruby Keeler is Peggy Sawyer, making her debut on stage.
This is quality Pre-Code entertainment, meaning that it's fast-paced, quick-witted and filled with many great lines, some of them pretty risque for the time. The story isn't too original by today's standards but that's OK as it's fun. There are plenty of faces I recognized, from Baxter, Keeler and Guy Kibbee to George Brent, Ginger Rogers (as “Anytime Annie; like I said, this was before the Hays Code) and Dick Powell. Marsh isn't always the nicest character but due to the depth of said character and Baxter's performance you see he's not such a bad guy overall.
As for the Berkeley musical numbers, they were definitely nicely done-elaborate and well choreographed productions, especially considering the giant cameras used at the time. There's overhead shots, the camera goes through dancers' legs, everything moving quickly... even today it's mesmerizing. It helps that the songs are pretty catchy. So yeah, I enjoyed watching this old fashioned tale.
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Powaqqatsi
Powaqqatsi (1988)
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Godfrey Reggio
Starring: This is a documentary
From: Cannon; yes, Golan-Globus
I figured that tonight I should watch something different and this certainly fit the bill, a documentary only told through images and and music. I talk about it below and I'll return tomorrow night.
"Powaqqatsi: An entity, a way of life, that consumes the life forces other beings in order to further its own life"--- the definition of the Hopi word as explained at the end of the film
I knew I needed a change of pace from what I had been watching as of late; I thought about it for a bit then realized I should watch the first sequel to the arthouse classic Koyaanisqatsi, which I saw last year. While this isn't as great as that original movie, it doesn't mean you shouldn't watch this.
The focus of this is different; this time a lot of it was filmed in the Southern Hemisphere and what the movie about is less ambiguous. The above quote is from the end of the movie and it does accurately describe what the images and the music (again from Philip Glass but this time it was more upbeat) were showing, which is that the old way of life in those countries and the old traditions are being eradicated by the impact of modern societies forcing its way in.
While it doesn't have the sweeping camerawork of Ron Fricke (who did the first film but not this) it was still greatly filmed and the screen was filled with magnificent images; I certainly enjoyed looked at how those people lived their lives, as the countries visited were mainly places I knew nothing about when it comes to day to day activities there. If you love Koyaanisqatsi you should give this a shot if you've never checked it out before.
As it's me I have to close this out by noting my amusement at Criterion releasing a movie on Blu-ray that opens with the Cannon logo. While of course I know that in the late 80's Golan and Globus tried to be “more legitimate” by releasing other sorts of movies (such as adaptations of fairy tales for the family and Godard's apparently uber-strange version of King Lear) instead of their typical B movie fare of mainly action films involving the likes of Chuck Norris, Charles Bronson or Michael Dudikoff, it is still funny that Criterion put out a film from them. By the way, what strange bedfellows with this movie being executively produced by Golan and Globus and being presented by both George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola.
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Godfrey Reggio
Starring: This is a documentary
From: Cannon; yes, Golan-Globus
I figured that tonight I should watch something different and this certainly fit the bill, a documentary only told through images and and music. I talk about it below and I'll return tomorrow night.
"Powaqqatsi: An entity, a way of life, that consumes the life forces other beings in order to further its own life"--- the definition of the Hopi word as explained at the end of the film
I knew I needed a change of pace from what I had been watching as of late; I thought about it for a bit then realized I should watch the first sequel to the arthouse classic Koyaanisqatsi, which I saw last year. While this isn't as great as that original movie, it doesn't mean you shouldn't watch this.
The focus of this is different; this time a lot of it was filmed in the Southern Hemisphere and what the movie about is less ambiguous. The above quote is from the end of the movie and it does accurately describe what the images and the music (again from Philip Glass but this time it was more upbeat) were showing, which is that the old way of life in those countries and the old traditions are being eradicated by the impact of modern societies forcing its way in.
While it doesn't have the sweeping camerawork of Ron Fricke (who did the first film but not this) it was still greatly filmed and the screen was filled with magnificent images; I certainly enjoyed looked at how those people lived their lives, as the countries visited were mainly places I knew nothing about when it comes to day to day activities there. If you love Koyaanisqatsi you should give this a shot if you've never checked it out before.
As it's me I have to close this out by noting my amusement at Criterion releasing a movie on Blu-ray that opens with the Cannon logo. While of course I know that in the late 80's Golan and Globus tried to be “more legitimate” by releasing other sorts of movies (such as adaptations of fairy tales for the family and Godard's apparently uber-strange version of King Lear) instead of their typical B movie fare of mainly action films involving the likes of Chuck Norris, Charles Bronson or Michael Dudikoff, it is still funny that Criterion put out a film from them. By the way, what strange bedfellows with this movie being executively produced by Golan and Globus and being presented by both George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola.
Friday, May 15, 2015
Mad Max: Fury Road
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
99% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 201 reviews)
Runtime: 120 minutes
Directed by: George Miller
Starring: Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron, Hugh Keays-Byrne (not playing The Toecutter this time), Josh Helman, a gaggle of lovely ladies
From: Warner Brothers
Well... I don't know how else to say this but this will be a lengthy review that most (at least online; in the theatre last night the reaction I gathered from the lack of reaction during the film then overhearing conversations afterwards they didn't really enjoy it either) will violently disagree with. Just about everyone I've seen online loves this to death and I just naturally presumed I would love this too... yet I didn't, and even I can't believe it's true. I try my best to explain why below in my Letterboxd review that is spoiler free. I need a break tonight so I'll be back Sunday night.
Yep... yep.
Even as a guy who seems to reject a lot of “popular modern cinema among movie fans” (such as The Lego Movie, Snowpiercer, Kingsman: The Secret Service, The Raid 2 and most of what Christopher Nolan does) I realize this will be the most polarizing review I've ever done, the one that most people will be shocked by when they see the rating. Now, as I've said elsewhere I am not a troll like Armond White of the past few years and at least I'd like to think I am of sound mind and not experiencing any mental illnesses. I myself am shocked I am rating it this way and yet this is actually how I feel.
