Licence to Kill (1989)
Runtime: 133 minutes
Directed by: John Glen
Starring: Timothy Dalton, Robert Davi, Carey Lowell, Talisa Soto, Anthony Zerbe
From: MGM
Here is a new Bond review from me, as I actually never reviewed this, as the last time I saw this was many years ago. I am not sure why, as I enjoyed it then and I enjoy it now. Next week I'll review again the Daniel Craig movies on Letterboxd and I would have seen all of them again before watching SPECTRE on the big screen. I explain my enjoyment in my Letterboxd review below:
Here is the last Bond movie before SPECTRE that I am reviewing anew here, as I never put up even a super-brief review of it when I first joined the site almost 3 years ago, as the last time I saw this was quite a few years ago. Why I did not watch this again sooner I cannot adequately explain, as I enjoyed it back then and I enjoyed it now. I understand those that are “eh” on it, whether it's due to Timothy Dalton's serious portrayal of 007 or how this contrasts with most of the series in how it's dark and a ruthless tale of Bond getting revenge; Lord knows I personally think that this is far better than Quantum of Solace, another story where 007 is looking for retaliation; wait until I review that again sometime next week and I have a lot to say about that.
As for Licence to Kill, the plot is that Bond is in Key West, attending the wedding of Felix Leiter (or, as I like to think, the dude who currently has the codename of Felix Leiter); right before that they bust a huge drug dealer named Sanchez. He uses his connections to escape and Leiter is maimed... and the wife is killed. As 007 knows both and he said that he's worked with Leiter often, he wants to take down Sanchez; he gets suspended from the service but he's all YOLO and he's on the run.
This is both the first and last when it comes to the series in various ways. This is the final film for quite a few of the cast & crew involved in the franchise for a long time... Maurice Binder, John Glen (doing all the movies in the 80's and that quintet are all different from each other; whether you think that's good or bad when it comes to the director is up to you), writer Richard Maibaum, editor John Glover, and even Albert R. Broccoli... and of course Dalton in the lead; as I have said in other reviews, he never got a fair shake and due to circumstances beyond his control he was given only two shots at it. As others have noted, the summer of '89 was massive with such things as Batman, the third Indiana Jones, Lethal Weapon, and such non-action movies as Honey, I Shrunk the Kids and Look Who's Talking. This movie got lost among all that chaos.
However, this was the first PG-13 Bond (and it almost got an R due to some gruesome moments) and it seems more serious due to how there were some big R-rated action flicks that were released the past few years and they raised the bar for spectacle... I am talking about such things as Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Predator, and Robocop, nevermind what they were doing in Hong Kong. This is not as great as those Hollywood classics, but there's nothing wrong with that as hey, they're classics and it's quite difficult to be as glorious as those motion pictures. Plus, there are plenty of people who aren't big fans of the Daniel Craig version of Bond... which I do understand; however, I understand that many more did not care for the character having a harder edge in 1989; I guess it was just too early to try such a thing. At least the PG-13 rating was permanent after this, as it was the time to do so.
As for the story, I was definitely entertained by it; the fact that I've been in Key West, Florida (where the opening act takes place) a few times before in my life does help but it is a pretty unique and awesome place. They then moved on to a fictional Central American country, which was Mexico in disguise. Those scenic views were appreciated by me, and also appropriate for a storyline where the villain is a drug dealer; I know it wasn't too original by the time the film came out but it still worked for me.
The cast, I definitely enjoyed it. Dalton was pretty rad but it was the familiar faces from the various action and/or B movies I've seen through the years that made me happy. There's Robert Davi as Sanchez, Anthony Zerbe, “that guy” Frank McRae, Anthony Starke, Everett McGill, Priscilla Barnes, Pedro Armendariz Jr. (it was especially nice seeing him as his dad had a key role in From Russia With Love), Don Stroud, Grand L. Bush and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa. I also knew Carey Lowell and Talisa Soto from elsewhere. I know there are plenty who don't like the performances of those gals or the characters they played, but I thought that they were fine. As for Wayne Newton... I'll never not think of him as a wacky human being due to him being Wayne Newton and an over the top Las Vegas performer. But he was also fine in a role where his character was named Professor Joe Butcher, who was actually a (typical) sleazy televangelist. Oh, and there was someone who became much more famous later, and that was Benicio Del Toro in a supporting role.
It's pretty ridiculous and yet I will not complain with that. There are some quality stunts and big action scenes and I certainly did dig the massive explosions or the death-defying moments. Again, it wasn't quite as astounding as some of the crazy things you saw in other films of the time and yet it was still thrilling to watch. And not to give too much away but seeing the most of Q in the entire franchise is always a good thing.
Not a good thing were the opening credit and closing credit songs from Gladys Knight and Patti LaBelle; both ladies are cool and all and yet the tunes are meh. The score from Michael Kamen was typical of what he did among the other big late 80's extravaganzas he composed; I just am not sure if it fit here. Still, this is a flick that will always be enjoyed by me. When there are obvious allusions to such thing as Yojimbo and the ronin genre... I won't wait so long before seeing it again, let me put it that way.
Friday, October 30, 2015
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Dracula... and Dracula
Dracula (1931)
Runtime: 75 minutes
Directed by: Tod Browning (but cinematographer Karl Freund did a lot of the actual directing, or at least that's the rumor)
Starring: Bela Lugosi, Helen Chandler, David Manners, Dwight Frye, Edward Van Sloan
From: Universal
Dracula (1931)
Runtime: 104 minutes
Directed by: George Medford/Enrique Tovar Avalos
Starring: Carlos Villarias, Lupita Tovar, Barry Norton, Pablo Alvarez Rubio, Eduardo Arozamena
From: Universal
This is what I saw Sunday night in a movie theatre, two versions of 1931's Dracula. I explain why there's an English and a Spanish version in my Letterboxd reviews below, the Browning version first:
Sunday night via Turner Classic Movies and Fathom Events I got to watch a double feature of both this version of 1931 Dracula and the Spanish language version, which I'll post a review of in a few hours. I had seen both before on DVD but that was years ago so I figured this would be the perfect way to watch both again. Attendance wasn't great where I was at to see this, but that is alright.
I presume most are familiar with Bram Stoker's take so there's no need for me to spend much time recapping the plot revolving around Dracula meeting up with Renfield, him becoming insane as the big D's new follower, him ending up in England, him going after Mina, Dr. Van Helsing attempting to stop his reign of terror, etc.
There are some things that could be carped about, from the hammy acting to how it is apparent that the version which exists today is edited down from what it originally premiered at; I presume the longer version is lost to time forever, and it is unfortunate as it makes the plot move too fast at times and there's a danging plot thread or two. Also, I am not sure why armadillos were included in the menagerie of animals in Dracula's castle. Yet I can still rate this highly.
A big asset is the production design; there are some awesome sets and along with how this movie is done, that helps set the mood and atmosphere. The lack of film score adds to the eeriness. But the best part is Bela Lugosi in the title role. He was Hungarian but was born in Romania not too far from Transylvania so it's not a stretch to imagine him being a resident of that area, but it is his performance that is tremendous. He is filmed pretty well by director Tod Browning but it is his acting that made his performance legendary. He's what you'd expect Dracula to be, which is equal parts menacing, charming and seductive to the ladies. While I was amused by Dwight Frye and his over the top performance as the now insane Renfield and Edward Van Sloan was cool as Dr. Van Helsing, it is Lugosi that is the definite highlight. His real life fate and how he ended up addicted to drugs and in the twilight of his life having to work in Ed Wood movies... a shame.
Anyhow, not to spoil my review of the Spanish language version of Dracula but both are worth seeing as they each have their strengths and weaknesses.
Now, here's the Spanish version:
As I mentioned in my review of the Bela Lugosi Dracula, Sunday night (and also tomorrow) Turner Classic Movies and Fathom Events presented that version and this version on the big screen back to back; I had seen both before but that was years ago and as I imagine this is rarely shown in a theatre, I made sure not to miss this opportunity.
Aside from some minor changes this is pretty similar to the Browning Dracula and thus the original Bram Stoker tale. So let me message that in the early days of sound, sometimes there'd be a foreign language version of a Hollywood movie; I presume that the process of dubbing was too complicated at the time so that's the route they went, and once that became easier it was just easier and cheaper to do that instead of film an entirely new movie. I also presume that most of these foreign language versions have been lost and gone forever for many years; it wasn't until the 70's that a copy of this was found, and a few minutes of the film look quite bad compared to the rest.
It has been a popular thing for years to say that this is actually better than the Lugosi version; me, I say that the two have their strengths and weaknesses and they should both be watched if at all possible. This is a half hour longer, which for the most part (but not all the time) is a benefit as it further explains some things and it also adds more characterization. It it shot differently; whether it's for the better or worse is up to you. Eva (i.e. Mina) as played by Lupita Tover is very interesting and is played quite well. By the way, Ms. Tovar is 105 years old and is still alive, which was a big surprise to me when that factoid was mentioned after the movie.
It's just unfortunate that while Carlos Villarias was fine in the title role, compared to Lugosi's performance it is clear that old Bela was the better of the two. Plus, I realized this in the middle of the movie that Carlos looked like... Nic Cage! It makes me sad that we likely will never get to see Nicolas Cage as Dracula as that sounds like something which should be amazing, especially if he plays the role the same that he did in Vampire's Kiss... although if he did that he'd be more in line to play Renfield; to think that the actor who played that role in the Spanish movie was even more over the top than in the American film.
I say that the Browning directed movie is just a little bit better than this but like I said, both should be seen so that you can make your own decision between the two.
Runtime: 75 minutes
Directed by: Tod Browning (but cinematographer Karl Freund did a lot of the actual directing, or at least that's the rumor)
Starring: Bela Lugosi, Helen Chandler, David Manners, Dwight Frye, Edward Van Sloan
From: Universal
Dracula (1931)
Runtime: 104 minutes
Directed by: George Medford/Enrique Tovar Avalos
Starring: Carlos Villarias, Lupita Tovar, Barry Norton, Pablo Alvarez Rubio, Eduardo Arozamena
From: Universal
This is what I saw Sunday night in a movie theatre, two versions of 1931's Dracula. I explain why there's an English and a Spanish version in my Letterboxd reviews below, the Browning version first:
Sunday night via Turner Classic Movies and Fathom Events I got to watch a double feature of both this version of 1931 Dracula and the Spanish language version, which I'll post a review of in a few hours. I had seen both before on DVD but that was years ago so I figured this would be the perfect way to watch both again. Attendance wasn't great where I was at to see this, but that is alright.
I presume most are familiar with Bram Stoker's take so there's no need for me to spend much time recapping the plot revolving around Dracula meeting up with Renfield, him becoming insane as the big D's new follower, him ending up in England, him going after Mina, Dr. Van Helsing attempting to stop his reign of terror, etc.
There are some things that could be carped about, from the hammy acting to how it is apparent that the version which exists today is edited down from what it originally premiered at; I presume the longer version is lost to time forever, and it is unfortunate as it makes the plot move too fast at times and there's a danging plot thread or two. Also, I am not sure why armadillos were included in the menagerie of animals in Dracula's castle. Yet I can still rate this highly.
A big asset is the production design; there are some awesome sets and along with how this movie is done, that helps set the mood and atmosphere. The lack of film score adds to the eeriness. But the best part is Bela Lugosi in the title role. He was Hungarian but was born in Romania not too far from Transylvania so it's not a stretch to imagine him being a resident of that area, but it is his performance that is tremendous. He is filmed pretty well by director Tod Browning but it is his acting that made his performance legendary. He's what you'd expect Dracula to be, which is equal parts menacing, charming and seductive to the ladies. While I was amused by Dwight Frye and his over the top performance as the now insane Renfield and Edward Van Sloan was cool as Dr. Van Helsing, it is Lugosi that is the definite highlight. His real life fate and how he ended up addicted to drugs and in the twilight of his life having to work in Ed Wood movies... a shame.
Anyhow, not to spoil my review of the Spanish language version of Dracula but both are worth seeing as they each have their strengths and weaknesses.