I know that I am a wordy person but I'll try to explain without writing a dissertation why I had such a reaction to a film almost everyone else online is in love with. I mean, I don't think in my life I have been more let down by a film than I have with this.
Believe me, I never could have thought in a million years this would be the reaction I would have. Based off of what I heard and seen I almost presumed I was going to wet my pants with excitement while watching it and the afternoon after I saw it I'd give it a full 5 stars. I've seen all three previous films before and with the first two, while odd and plotted in a different manner they are charming in how they were done and it was greatly filmed in a unique style. I waited for years to see a 4th installment and I was starting to believe that it'd never happen due to the hundreds of rumors that proved to be untrue. Finally, as this was finally filmed then released I had real high expectations for it, more so than I typically do.
Note that the following are NOT the reasons I rate this low:
* The action scenes. They are plentiful, epic in scope and filmed very well, without any shaky-cam garbage that ruins modern action cinema.
* The score, cinematography, direction, musical score, etc.
* The fact that women are a key part of the plot. I am the opposite of those awful “Men's Right Activists” asshats who hate the film even before seeing it because they heard multiple women are the focus of the film. Believe me I had no problem with that.
So here's why I rate the movie this way even if it has the type of action that I should see in big budget films instead of the overly CGI shaky-cam quick edit pigsh*t that is unfortunately common these days:
* The movie's weird... WAY weird. Way weirder than even the other films in a weird series. I just thought it was off-puttingly bizarre, which leads to:
* The movie trying way too hard to “be cool”. A band playing with a traveling caravan and there being such things as a guitar which shoots out flames... sorry but to me that's pretty stupid. Note that I am consistent in the past with having issues when it comes to “trying too hard” and making things seem forced.
* The story and characters were the biggest hurdle for me; I really didn't like either. I can't go into detail without giving away massive spoilers so I won't. I'll just say I had huge problems with both, to the point that I turned against the movie early and not even all those incredible and well-constructed action scenes could save it for me, especially when those issues were almost always ever-present. When you don't like the hero and think he looks like a buffoon too often...
* It's just impossible for me to think that this is the same Max Rockatansky you saw in those previous films; the worlds are so different I just am unable to do it.
If everyone else loves this movie, great. It was cool seeing the action on a giant screen in 3D, and the 3D was done in a pretty satisfactory manner. Unfortunately, due to the reasons I listed I just did not enjoy it overall and it does make me sad I honestly feel that way about it. At least I still have Mad Max and The Road Warrior and I can easily pretend those are the only two in the series.
99% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 201 reviews)
Runtime: 120 minutes
Directed by: George Miller
Starring: Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron, Hugh Keays-Byrne (not playing The Toecutter this time), Josh Helman, a gaggle of lovely ladies
From: Warner Brothers
Well... I don't know how else to say this but this will be a lengthy review that most (at least online; in the theatre last night the reaction I gathered from the lack of reaction during the film then overhearing conversations afterwards they didn't really enjoy it either) will violently disagree with. Just about everyone I've seen online loves this to death and I just naturally presumed I would love this too... yet I didn't, and even I can't believe it's true. I try my best to explain why below in my Letterboxd review that is spoiler free. I need a break tonight so I'll be back Sunday night.
Yep... yep.
Even as a guy who seems to reject a lot of “popular modern cinema among movie fans” (such as The Lego Movie, Snowpiercer, Kingsman: The Secret Service, The Raid 2 and most of what Christopher Nolan does) I realize this will be the most polarizing review I've ever done, the one that most people will be shocked by when they see the rating. Now, as I've said elsewhere I am not a troll like Armond White of the past few years and at least I'd like to think I am of sound mind and not experiencing any mental illnesses. I myself am shocked I am rating it this way and yet this is actually how I feel.
I know that I am a wordy person but I'll try to explain without writing a dissertation why I had such a reaction to a film almost everyone else online is in love with. I mean, I don't think in my life I have been more let down by a film than I have with this.
Believe me, I never could have thought in a million years this would be the reaction I would have. Based off of what I heard and seen I almost presumed I was going to wet my pants with excitement while watching it and the afternoon after I saw it I'd give it a full 5 stars. I've seen all three previous films before and with the first two, while odd and plotted in a different manner they are charming in how they were done and it was greatly filmed in a unique style. I waited for years to see a 4th installment and I was starting to believe that it'd never happen due to the hundreds of rumors that proved to be untrue. Finally, as this was finally filmed then released I had real high expectations for it, more so than I typically do.
Note that the following are NOT the reasons I rate this low:
* The action scenes. They are plentiful, epic in scope and filmed very well, without any shaky-cam garbage that ruins modern action cinema.
* The score, cinematography, direction, musical score, etc.
* The fact that women are a key part of the plot. I am the opposite of those awful “Men's Right Activists” asshats who hate the film even before seeing it because they heard multiple women are the focus of the film. Believe me I had no problem with that.
So here's why I rate the movie this way even if it has the type of action that I should see in big budget films instead of the overly CGI shaky-cam quick edit pigsh*t that is unfortunately common these days:
* The movie's weird... WAY weird. Way weirder than even the other films in a weird series. I just thought it was off-puttingly bizarre, which leads to:
* The movie trying way too hard to “be cool”. A band playing with a traveling caravan and there being such things as a guitar which shoots out flames... sorry but to me that's pretty stupid. Note that I am consistent in the past with having issues when it comes to “trying too hard” and making things seem forced.
* The story and characters were the biggest hurdle for me; I really didn't like either. I can't go into detail without giving away massive spoilers so I won't. I'll just say I had huge problems with both, to the point that I turned against the movie early and not even all those incredible and well-constructed action scenes could save it for me, especially when those issues were almost always ever-present. When you don't like the hero and think he looks like a buffoon too often...