Now, here's the Spanish version:
As I mentioned in my review of the Bela Lugosi Dracula, Sunday night (and also tomorrow) Turner Classic Movies and Fathom Events presented that version and this version on the big screen back to back; I had seen both before but that was years ago and as I imagine this is rarely shown in a theatre, I made sure not to miss this opportunity.
Aside from some minor changes this is pretty similar to the Browning Dracula and thus the original Bram Stoker tale. So let me message that in the early days of sound, sometimes there'd be a foreign language version of a Hollywood movie; I presume that the process of dubbing was too complicated at the time so that's the route they went, and once that became easier it was just easier and cheaper to do that instead of film an entirely new movie. I also presume that most of these foreign language versions have been lost and gone forever for many years; it wasn't until the 70's that a copy of this was found, and a few minutes of the film look quite bad compared to the rest.
It has been a popular thing for years to say that this is actually better than the Lugosi version; me, I say that the two have their strengths and weaknesses and they should both be watched if at all possible. This is a half hour longer, which for the most part (but not all the time) is a benefit as it further explains some things and it also adds more characterization. It it shot differently; whether it's for the better or worse is up to you. Eva (i.e. Mina) as played by Lupita Tover is very interesting and is played quite well. By the way, Ms. Tovar is 105 years old and is still alive, which was a big surprise to me when that factoid was mentioned after the movie.
It's just unfortunate that while Carlos Villarias was fine in the title role, compared to Lugosi's performance it is clear that old Bela was the better of the two. Plus, I realized this in the middle of the movie that Carlos looked like... Nic Cage! It makes me sad that we likely will never get to see Nicolas Cage as Dracula as that sounds like something which should be amazing, especially if he plays the role the same that he did in Vampire's Kiss... although if he did that he'd be more in line to play Renfield; to think that the actor who played that role in the Spanish movie was even more over the top than in the American film.
I say that the Browning directed movie is just a little bit better than this but like I said, both should be seen so that you can make your own decision between the two.
Die Another Day
Die Another Day (2002)
Runtime: 132 minutes
Directed by: Lee Tamahori
Starring: Pierce Brosnan, Halle Berry, Toby Stephens, Rosamund Pike, Rick Yune
From: MGM
Yes, I finally watched this movie for a second time to review online. I mean, the last-and first-time I saw this was on DVD years ago. I did not want to see this again as it was bad; seeing it for a second time last night, this was even worse than I had recalled. The Letterboxd review is below explaining my opinion:
Even if I have to see Spectre a few days after it comes out here in the States (it's only a week and a half away; it snuck up on me), I will finish rewatching all the 007 pictures before checking that one out. I'll admit that some of them I am reviewing here for the first time, including this one; I have only seen it once in full and that was years ago; I had no desire to see it again soon so that is why it is just now I am giving it a second viewing. Was it as bad as I had remembered it? Yes, yes it is. In fact, even worse than the memories I had of it.
The plot, it's still pretty bad. It is an absolute mess involving a dude with diamonds in his face, a weird dude named Gustav Graves, a walking stereotype in the character that Halle Berry played... it's really not worth discussing in detail, except that almost from the very beginning the movie makes little sense. Really movie, a hovercraft wouldn't set off a landmine if you go over it? It gets far more illogical from there, into science fiction territory, with such things as the gene therapy clinic as presented in the film (changing your own DNA to the point that you become another race? That's likely the stupidest plot point, not only in this movie but the entire franchise), invisible cars, that ice palace, Bond stopping his own heart from beating, and all the rest. You can appear out of nowhere and within the year become knighted by the British government? I don't think so. Then, there's Madonna's extended cameo, which was at least better than that awful title song she did. That should have been what Bond had to listen to as he was being tortured for 14 months in a North Korean gulag.
The movie is just poorly done, with a dunderheaded plot, many dopey moments (why do we sometimes get slow motion?), and some pretty terrible CGI; I hear that even Brosnan himself shakes his head at “that one surfing scene”, which I say is the nadir of all the Bond pictures. Now, there are some decent ideas in the film, but they're squandered, such as North Korea being the new evil power and especially the ramifications of 007 being held captive and tortured for over a year. And, the “big bad weapon” being pretty much the same thing that they used a few times before in the 60's and 70's is disappointing.
The settings of North Korea (actually... the UK? Apparently so), Cuba (actually Spain) and Iceland are fine and all; I just wish they would have been in a better picture. As it was the 40th anniversary of 007 films there are tributes to all the previous 19 movies throughout; a lot are subtle so at least they aren't distracting and the franchise has its own Wikia site and on the page for this film they list them all if you really care to see them.
Overall, despite a few moments, this is the worst of the entire series. I don't know what they were doing... or maybe I do; They must have been trying to be "hip" and comparable to some of the idiotic action films that came out around the time. To spout a cliché, it looked as if they had lost their way. I mean, a spin-off film with that lame character Berry played? Thank Christ they never went with that; it was only MGM balking that prevented what would have been a pretty atrocious movie from happening. A change was probably needed. Doing things completely different and giving us the Daniel Craig films... there are plenty of people who don't care for those as they're so different in tone and style from the previous 20 and even I am not fully sure it was the right move... but I can talk more about that when I review those flicks.
Being so bad and misguided that you caused a seismic change in a franchise that had little change through 40 years and 20 movies, that is quite the feat. I just wish that old Pierce would have been in better films overall as I have no complaint about him or his performance as Bond.
Runtime: 132 minutes
Directed by: Lee Tamahori
Starring: Pierce Brosnan, Halle Berry, Toby Stephens, Rosamund Pike, Rick Yune
From: MGM
Yes, I finally watched this movie for a second time to review online. I mean, the last-and first-time I saw this was on DVD years ago. I did not want to see this again as it was bad; seeing it for a second time last night, this was even worse than I had recalled. The Letterboxd review is below explaining my opinion:
Even if I have to see Spectre a few days after it comes out here in the States (it's only a week and a half away; it snuck up on me), I will finish rewatching all the 007 pictures before checking that one out. I'll admit that some of them I am reviewing here for the first time, including this one; I have only seen it once in full and that was years ago; I had no desire to see it again soon so that is why it is just now I am giving it a second viewing. Was it as bad as I had remembered it? Yes, yes it is. In fact, even worse than the memories I had of it.
The plot, it's still pretty bad. It is an absolute mess involving a dude with diamonds in his face, a weird dude named Gustav Graves, a walking stereotype in the character that Halle Berry played... it's really not worth discussing in detail, except that almost from the very beginning the movie makes little sense. Really movie, a hovercraft wouldn't set off a landmine if you go over it? It gets far more illogical from there, into science fiction territory, with such things as the gene therapy clinic as presented in the film (changing your own DNA to the point that you become another race? That's likely the stupidest plot point, not only in this movie but the entire franchise), invisible cars, that ice palace, Bond stopping his own heart from beating, and all the rest. You can appear out of nowhere and within the year become knighted by the British government? I don't think so. Then, there's Madonna's extended cameo, which was at least better than that awful title song she did. That should have been what Bond had to listen to as he was being tortured for 14 months in a North Korean gulag.
The movie is just poorly done, with a dunderheaded plot, many dopey moments (why do we sometimes get slow motion?), and some pretty terrible CGI; I hear that even Brosnan himself shakes his head at “that one surfing scene”, which I say is the nadir of all the Bond pictures. Now, there are some decent ideas in the film, but they're squandered, such as North Korea being the new evil power and especially the ramifications of 007 being held captive and tortured for over a year. And, the “big bad weapon” being pretty much the same thing that they used a few times before in the 60's and 70's is disappointing.
The settings of North Korea (actually... the UK? Apparently so), Cuba (actually Spain) and Iceland are fine and all; I just wish they would have been in a better picture. As it was the 40th anniversary of 007 films there are tributes to all the previous 19 movies throughout; a lot are subtle so at least they aren't distracting and the franchise has its own Wikia site and on the page for this film they list them all if you really care to see them.
Overall, despite a few moments, this is the worst of the entire series. I don't know what they were doing... or maybe I do; They must have been trying to be "hip" and comparable to some of the idiotic action films that came out around the time. To spout a cliché, it looked as if they had lost their way. I mean, a spin-off film with that lame character Berry played? Thank Christ they never went with that; it was only MGM balking that prevented what would have been a pretty atrocious movie from happening. A change was probably needed. Doing things completely different and giving us the Daniel Craig films... there are plenty of people who don't care for those as they're so different in tone and style from the previous 20 and even I am not fully sure it was the right move... but I can talk more about that when I review those flicks.
Being so bad and misguided that you caused a seismic change in a franchise that had little change through 40 years and 20 movies, that is quite the feat. I just wish that old Pierce would have been in better films overall as I have no complaint about him or his performance as Bond.
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Porco Rosso
Porco Rosso (Kurenai No Buta) (1992)
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Hayao Miyazaki
Starring: This is a cartoon, and I doubt anyone would know the original Japanese voices
From: Studio Ghibli
I finally saw another Studio Ghibli film; this one happened to be a rental from the local library. I thought it was fine but nothing more. I watched the subtitled version instead of the dubbed version where Michael Keaton voices a human-pig... although the thought of such a thing is so wacky... anyhow, my Letterboxd review of this is below:
As I slowly (but hopefully I'll start picking up the pace) go through the Studio Ghibli catalogue, I was planning on it being more in chronological order. However, when I saw that my local library had a copy of this for free and I am pretty sure this is the only thing they have from the studio, I figured I should check it out for the week. After watching it... at least I know that just about all the films from Ghibli will be bigger and better than this one was.
I figured the plot would be different as one of the production companies was Japan Airlines; this was originally going to be a short before they changed their minds and it became feature length. The setting is real life: the Mediterranean area of the 1930's, where fascism is just around the corner. It deals with a former World War I pilot turned bounty hunter called the Crimson Pig who goes after “air pirates” that attack ships. He has an American rival in Curtiss and he forms an uneasy alliance with a 17 year old named Fio who is the granddaughter of his mechanic.
Oh, and this Crimson Pig is literally that, an anthropomorphic pig who was changed from a human to swine during the war and everyone else in the world is human and most don't seem to notice or care that there's an anthropomorphic pig walking around, occasionally acting like an A-hole. Personally, that was too much absurdity for me. Then, there's the story being quite slight, especially when compared to what I've heard about the stories of most Ghibli movies.
However, at least I can rate this as 3 stars. The world is interesting, Fio is a pretty cool character (although a big plot point being that many adult men pine after her and note her attractiveness... a little creepy) and the animation is nicely done. While I have some story issues at least the world filled with pilots-many of them less than virtuous-and a cool bar/nightclub run by strong-willed Gina (another character I enjoyed) and who can happen to belt out a tune... that sounds like a cool world to live in aside from knowing that fascism will soon invade. Such touches did help make me enjoy this more than I normally would have.
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Hayao Miyazaki
Starring: This is a cartoon, and I doubt anyone would know the original Japanese voices
From: Studio Ghibli
I finally saw another Studio Ghibli film; this one happened to be a rental from the local library. I thought it was fine but nothing more. I watched the subtitled version instead of the dubbed version where Michael Keaton voices a human-pig... although the thought of such a thing is so wacky... anyhow, my Letterboxd review of this is below:
As I slowly (but hopefully I'll start picking up the pace) go through the Studio Ghibli catalogue, I was planning on it being more in chronological order. However, when I saw that my local library had a copy of this for free and I am pretty sure this is the only thing they have from the studio, I figured I should check it out for the week. After watching it... at least I know that just about all the films from Ghibli will be bigger and better than this one was.
I figured the plot would be different as one of the production companies was Japan Airlines; this was originally going to be a short before they changed their minds and it became feature length. The setting is real life: the Mediterranean area of the 1930's, where fascism is just around the corner. It deals with a former World War I pilot turned bounty hunter called the Crimson Pig who goes after “air pirates” that attack ships. He has an American rival in Curtiss and he forms an uneasy alliance with a 17 year old named Fio who is the granddaughter of his mechanic.
Oh, and this Crimson Pig is literally that, an anthropomorphic pig who was changed from a human to swine during the war and everyone else in the world is human and most don't seem to notice or care that there's an anthropomorphic pig walking around, occasionally acting like an A-hole. Personally, that was too much absurdity for me. Then, there's the story being quite slight, especially when compared to what I've heard about the stories of most Ghibli movies.