* It's just impossible for me to think that this is the same Max Rockatansky you saw in those previous films; the worlds are so different I just am unable to do it.
If everyone else loves this movie, great. It was cool seeing the action on a giant screen in 3D, and the 3D was done in a pretty satisfactory manner. Unfortunately, due to the reasons I listed I just did not enjoy it overall and it does make me sad I honestly feel that way about it. At least I still have Mad Max and The Road Warrior and I can easily pretend those are the only two in the series.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome
Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985)
Runtime: 107 minutes
Directed by: George Miller... and George Ogilvie
Starring: Mel Gibson, Tina Turner, Bruce Spence, Helen Buday, Tom Jennings
From: Warner Brothers
Yep, I finally saw this movie again late last night... unfortunately. I was not expecting it to be bad as I never remembered it as being bad. I was mistaken. I explain why below and I will return tomorrow night.
Like many on the site, I am quite excited to Have A Lovely Day and watch Mad Max: Fury Road so to celebrate the other films have been watched or rewatched... at least that's the case with the first two. I have noticed that not has many have watched this particular film. Me, I have watched the first two a number of times, including in recent times before I saw them again this week.
Thunderdome, I saw last often and I don't even know when I last watched it in full, except that it was a long time ago. I remembered it as being “not that bad” so in no way was I expecting to give this such a low rating before I sat down last night and saw this on Blu. At least the picture looked real good...
As for the reasons why I did not enjoy watching this last night, let me list the main reasons why:
* It seems like this movie was neutered. It might as well have been PG if not for all the swearing and talk of feces. In no way is this like the first two movies in the series; going in another direction is not a sin of itself... unless it's done like this and it seems like “Mad Max, but this time the entire family can watch it”.
* Mad becoming a Christ figure to a bunch of incredibly annoying and irritating children. This just did not work at all and I couldn't stand most of them. Note that this is a big part of the run time.
* What action scenes you do get just aren't as good as in the first two. I do understand why there ended up being two directors for this (more on that later) but it seems like it did not amount to much. Even the big Thunderdome cage fight was more lame than anything else. I don't know what to make of the shocking reveal during the brawl, but the action itself there was more lame than anything else.
* The story itself: just a gigantic mess. You can forget about such things as “character motivations”.
* Why is Bruce Spence back as a pilot but a different character than the gyro pilot he played in The Road Warrior?
* But the biggest issue for me is that I just don't care about the story or what happens in it. I don't give a damn about those kids or the feud over who really controls Bartertown. I couldn't care less.
As for the casting, Tina Turner as the main villain... I guess she was fine but it comes off as incredibly cynical due to the fact that at the time she was experiencing a huge career resurgence. Another singer has a big role, that being the small man known as Angry Anderson as Ironbar. Anderson is the lead singer of Australian rock band Rose Tattoo, who are mostly unknown in America but as I am a nerd I have heard of them before. He was fine as a short bald tattooed dude.
I do feel like a heel saying I did not enjoy this film at all; I do realize that while location scouting Byron Kennedy (the producer who was the Kennedy in Kennedy-Miller Productions) died in a helicopter crash and that obviously was a crushing blow to George Miller to lose a close friend like that by tragic means. That had to be a reason why this had two directors, and George Ogilvie handled the non action scenes.
At the same time, I still have to accurately rate movies even if they have unfortunate moments behind the scenes or there are awful incidents during production, and aside from cool sets, some quality cinematography, the Tina Turner songs and the trademark weirdness of the entire series, this is pretty bad in my eyes; I know people who rate it highly and that's fine; me, I can't get on that train.
It's unfortunate for this movie that a key part of the plot is methane being used as fuel for Bartertown; you see, pigsh*t is literally used to create that, and it's rather easy to say that is what too much of this film is, pigsh*t. At least it is easy for me to pretend that the Max here isn't the famed Max Rockatansky and the series jumps straight from The Road Warrior to the hopefully incredible Fury Road.
Runtime: 107 minutes
Directed by: George Miller... and George Ogilvie
Starring: Mel Gibson, Tina Turner, Bruce Spence, Helen Buday, Tom Jennings
From: Warner Brothers
Yep, I finally saw this movie again late last night... unfortunately. I was not expecting it to be bad as I never remembered it as being bad. I was mistaken. I explain why below and I will return tomorrow night.
Like many on the site, I am quite excited to Have A Lovely Day and watch Mad Max: Fury Road so to celebrate the other films have been watched or rewatched... at least that's the case with the first two. I have noticed that not has many have watched this particular film. Me, I have watched the first two a number of times, including in recent times before I saw them again this week.
Thunderdome, I saw last often and I don't even know when I last watched it in full, except that it was a long time ago. I remembered it as being “not that bad” so in no way was I expecting to give this such a low rating before I sat down last night and saw this on Blu. At least the picture looked real good...
As for the reasons why I did not enjoy watching this last night, let me list the main reasons why:
* It seems like this movie was neutered. It might as well have been PG if not for all the swearing and talk of feces. In no way is this like the first two movies in the series; going in another direction is not a sin of itself... unless it's done like this and it seems like “Mad Max, but this time the entire family can watch it”.
* Mad becoming a Christ figure to a bunch of incredibly annoying and irritating children. This just did not work at all and I couldn't stand most of them. Note that this is a big part of the run time.
* What action scenes you do get just aren't as good as in the first two. I do understand why there ended up being two directors for this (more on that later) but it seems like it did not amount to much. Even the big Thunderdome cage fight was more lame than anything else. I don't know what to make of the shocking reveal during the brawl, but the action itself there was more lame than anything else.
* The story itself: just a gigantic mess. You can forget about such things as “character motivations”.
* Why is Bruce Spence back as a pilot but a different character than the gyro pilot he played in The Road Warrior?