However, at least I can rate this as 3 stars. The world is interesting, Fio is a pretty cool character (although a big plot point being that many adult men pine after her and note her attractiveness... a little creepy) and the animation is nicely done. While I have some story issues at least the world filled with pilots-many of them less than virtuous-and a cool bar/nightclub run by strong-willed Gina (another character I enjoyed) and who can happen to belt out a tune... that sounds like a cool world to live in aside from knowing that fascism will soon invade. Such touches did help make me enjoy this more than I normally would have.
Friday, October 23, 2015
Bone Tomahawk
Bone Tomahawk (2015)
87% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 31 reviews)
Runtime: 132 minutes (not a misprint)
Directed by: S. Craig Zahler
Starring: Kurt Russell, Patrick Wilson, Richard Jenkins, Matthew Fox, Lili Simmons
From: Several different independent companies
This movie just came out today and I saw it already, albeit via an Amazon rental rather than seeing it theatrically; it opened only in like a dozen different cities, none of them in Florida so that was what I had to do instead. My Letterboxd review is below:
It's rare I watch something on VOD the same day that it starts in limited release at only a few theatre screens across the country, but then again this is a film I've heard a lot about this year due to various messageboards and Twitter accounts I follow that'd be interested in such things as a horror Western starring Kurt Russell (no relation... unfortunately) and having a nice cast of familiar faces from Richard Jenkins, Patrick Wilson, a lovely lady in Lili Simmons, Matthew Fox, and genre people like Sid Haig, David Arquette, Michael Pare, Sean Young and even James Tolkan. While after watching this I know that some of those actors only appear in the film briefly, it's still a nice cast.
The plot: a pair of people are kidnapped and a wacky quartet of the sheriff (Russell), a nicely dressed gunslinger (Fox), the husband (Wilson) of the woman that's kidnapped and he happens to have a broken leg, and an old assistant deputy (Jenkins) who means well but at times comes off as being a bit “slow”. Did I mention that the people who did the kidnapping were strange cannibalistic freaks who were described as Troglodytes? It's sort of like The Searchers, although in that film John Wayne never had to battle cannibals.
So yeah the movie is already odd, and then you take into account that this is 132 minutes long... it is definitely more a Western than a horror film, although when there are graphic moments, they are indeed pretty graphic and what I thought was nice was that it was all practical effects rather than CGI. The runtime means that this has a leisurely pace, but I am alright with that. You do get to know the quartet and they're all interesting characters and watching them interact with each other was enjoyable. The fact that they're all talented actors does help also. There are some odd moments that don't always work-it has to be noted that there is comedy sprinkled throughout-but otherwise I was engrossed with this.
As this just came out today I don't want to say too much else lest I give away any potential spoilers. I'll just say that it gets pretty ridiculous at times; even with that, I did enjoy this nicely shot tale that takes a different look at the Western... and also allows Russell to sport some tremendous facial hair.
87% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 31 reviews)
Runtime: 132 minutes (not a misprint)
Directed by: S. Craig Zahler
Starring: Kurt Russell, Patrick Wilson, Richard Jenkins, Matthew Fox, Lili Simmons
From: Several different independent companies
This movie just came out today and I saw it already, albeit via an Amazon rental rather than seeing it theatrically; it opened only in like a dozen different cities, none of them in Florida so that was what I had to do instead. My Letterboxd review is below:
It's rare I watch something on VOD the same day that it starts in limited release at only a few theatre screens across the country, but then again this is a film I've heard a lot about this year due to various messageboards and Twitter accounts I follow that'd be interested in such things as a horror Western starring Kurt Russell (no relation... unfortunately) and having a nice cast of familiar faces from Richard Jenkins, Patrick Wilson, a lovely lady in Lili Simmons, Matthew Fox, and genre people like Sid Haig, David Arquette, Michael Pare, Sean Young and even James Tolkan. While after watching this I know that some of those actors only appear in the film briefly, it's still a nice cast.
The plot: a pair of people are kidnapped and a wacky quartet of the sheriff (Russell), a nicely dressed gunslinger (Fox), the husband (Wilson) of the woman that's kidnapped and he happens to have a broken leg, and an old assistant deputy (Jenkins) who means well but at times comes off as being a bit “slow”. Did I mention that the people who did the kidnapping were strange cannibalistic freaks who were described as Troglodytes? It's sort of like The Searchers, although in that film John Wayne never had to battle cannibals.
So yeah the movie is already odd, and then you take into account that this is 132 minutes long... it is definitely more a Western than a horror film, although when there are graphic moments, they are indeed pretty graphic and what I thought was nice was that it was all practical effects rather than CGI. The runtime means that this has a leisurely pace, but I am alright with that. You do get to know the quartet and they're all interesting characters and watching them interact with each other was enjoyable. The fact that they're all talented actors does help also. There are some odd moments that don't always work-it has to be noted that there is comedy sprinkled throughout-but otherwise I was engrossed with this.
As this just came out today I don't want to say too much else lest I give away any potential spoilers. I'll just say that it gets pretty ridiculous at times; even with that, I did enjoy this nicely shot tale that takes a different look at the Western... and also allows Russell to sport some tremendous facial hair.
I Watched All Three Back To The Future Films
Sadly I am doing it at this hour and not in my usual format as the chord on my laptop stopped working and a new one has not arrived in the mail yet. So I have had to use other computers and it's just a huge hassle. So, the reviews for all three will be in this one post.
Back to the Future:
As (Wednesday) was October 21, 2015, plenty of different entities celebrated the Back to the Future franchise due to part of the second film partially taking place on that date. This includes various theatre chains across the world showing one or all of the movies; the Cinemark chain showed it in a marathon, and some spots on a giant XD screen. I made about a 2 hour round trip to see it that way, and while they obviously did not know it'd be that popular (considering how understaffed the concessions were in the two breaks between the films), at least it was a nice turnout and there wasn't too much idiocy. Throughout the day I'll post the reviews to all three films.
I'll be honest and say that when I was younger, while I saw all three films and enjoyed them they weren't watched often... which apparently puts me in a minority, at least that's what it looks like. But that is OK as I at least still dig them as an adult. I say that the original is still the best. Sure, the Oedipal subplot with Marty's mom falling in love with him is still pretty weird (and the reason why Disney-among other studios-didn't make the movie themselves) but then again a lot of weird things happened in the 1980's. Certainly, dorky white kid Marty McFly inspiring Chuck Berry with his sound and thus he ends up being a catalyst for the popularity of rock and roll... well, that plays differently now than it did back 30 years ago, and I won't get into the whole “racism!” debate. Let's not talk about the key part of the plot is that Doc Brown stole plutonium from Libyan terrorists; if made today that point would no doubt be completely changed.
This is still an effective film today as you enjoy the characters and the story. Marty is an average kid who has a girlfriend, wishes he could drive a cool truck, has parents who have a less than ideal relationship and the dad has always been bullied around, the high school principal has it out for him... many people could see themselves in him and I couldn't imagine anyone else besides Michael J. Fox in the role. They tried to do it with Eric Stoltz but it wasn't the best match and while he's a fine actor, I don't know if he could have been as great in the role. The same goes for Christopher Lloyd as mad scientist Doc Brown. Also, a lot of people could see themselves in George McFly, someone who should stand up for themselves but doesn't, and w/ a story of high school love... it's classic storytelling.
It is simply a pleasant story of an 80's kid getting sent back to the 50's and he gets to see his parents at his age and how they acted, and how different life was back then, and he has to fix the mess he caused or else he literally won't exist any longer. It is a pretty funny film as much of the jokes are timeless. It was expertly filmed and what an amazing score from Alan Silvestri. It works so well with the movie, as do the two Huey Lewis & The News tunes.
Overall, with all the elements I've mentioned already, I in addition need to say that the script is extraordinary; things are set up in the opening minutes and they pay off later on. A key theme is yet another feeling we can all relate to: wishing we could go back to the past in order to change something or have a key moment go differently so your life could turn out better. With such themes and strong filmmaking, it's no wonder why so many people think of this so fondly. That's the Power of Love.
Back to the Future Part II
In the review I posted a few hours ago of the first BTTF, I mentioned that I saw all three films in a marathon on the giant screen. People seemed to be most excited for this one; there were loud cheers when the movie mentioned what the date was that they went to the future. While there are some “wait a minute” moments with this entry, I know that I appreciate it more now than I did when I saw it as an 8 year old on the big screen in 1989.
As the end of the movie had them go to the future and the filmmakers weren’t expecting it to be a gigantic hit, they had to start from there. A big question in my mind is why Doc Brown was willing to help out Marty McFly’s son and have him not go to prison when not only was he dead set against changing anything in the past, but he did not tell Marty about a bigger event in his life that would happen soon and cause bad consequences for years to come… I know that with the first film if you thought about it hard enough, why didn’t some people in 1985 notice that Marty happened to look just like that mysterious Calvin Klein guy who was around for a week, made a splash then suddenly vanished… but even with that said, there’s some “huh?” moments in this film like that or wondering how 2015 old man Biff Tannen was able to operate the DeLorean time machine with no apparent problem… but I guess that’s better than having, say, giant plot holes due to time travel, which does happen in other movies of the type.
Anyhow… they go to October 21, 2015, Biff steals the time machine, the new 1985 has him as an evil rich figure who various people have compared to Donald Trump-and others say that Doc Brown looks like Bernie Sanders, but that’s enough of the politics talk from me-so they have to go back to 1955 and prevent a sports almanac from ending up with Biff. I do find it quite amusing that ended up being the universe changing device of the franchise, a too thin for the amount of info it should have sports almanac. At the time, a sequel where part of it takes place at the same time as a previous entry so sometimes you have two of the same characters running around and other times you have different characters interacting with the stars from an earlier entry and you see events that weren’t shown in said entry… in the past few years there have been several well-known films that have done this (I won’t spoil which ones they were) and BTTF 2 was definitely ahead of its time.
Story issues aside, I still enjoy this movie a lot. Those wonderful characters returning, there being funny moments in a darker story, the strong realization of what could happen if less than desirable people had the power to time travel, the quality filmmaking, another good score from Alan Silvestri… that does help a lot, along with them making such things as alternate timelines and other things that could be confounding to the average person not so difficult to understand, even if it may not be entirely accurate to how it’d actually happen if we actually had the ability to travel through time.
The popular thing this week is looking at what people thought the future would be 25 years ago and noting what they got right, wrong, and some things that are planned to be a thing in the next few years. They didn’t do so bad when it comes to predictions considering the hits included drones, biometric scans, video chats, and flat screen TV’s. If only we could have that food hydrator and we’d get cooked pizza in a few seconds... but anyway, this is a movie that I think many people like more now than they did at the time; as it was 1989 my mom, two sisters and I were all surprised by the cliffhanger ending and we were disappointed the story wasn’t finished yet.
Before this movie started yesterday, they showed the fake ads for the hoverboard and Jaws 19-which everyone loved-then the message from the Christopher Lloyd of today where he noted what the date was, stated that things weren’t quite as predicted (thank heaven we don’t have flying vehicles; people can’t drive as is when they’re on the ground), that is OK as we can all write our futures and we should make it a good one, which is great advice for all of us.
Back to the Future Part III
I concluded my movie watching last night by seeing the last (and I hope it stays that way; the very thought of a reboot is enough to give me cold sweats late at night) motion picture in this franchise, one that I was the least familiar with as I had seen it the least amount of times in my life.
This one isn’t fresh and original like the first movie and it isn’t the jumping through time wackiness of the second one, but at least it is still solid. Because of the ending of II, Doc Brown goes to the Old West of 1885 and as he always wanted to visit that time period, he is happy there. However, his death is discovered by Marty so he decides to go there against Doc’s wishes and tries to save him. The only complication is that Brown’s character is expanded upon as much to his surprise due to his scientific mind, he instantly falls in love with a lovely lady named Clara.