* But the biggest issue for me is that I just don't care about the story or what happens in it. I don't give a damn about those kids or the feud over who really controls Bartertown. I couldn't care less.
As for the casting, Tina Turner as the main villain... I guess she was fine but it comes off as incredibly cynical due to the fact that at the time she was experiencing a huge career resurgence. Another singer has a big role, that being the small man known as Angry Anderson as Ironbar. Anderson is the lead singer of Australian rock band Rose Tattoo, who are mostly unknown in America but as I am a nerd I have heard of them before. He was fine as a short bald tattooed dude.
I do feel like a heel saying I did not enjoy this film at all; I do realize that while location scouting Byron Kennedy (the producer who was the Kennedy in Kennedy-Miller Productions) died in a helicopter crash and that obviously was a crushing blow to George Miller to lose a close friend like that by tragic means. That had to be a reason why this had two directors, and George Ogilvie handled the non action scenes.
At the same time, I still have to accurately rate movies even if they have unfortunate moments behind the scenes or there are awful incidents during production, and aside from cool sets, some quality cinematography, the Tina Turner songs and the trademark weirdness of the entire series, this is pretty bad in my eyes; I know people who rate it highly and that's fine; me, I can't get on that train.
It's unfortunate for this movie that a key part of the plot is methane being used as fuel for Bartertown; you see, pigsh*t is literally used to create that, and it's rather easy to say that is what too much of this film is, pigsh*t. At least it is easy for me to pretend that the Max here isn't the famed Max Rockatansky and the series jumps straight from The Road Warrior to the hopefully incredible Fury Road.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
The Naked Jungle
The Naked Jungle (1954)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Byron Haskin
Starring: Charlton Heston, Eleanor Parker, William Conrad, Abraham Sofaer
From: Paramount
I know, this wasn't what I was expecting to review tonight. Let me explain. So far this week I have watched again Mad Max, The Road Warrior, Silent Night, Deadly Night (as it was randomly on cable late Monday night) and I saw that this was randomly on cable late last night. As I had heard of it before and it's not like there will be many chances to easily see this, I changed my plans. I talk all about this film below in my Letterboxd review and I'll be back tomorrow night.
Like what has happened before I discovered this film when someone talked about it on the Rupert Pupkin Speaks website. It was noted that this is mainly a melodrama with Eleanor Parker going down to a South American cocoa plantation to meet her husband, a man she had never met before and the marriage was set up by his brother... and oh yeah, the man is Charlton Heston. But the big appeal is Marabunta, a gigantic swarm of army ants that lay waste to the countryside and “Charlton Heston vs. ants” sounded pretty funny to me so when I saw it would show on a random cable channel late last night I had to see it.
To be a little more detailed, the setting is 1901 South America (actually filmed either in Hollywood or rural Florida) and Heston is a man named Christopher Leinigen who has spent most of his adult life down there so he has had no time for women and he clearly does not know how to act around them, so he instantly clashes with the strong-willed character played by Parker. Yep, there's plenty of classic sexism here and it's quite quaint to think that a big issue for Heston's character is that Parker's character was briefly married before, nevermind that her husband died due to alcoholism. To be frank for the first part of the film Leinigen is a real jerk and not that appealing. It's only when the threat of the ants (which are a real life thing but of course the movie fudges the facts on them) are introduced that he starts becoming more likable and of course the relationship changes.
The movie is not great but I can still rate it as a solid 3 star affair. When the ants appear there are charmingly quaint 50's effects that are used as you see them pillage everything around them. With the old viewpoints present that are thankfully (mostly) gone from society today, you can look back and shake your head at how things used to be. Oh, and not only is there William “Cannon” Conrad present but there's also a supporting character that's an evil German named... Gruber. Hmmm.
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Byron Haskin
Starring: Charlton Heston, Eleanor Parker, William Conrad, Abraham Sofaer
From: Paramount
I know, this wasn't what I was expecting to review tonight. Let me explain. So far this week I have watched again Mad Max, The Road Warrior, Silent Night, Deadly Night (as it was randomly on cable late Monday night) and I saw that this was randomly on cable late last night. As I had heard of it before and it's not like there will be many chances to easily see this, I changed my plans. I talk all about this film below in my Letterboxd review and I'll be back tomorrow night.
Like what has happened before I discovered this film when someone talked about it on the Rupert Pupkin Speaks website. It was noted that this is mainly a melodrama with Eleanor Parker going down to a South American cocoa plantation to meet her husband, a man she had never met before and the marriage was set up by his brother... and oh yeah, the man is Charlton Heston. But the big appeal is Marabunta, a gigantic swarm of army ants that lay waste to the countryside and “Charlton Heston vs. ants” sounded pretty funny to me so when I saw it would show on a random cable channel late last night I had to see it.
To be a little more detailed, the setting is 1901 South America (actually filmed either in Hollywood or rural Florida) and Heston is a man named Christopher Leinigen who has spent most of his adult life down there so he has had no time for women and he clearly does not know how to act around them, so he instantly clashes with the strong-willed character played by Parker. Yep, there's plenty of classic sexism here and it's quite quaint to think that a big issue for Heston's character is that Parker's character was briefly married before, nevermind that her husband died due to alcoholism. To be frank for the first part of the film Leinigen is a real jerk and not that appealing. It's only when the threat of the ants (which are a real life thing but of course the movie fudges the facts on them) are introduced that he starts becoming more likable and of course the relationship changes.
The movie is not great but I can still rate it as a solid 3 star affair. When the ants appear there are charmingly quaint 50's effects that are used as you see them pillage everything around them. With the old viewpoints present that are thankfully (mostly) gone from society today, you can look back and shake your head at how things used to be. Oh, and not only is there William “Cannon” Conrad present but there's also a supporting character that's an evil German named... Gruber. Hmmm.
Monday, May 11, 2015
My Plans Changed...