Things are straightforward here but that is alright. It is a little wacky to see some of the actors of the first two be brought back (I am not sure what to think of one of Marty’s ancestors looking just like his mom) but again that is alright. I don’t see enough Westerns so I was find with watching a sci-fi version of one where at times they go against stereotype, to humorous effect, or a famous moment from an old genre favorite is “borrowed” by one of the heroes.
The filmmaking craft is still great and the cast (from the protagonists to Thomas F. Wilson as a completely different Tannen character than the ones he’s done before, and also Mary Steenburgen as Clara) does a swell job with their roles, and seeing old Western veterans like Harry Carey Jr., Pat Buttram, Burton Gilliam (best known for Blazing Saddles) and Dub Taylor is nice for people familiar with the genre. The crowd I saw it with did enjoy the movie; it’s certainly the only time I’ve ever heard people enthusiastically applaud at someone ending up in a pile of crap!
At the very end, the DeLorean time machine is destroyed (to think that if it wasn’t for the franchise a lot of people today probably wouldn’t even know of that odd vehicle, as it was only around briefly in the early 80’s and by the time the movies began the company was long since defunct) and after that things get really ridiculous, even compared to what happened before. I suppose it happened because they wanted the fans to go home happy instead of having a wistful or melancholy feeling because the fate of an important character was left unclear. So, I won’t complain.
It’s not an epic ending to the trilogy but this movie is still pretty solid and when you look at how many of the third entries in a series end up poor no matter how good or great the first two were… I definitely won’t belly-ache despite rating this lower than I or II.
Back to the Future:
As (Wednesday) was October 21, 2015, plenty of different entities celebrated the Back to the Future franchise due to part of the second film partially taking place on that date. This includes various theatre chains across the world showing one or all of the movies; the Cinemark chain showed it in a marathon, and some spots on a giant XD screen. I made about a 2 hour round trip to see it that way, and while they obviously did not know it'd be that popular (considering how understaffed the concessions were in the two breaks between the films), at least it was a nice turnout and there wasn't too much idiocy. Throughout the day I'll post the reviews to all three films.
I'll be honest and say that when I was younger, while I saw all three films and enjoyed them they weren't watched often... which apparently puts me in a minority, at least that's what it looks like. But that is OK as I at least still dig them as an adult. I say that the original is still the best. Sure, the Oedipal subplot with Marty's mom falling in love with him is still pretty weird (and the reason why Disney-among other studios-didn't make the movie themselves) but then again a lot of weird things happened in the 1980's. Certainly, dorky white kid Marty McFly inspiring Chuck Berry with his sound and thus he ends up being a catalyst for the popularity of rock and roll... well, that plays differently now than it did back 30 years ago, and I won't get into the whole “racism!” debate. Let's not talk about the key part of the plot is that Doc Brown stole plutonium from Libyan terrorists; if made today that point would no doubt be completely changed.
This is still an effective film today as you enjoy the characters and the story. Marty is an average kid who has a girlfriend, wishes he could drive a cool truck, has parents who have a less than ideal relationship and the dad has always been bullied around, the high school principal has it out for him... many people could see themselves in him and I couldn't imagine anyone else besides Michael J. Fox in the role. They tried to do it with Eric Stoltz but it wasn't the best match and while he's a fine actor, I don't know if he could have been as great in the role. The same goes for Christopher Lloyd as mad scientist Doc Brown. Also, a lot of people could see themselves in George McFly, someone who should stand up for themselves but doesn't, and w/ a story of high school love... it's classic storytelling.
It is simply a pleasant story of an 80's kid getting sent back to the 50's and he gets to see his parents at his age and how they acted, and how different life was back then, and he has to fix the mess he caused or else he literally won't exist any longer. It is a pretty funny film as much of the jokes are timeless. It was expertly filmed and what an amazing score from Alan Silvestri. It works so well with the movie, as do the two Huey Lewis & The News tunes.
Overall, with all the elements I've mentioned already, I in addition need to say that the script is extraordinary; things are set up in the opening minutes and they pay off later on. A key theme is yet another feeling we can all relate to: wishing we could go back to the past in order to change something or have a key moment go differently so your life could turn out better. With such themes and strong filmmaking, it's no wonder why so many people think of this so fondly. That's the Power of Love.
Back to the Future Part II
In the review I posted a few hours ago of the first BTTF, I mentioned that I saw all three films in a marathon on the giant screen. People seemed to be most excited for this one; there were loud cheers when the movie mentioned what the date was that they went to the future. While there are some “wait a minute” moments with this entry, I know that I appreciate it more now than I did when I saw it as an 8 year old on the big screen in 1989.
As the end of the movie had them go to the future and the filmmakers weren’t expecting it to be a gigantic hit, they had to start from there. A big question in my mind is why Doc Brown was willing to help out Marty McFly’s son and have him not go to prison when not only was he dead set against changing anything in the past, but he did not tell Marty about a bigger event in his life that would happen soon and cause bad consequences for years to come… I know that with the first film if you thought about it hard enough, why didn’t some people in 1985 notice that Marty happened to look just like that mysterious Calvin Klein guy who was around for a week, made a splash then suddenly vanished… but even with that said, there’s some “huh?” moments in this film like that or wondering how 2015 old man Biff Tannen was able to operate the DeLorean time machine with no apparent problem… but I guess that’s better than having, say, giant plot holes due to time travel, which does happen in other movies of the type.
Anyhow… they go to October 21, 2015, Biff steals the time machine, the new 1985 has him as an evil rich figure who various people have compared to Donald Trump-and others say that Doc Brown looks like Bernie Sanders, but that’s enough of the politics talk from me-so they have to go back to 1955 and prevent a sports almanac from ending up with Biff. I do find it quite amusing that ended up being the universe changing device of the franchise, a too thin for the amount of info it should have sports almanac. At the time, a sequel where part of it takes place at the same time as a previous entry so sometimes you have two of the same characters running around and other times you have different characters interacting with the stars from an earlier entry and you see events that weren’t shown in said entry… in the past few years there have been several well-known films that have done this (I won’t spoil which ones they were) and BTTF 2 was definitely ahead of its time.