I won't go into the details but I ended up not watching what I was going to watch last night. It's OK as tonight I'll rewatch the first two Mad Max films and put better reviews for them on Letterboxd, then on Tuesday night I'll watch Beyond Thunderdome for the first time in years and I'll be back on Wednesday night to review that for here and Letterboxd.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Godzilla vs. Megalon
Godzilla vs. Megalon (Gojira Tai Megaro) (1973)
Runtime: 82 minutes
Directed by: Jun Fukuda
Starring: Katsuhiko Sasaki, Yutaka Hayashi, Hiroyuki Kawase, Robert Dunham
From: Toho
I explain why in the Letterboxd review why now I will be watching the Godzilla movies out of order. There's a good explanation. While this movie isn't that good at least I finally got to see it in full instead of the shorter American print that the majority of people in the United States have seen. I'll be back tomorrow night, with something pretty different.
I know I am now watching the movies in this franchise out of order but it has to happen; I might as well do it now as the last day in May some of the later films that are on Hulu are going to go away so it's best for me that I see them then. Why not watch another movie from the franchise that Hulu provides? And why not see the entry that general consensus says is among the worst entries in said franchise?
This is likely best known in America for either... the skewering MST3K gave it many years ago, the “flying horizontal for 2000 feet before delivering a dropkick... twice” moment or its poster from Cinema Shares, the people who released it in the United States 3 years after it came out in Japan... by this time the King Kong remake had come out so Cinema Shares decided to spoof that poster by creating their own poster which was Godzilla and Megalon fighting each other on top of the World Trade Center; they must have thought, “Who cares if this doesn't actually happen in the film?!” and it is an awesome poster; heaven knows I wish that would have actually been the movie instead of what we got.
Instead, this movie is about Ultraman... er, I mean “Jet Jaguar”, a robot created by two men who have a son (that's the subtext I got, that they're a couple and the young boy who unfortunately keeps the kaiju film tradition alive of wearing too short shorts is their kid), and how the robot has to do battle with Megalon, a beetle-like creature who has drills for hands. It's actually a cool-looking kaiju monster... unfortunately it comes off as being pretty dumb-the bad guys need to steal Jet Jaguar and program him to lead Megalon around as otherwise the creature would be too dopey to know where to go-but alas. It's released by the Seatopians, humanoids who used to live on the Earth's surface but they moved down and are ticked by nuclear testing. Former enemy Gigan also appears. Eventually, Godzilla shows up to save the day.
It seems like a random movie that The Big G was randomly inserted in as otherwise a solo Jet Jaguar film would have bombed... which is actually what happened and it's why it is more about a robot that can magically force itself to grow from human height to kaiju height to fight than Godzilla defending the Earth once again.
The movie is funny bad, sure, but overall it's not too good. While there's such absurdities as the “modern version of what the people from Atlantis would wear” outfits the Seatopians wear, what hurts this movie a lot is how cheap it seems; the fact that a lot of stock footage is used from previous films demonstrates this rather well. Even with there being some decent moments, the monsters fighting each other was cool and the pacing was actually not bad, this is clearly a lesser entry in the franchise.
Runtime: 82 minutes
Directed by: Jun Fukuda
Starring: Katsuhiko Sasaki, Yutaka Hayashi, Hiroyuki Kawase, Robert Dunham
From: Toho
I explain why in the Letterboxd review why now I will be watching the Godzilla movies out of order. There's a good explanation. While this movie isn't that good at least I finally got to see it in full instead of the shorter American print that the majority of people in the United States have seen. I'll be back tomorrow night, with something pretty different.
I know I am now watching the movies in this franchise out of order but it has to happen; I might as well do it now as the last day in May some of the later films that are on Hulu are going to go away so it's best for me that I see them then. Why not watch another movie from the franchise that Hulu provides? And why not see the entry that general consensus says is among the worst entries in said franchise?
This is likely best known in America for either... the skewering MST3K gave it many years ago, the “flying horizontal for 2000 feet before delivering a dropkick... twice” moment or its poster from Cinema Shares, the people who released it in the United States 3 years after it came out in Japan... by this time the King Kong remake had come out so Cinema Shares decided to spoof that poster by creating their own poster which was Godzilla and Megalon fighting each other on top of the World Trade Center; they must have thought, “Who cares if this doesn't actually happen in the film?!” and it is an awesome poster; heaven knows I wish that would have actually been the movie instead of what we got.
Instead, this movie is about Ultraman... er, I mean “Jet Jaguar”, a robot created by two men who have a son (that's the subtext I got, that they're a couple and the young boy who unfortunately keeps the kaiju film tradition alive of wearing too short shorts is their kid), and how the robot has to do battle with Megalon, a beetle-like creature who has drills for hands. It's actually a cool-looking kaiju monster... unfortunately it comes off as being pretty dumb-the bad guys need to steal Jet Jaguar and program him to lead Megalon around as otherwise the creature would be too dopey to know where to go-but alas. It's released by the Seatopians, humanoids who used to live on the Earth's surface but they moved down and are ticked by nuclear testing. Former enemy Gigan also appears. Eventually, Godzilla shows up to save the day.
It seems like a random movie that The Big G was randomly inserted in as otherwise a solo Jet Jaguar film would have bombed... which is actually what happened and it's why it is more about a robot that can magically force itself to grow from human height to kaiju height to fight than Godzilla defending the Earth once again.
The movie is funny bad, sure, but overall it's not too good. While there's such absurdities as the “modern version of what the people from Atlantis would wear” outfits the Seatopians wear, what hurts this movie a lot is how cheap it seems; the fact that a lot of stock footage is used from previous films demonstrates this rather well. Even with there being some decent moments, the monsters fighting each other was cool and the pacing was actually not bad, this is clearly a lesser entry in the franchise.
Saturday, May 9, 2015
National Lampoon's European Vacation
National Lampoon's European Vacation (1985)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Amy Heckerling
Starring: Chevy Chase, Beverly D'Angelo, Dana Hill, Jason Lively
From: Warner Brothers
Considering what I last reviewed, I figured it was best that I see this next. This is something I have seen my fair share of times in my life and while it isn't as good as I used to think it was, I do not think it's bad. My short-ish review is below and I'll return tomorrow night.
Do you want to hear proof that I've seen this movie more than once or twice in my life? When in The Wolf of Wall Street you hear the song Ca Plane Pour Moi from Belgian musician Plastic Bertrand, the first thing I thought was, “Scorsese took a song that was also used in National Lampoon's European Vacation.”
As I watched the original Vacation the day before I figured I should see this too and talk about it. I know this isn't a popular film and I do understand why. It's not as good as the first, the teenaged characters of Rusty and Audrey were more annoying here (and the movie making fun of Audrey's weight is pretty unfortunate, especially considering the actress that played her died young due to complications from diabetes), it's not as strongly plotted, and there are obvious gags/stereotypes they go for (such as the French being rude, Germans loving alcohol or British people being overly polite).
Yet, while the flaws are more apparent now than they were back then, I can still rate this at 3 stars as there's enough laughs for me, the familiar faces (everyone from John Astin and Paul Bartel to Eric Idle and Robbie Coltrane) do help out, and I am amused by that family living up (or down) to the idea of “dumb Americans”. I also appreciate such random moments that were well done such as when the family was on a train and they went out of their way to annoy each other without saying a word.
It may be nostalgia that's coloring my views now but I can still say that I like the film.
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Amy Heckerling
Starring: Chevy Chase, Beverly D'Angelo, Dana Hill, Jason Lively
From: Warner Brothers
Considering what I last reviewed, I figured it was best that I see this next. This is something I have seen my fair share of times in my life and while it isn't as good as I used to think it was, I do not think it's bad. My short-ish review is below and I'll return tomorrow night.
Do you want to hear proof that I've seen this movie more than once or twice in my life? When in The Wolf of Wall Street you hear the song Ca Plane Pour Moi from Belgian musician Plastic Bertrand, the first thing I thought was, “Scorsese took a song that was also used in National Lampoon's European Vacation.”
As I watched the original Vacation the day before I figured I should see this too and talk about it. I know this isn't a popular film and I do understand why. It's not as good as the first, the teenaged characters of Rusty and Audrey were more annoying here (and the movie making fun of Audrey's weight is pretty unfortunate, especially considering the actress that played her died young due to complications from diabetes), it's not as strongly plotted, and there are obvious gags/stereotypes they go for (such as the French being rude, Germans loving alcohol or British people being overly polite).
Yet, while the flaws are more apparent now than they were back then, I can still rate this at 3 stars as there's enough laughs for me, the familiar faces (everyone from John Astin and Paul Bartel to Eric Idle and Robbie Coltrane) do help out, and I am amused by that family living up (or down) to the idea of “dumb Americans”. I also appreciate such random moments that were well done such as when the family was on a train and they went out of their way to annoy each other without saying a word.
It may be nostalgia that's coloring my views now but I can still say that I like the film.
Friday, May 8, 2015
National Lampoon's Vacation
National Lampoon's Vacation (1983)
Runtime: 98 minutes
Directed by: Harold Ramis
Starring: Chevy Chase, Beverly D'Angelo, Imogene Coca, Anthony Michael Hall, Dana Barron
From: Warner Brothers
I was not expecting to review this tonight. However, there's a good reason why; I explain it below in a long Letterboxd review. I'll return tomorrow night.
It was not my original plan to watch this film again today, something I have seen a good number of times in my life.
Then, the red band trailer for the 2015 Vacation movie came out...
Of course for a long while I've known that series was returning, and I wasn't sure what to think about it. I still haven't seen Vegas Vacation in full but the first three I saw often so I have high opinions of them. When I heard the trailer was red band I was quite puzzled, but as I heard no one (people I know or otherwise) say anything about it so I never watched it, and plus I was out and about for a good chunk of the day. Then, late in the night I saw some stills of Chris Hemsworth's character and considering what was highlighted... I was shocked... too shocked to see what in the hell went wrong there. Finally, when I saw someone I know on a messageboard rail against the trailer did I watch it. “NO, just no” is my reaction.
If you haven't watched that trailer, in no way does it come across as a Vacation movie. Instead, just based off of what I saw it's a bunch of vulgarity, gross moments, and scenes where they try to be “cool” by badly representing various trends and themes that are popular today. I thought it was awful and a real garbage attempt at bringing back a beloved property. I think this whole nostalgia thing has gotten WAY out of control as of late but that's another rant for another time. When I see crap like this... it makes me glad I have many thousands of movies from the past I can watch for the first time or see again, and I can be happy to ignore a lot of what passes for entertainment these days.
If nothing else I was inspired to watch this original OG film again, for my entertainment and so I can do a review of it for this site. Now this is what I like. Sure, it's R-rated and there are such things as bare breasts, cursing, and various adult moments. But, nowhere were there such things as Thor sporting a giant... ahem, “hammer”, talk of gross sexual acts, dips in raw sewage, the laziest possible reference to the original property or callbacks to a previous film but done in a “shocking” way as allegedly that is funny. If I sound like an old curmudgeon about this, then I guess I am an old curmudgeon.
Onto this movie; I was glad to watch it again, as it's naturally funny, with many great moments. It's a simple tale of an average family with two teenaged kids driving from Chicago to Los Angeles to visit “Walley World” (a take-off on Disneyland) and all the wacky adventures that happen, from getting lost in the worst parts of St. Louis to meeting up with crazy relatives, running into early 80's Christie Brinkley (a great thing in my eyes) to all the calamities they run into, including spending part of the trip with the loud and blunt Aunt Edna.
I had forgotten how funny this was, directed well by the late Harold Ramis. Besides all the humorous bits (whether it be dialogue or visual puns; their vehicle ) there are also nice moments and you could see that even though there's arguing and fighting, it's a family that does love each other and being around each other; that's something I did not get from seeing that new trailer. I think it was Chevy Chase at his best and the rest of the cast does a swell job, especially veteran of stage and screen Imogene Coca as Aunt Edna.
If there's anything good to come out of what I saw yesterday, it inspired me to watch this (I know of others who did the same thing) and it does remind me of my past. You see, my family literally drove all over the United States as a kid on vacations and while we didn't experience the sorts of calamities that happened here (well, besides my dad sometimes yelling) it does bring back nostalgic feelings of long journeys and getting to see many of the great sites the United States has to offer. That may be part of why I dig the film so much but I am glad to have those nostalgic feelings.
Runtime: 98 minutes
Directed by: Harold Ramis
Starring: Chevy Chase, Beverly D'Angelo, Imogene Coca, Anthony Michael Hall, Dana Barron
From: Warner Brothers
I was not expecting to review this tonight. However, there's a good reason why; I explain it below in a long Letterboxd review. I'll return tomorrow night.
It was not my original plan to watch this film again today, something I have seen a good number of times in my life.
Then, the red band trailer for the 2015 Vacation movie came out...
Of course for a long while I've known that series was returning, and I wasn't sure what to think about it. I still haven't seen Vegas Vacation in full but the first three I saw often so I have high opinions of them. When I heard the trailer was red band I was quite puzzled, but as I heard no one (people I know or otherwise) say anything about it so I never watched it, and plus I was out and about for a good chunk of the day. Then, late in the night I saw some stills of Chris Hemsworth's character and considering what was highlighted... I was shocked... too shocked to see what in the hell went wrong there. Finally, when I saw someone I know on a messageboard rail against the trailer did I watch it. “NO, just no” is my reaction.
If you haven't watched that trailer, in no way does it come across as a Vacation movie. Instead, just based off of what I saw it's a bunch of vulgarity, gross moments, and scenes where they try to be “cool” by badly representing various trends and themes that are popular today. I thought it was awful and a real garbage attempt at bringing back a beloved property. I think this whole nostalgia thing has gotten WAY out of control as of late but that's another rant for another time. When I see crap like this... it makes me glad I have many thousands of movies from the past I can watch for the first time or see again, and I can be happy to ignore a lot of what passes for entertainment these days.
If nothing else I was inspired to watch this original OG film again, for my entertainment and so I can do a review of it for this site. Now this is what I like. Sure, it's R-rated and there are such things as bare breasts, cursing, and various adult moments. But, nowhere were there such things as Thor sporting a giant... ahem, “hammer”, talk of gross sexual acts, dips in raw sewage, the laziest possible reference to the original property or callbacks to a previous film but done in a “shocking” way as allegedly that is funny. If I sound like an old curmudgeon about this, then I guess I am an old curmudgeon.
Onto this movie; I was glad to watch it again, as it's naturally funny, with many great moments. It's a simple tale of an average family with two teenaged kids driving from Chicago to Los Angeles to visit “Walley World” (a take-off on Disneyland) and all the wacky adventures that happen, from getting lost in the worst parts of St. Louis to meeting up with crazy relatives, running into early 80's Christie Brinkley (a great thing in my eyes) to all the calamities they run into, including spending part of the trip with the loud and blunt Aunt Edna.
I had forgotten how funny this was, directed well by the late Harold Ramis. Besides all the humorous bits (whether it be dialogue or visual puns; their vehicle ) there are also nice moments and you could see that even though there's arguing and fighting, it's a family that does love each other and being around each other; that's something I did not get from seeing that new trailer. I think it was Chevy Chase at his best and the rest of the cast does a swell job, especially veteran of stage and screen Imogene Coca as Aunt Edna.
If there's anything good to come out of what I saw yesterday, it inspired me to watch this (I know of others who did the same thing) and it does remind me of my past. You see, my family literally drove all over the United States as a kid on vacations and while we didn't experience the sorts of calamities that happened here (well, besides my dad sometimes yelling) it does bring back nostalgic feelings of long journeys and getting to see many of the great sites the United States has to offer. That may be part of why I dig the film so much but I am glad to have those nostalgic feelings.
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Lifeboat/Crime Wave
Lifeboat (1944)
Runtime: 97 minutes
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
Starring: Tallulah Bankhead, William Bendix, Walter Slezak, Mary Anderson, John Hodiak
From: 20th Century Fox
Crime Wave (1954)
Runtime: 73 minutes
Directed by: Andre De Toth
Starring: Sterling Hayden, Gene Nelson, Phyllis Kirk, Ted de Corsia, and the man best known under the name Charles Bronson
From: Warner Brothers
I know this wasn't what I had planned out but this week I saw those films would be on cable and I figured I should see the former as I hadn't watch a Hitch movie in a few months and the latter was the first film noir I had watched in a few months. I am glad I saw both and I still have time to watch the Mad Max series. It will likely be next week that I see all three in the series before checking out what I hope is an awesome Fury Road. I will be back tomorrow night. First, Lifeboat, then I will talk about Crime Wave.
Somehow, I had missed out on seeing this film until (Tuesday) night when I saw it on an Encore station. This is despite knowing of it for years and being intrigued by the idea that it is entirely set in the ocean on the title vessel. Now that I've seen it, I am finally glad I did.
The story is about how an American ship and a German U-boat sink each other during the hectic times of World War II, and various American and British men and women, along with one African-American man (he unfortunately has the nickname “Charcoal” but otherwise is treated equally compared to everyone else) end up on a giant wooden lifeboat. Suddenly a German man crawls aboard and there's natural distrust but he's allowed to stay on. The rest of the story is the characters interacting with each other in various interesting ways, how they deal with some big events that happen, and of course whether or not you can and should trust a German soldier.
This is a great movie where despite the limited setting and the space to film all those characters in said setting, it's always engrossing and you always believe they are out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and have to drift for days before possibly being rescued. All the people you see are from various strata of society, so that naturally adds conflict and of course there's always suspense and tension with the German man there. You get to see many of those characters change, especially the snooty Connie Porter-played by Tallulah Bankhead-and all the cast does a tremendous job with their roles.
The movie isn't always the easiest watch as it's blunt and some harsh things happen to the characters; Hitch's wit is not a big factor here. Yet, if you can accept that then you really should see this, especially if you love the director and his most famous films. This should be in the discussion of being among the best things he ever directed.
Now, onto Crime Wave.
No, this isn't the weird Sam Raimi film from the mid 80's. This is the 1954 film noir that was on TCM last night and I decided to watch it as I hadn't watched a noir in a few months and this sounded interesting. The plot was intriguing to me: 3 criminals breaking out of jail and hiding out at the place of their former buddy in the slammer, but he's cleaned up his act and got himself a wife, so naturally there's conflict as they force him to work with them. A cop (played by Sterling Hayden) is on the case trying to stop them. I was hoping I would enjoy it and I did.
While this isn't a must-see noir, that is OK as I still liked it. The lead Gene Nelson wasn't the most enthralling film noir lead so that's probably why this is the only one he made. However, the rest of the cast is admirable; Phyllis Kirk does a nice job as the lead's wife; she is also the focus as he wishes to protect her from any harm. The rest of the cast has some familiar faces, such as Ted de Corsia and a man known then as Charles Buchinsky, as the leather jacket wearing tough guy of the villainous trio. It was shortly after this that he changed his surname to... Bronson.
The story is also in part a police procedural, and I did find that interesting among the rest of it, which was a somewhat standard tale of a man trying to protect his wife against his bad past coming back to haunt him. What was a big asset was that director Andre De Toth filmed it rather well, the camera going all around in interesting ways and helping you understand what the characters are feeling. I suppose I should also give credit to Director of Photography Bert Glennon.
Like I said this isn't a film noir you must watch; however, it still was an entertaining-and short at not even 75 minutes-motion picture in my eyes.
Runtime: 97 minutes
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
Starring: Tallulah Bankhead, William Bendix, Walter Slezak, Mary Anderson, John Hodiak
From: 20th Century Fox
Crime Wave (1954)
Runtime: 73 minutes
Directed by: Andre De Toth
Starring: Sterling Hayden, Gene Nelson, Phyllis Kirk, Ted de Corsia, and the man best known under the name Charles Bronson
From: Warner Brothers
I know this wasn't what I had planned out but this week I saw those films would be on cable and I figured I should see the former as I hadn't watch a Hitch movie in a few months and the latter was the first film noir I had watched in a few months. I am glad I saw both and I still have time to watch the Mad Max series. It will likely be next week that I see all three in the series before checking out what I hope is an awesome Fury Road. I will be back tomorrow night. First, Lifeboat, then I will talk about Crime Wave.
Somehow, I had missed out on seeing this film until (Tuesday) night when I saw it on an Encore station. This is despite knowing of it for years and being intrigued by the idea that it is entirely set in the ocean on the title vessel. Now that I've seen it, I am finally glad I did.
The story is about how an American ship and a German U-boat sink each other during the hectic times of World War II, and various American and British men and women, along with one African-American man (he unfortunately has the nickname “Charcoal” but otherwise is treated equally compared to everyone else) end up on a giant wooden lifeboat. Suddenly a German man crawls aboard and there's natural distrust but he's allowed to stay on. The rest of the story is the characters interacting with each other in various interesting ways, how they deal with some big events that happen, and of course whether or not you can and should trust a German soldier.
This is a great movie where despite the limited setting and the space to film all those characters in said setting, it's always engrossing and you always believe they are out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and have to drift for days before possibly being rescued. All the people you see are from various strata of society, so that naturally adds conflict and of course there's always suspense and tension with the German man there. You get to see many of those characters change, especially the snooty Connie Porter-played by Tallulah Bankhead-and all the cast does a tremendous job with their roles.
The movie isn't always the easiest watch as it's blunt and some harsh things happen to the characters; Hitch's wit is not a big factor here. Yet, if you can accept that then you really should see this, especially if you love the director and his most famous films. This should be in the discussion of being among the best things he ever directed.
Now, onto Crime Wave.
No, this isn't the weird Sam Raimi film from the mid 80's. This is the 1954 film noir that was on TCM last night and I decided to watch it as I hadn't watched a noir in a few months and this sounded interesting. The plot was intriguing to me: 3 criminals breaking out of jail and hiding out at the place of their former buddy in the slammer, but he's cleaned up his act and got himself a wife, so naturally there's conflict as they force him to work with them. A cop (played by Sterling Hayden) is on the case trying to stop them. I was hoping I would enjoy it and I did.
While this isn't a must-see noir, that is OK as I still liked it. The lead Gene Nelson wasn't the most enthralling film noir lead so that's probably why this is the only one he made. However, the rest of the cast is admirable; Phyllis Kirk does a nice job as the lead's wife; she is also the focus as he wishes to protect her from any harm. The rest of the cast has some familiar faces, such as Ted de Corsia and a man known then as Charles Buchinsky, as the leather jacket wearing tough guy of the villainous trio. It was shortly after this that he changed his surname to... Bronson.
The story is also in part a police procedural, and I did find that interesting among the rest of it, which was a somewhat standard tale of a man trying to protect his wife against his bad past coming back to haunt him. What was a big asset was that director Andre De Toth filmed it rather well, the camera going all around in interesting ways and helping you understand what the characters are feeling. I suppose I should also give credit to Director of Photography Bert Glennon.
Like I said this isn't a film noir you must watch; however, it still was an entertaining-and short at not even 75 minutes-motion picture in my eyes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)