Story issues aside, I still enjoy this movie a lot. Those wonderful characters returning, there being funny moments in a darker story, the strong realization of what could happen if less than desirable people had the power to time travel, the quality filmmaking, another good score from Alan Silvestri… that does help a lot, along with them making such things as alternate timelines and other things that could be confounding to the average person not so difficult to understand, even if it may not be entirely accurate to how it’d actually happen if we actually had the ability to travel through time.
The popular thing this week is looking at what people thought the future would be 25 years ago and noting what they got right, wrong, and some things that are planned to be a thing in the next few years. They didn’t do so bad when it comes to predictions considering the hits included drones, biometric scans, video chats, and flat screen TV’s. If only we could have that food hydrator and we’d get cooked pizza in a few seconds... but anyway, this is a movie that I think many people like more now than they did at the time; as it was 1989 my mom, two sisters and I were all surprised by the cliffhanger ending and we were disappointed the story wasn’t finished yet.
Before this movie started yesterday, they showed the fake ads for the hoverboard and Jaws 19-which everyone loved-then the message from the Christopher Lloyd of today where he noted what the date was, stated that things weren’t quite as predicted (thank heaven we don’t have flying vehicles; people can’t drive as is when they’re on the ground), that is OK as we can all write our futures and we should make it a good one, which is great advice for all of us.
Back to the Future Part III
I concluded my movie watching last night by seeing the last (and I hope it stays that way; the very thought of a reboot is enough to give me cold sweats late at night) motion picture in this franchise, one that I was the least familiar with as I had seen it the least amount of times in my life.
This one isn’t fresh and original like the first movie and it isn’t the jumping through time wackiness of the second one, but at least it is still solid. Because of the ending of II, Doc Brown goes to the Old West of 1885 and as he always wanted to visit that time period, he is happy there. However, his death is discovered by Marty so he decides to go there against Doc’s wishes and tries to save him. The only complication is that Brown’s character is expanded upon as much to his surprise due to his scientific mind, he instantly falls in love with a lovely lady named Clara.
Things are straightforward here but that is alright. It is a little wacky to see some of the actors of the first two be brought back (I am not sure what to think of one of Marty’s ancestors looking just like his mom) but again that is alright. I don’t see enough Westerns so I was find with watching a sci-fi version of one where at times they go against stereotype, to humorous effect, or a famous moment from an old genre favorite is “borrowed” by one of the heroes.
The filmmaking craft is still great and the cast (from the protagonists to Thomas F. Wilson as a completely different Tannen character than the ones he’s done before, and also Mary Steenburgen as Clara) does a swell job with their roles, and seeing old Western veterans like Harry Carey Jr., Pat Buttram, Burton Gilliam (best known for Blazing Saddles) and Dub Taylor is nice for people familiar with the genre. The crowd I saw it with did enjoy the movie; it’s certainly the only time I’ve ever heard people enthusiastically applaud at someone ending up in a pile of crap!
At the very end, the DeLorean time machine is destroyed (to think that if it wasn’t for the franchise a lot of people today probably wouldn’t even know of that odd vehicle, as it was only around briefly in the early 80’s and by the time the movies began the company was long since defunct) and after that things get really ridiculous, even compared to what happened before. I suppose it happened because they wanted the fans to go home happy instead of having a wistful or melancholy feeling because the fate of an important character was left unclear. So, I won’t complain.
It’s not an epic ending to the trilogy but this movie is still pretty solid and when you look at how many of the third entries in a series end up poor no matter how good or great the first two were… I definitely won’t belly-ache despite rating this lower than I or II.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
The Last House On Cemetery Lane
The Last House on Cemetery Lane (2015)
Runtime: 82 minutes
Directed by: Andrew Jones
Starring: Lee Bane, Georgina Blackledge, Vivien Bridson, Tessa Wood
From: Several British companies
Last night on Instant I saw a pretty bad horror film. Please don't ever watch this. I explain why in my Letterboxd review below:
Unfortunately, there's no shortage of bad horror films and that's been the case ever since they started making horror films. This happens to be one of them, and I expected it to be bad due to its low IMDb rating and bad word of mouth here on Letterboxd. Boy was it ever! At least it seems appropriate to have a real stinker of a film on the list of horror movies I am watching this season, a list that I'll put out early next month.
It's another haunted house movie and that's really all you need to know about the general plot. There's a love interest for the writer that is renting the house in Wales for 8 weeks to work on his writing-believe me, that's not the only time The Shining is ripped off-but it's mainly a way to fill time, those two characters talking about not much at all. This was not meant as a graphically gory movie and I am fine with that. Unfortunately, this is just deathly dull as the “scary” moments aren't terrifying or even mildly chilling at all, the “surprises” and even worse, the story makes absolute zero sense.
Let me explain why: the opening has a real estate agent showing the house to that idiot writer (John) and he is told that an old blind woman lives in the attic and “she hasn't left the attic in years” and he “won't ever see her”. Um, what? How does she eat... how does she go to the bathroom? John never questions this and he decides that he'll go with renting the place. I turned against the movie right there, as it's so stupid and illogical... but there are other moments that'll give you brain cramps.
Besides all that, there's an overbearing score, weird lighting throughout, and a lot of amateurish filmmaking. I suppose the acting is serviceable but when the rest is so bad, they somehow included an Ouija board scene, they made the low budget so damn obvious and there are other movies in the genre that they rip off-all better than this tripe-and there is no need to ever watch this; while there's plenty of mediocre or worse films on Netflix Instant, there are still enough worthwhile ones to see where you needn't bother with something like this.
Runtime: 82 minutes
Directed by: Andrew Jones
Starring: Lee Bane, Georgina Blackledge, Vivien Bridson, Tessa Wood
From: Several British companies
Last night on Instant I saw a pretty bad horror film. Please don't ever watch this. I explain why in my Letterboxd review below:
Unfortunately, there's no shortage of bad horror films and that's been the case ever since they started making horror films. This happens to be one of them, and I expected it to be bad due to its low IMDb rating and bad word of mouth here on Letterboxd. Boy was it ever! At least it seems appropriate to have a real stinker of a film on the list of horror movies I am watching this season, a list that I'll put out early next month.
It's another haunted house movie and that's really all you need to know about the general plot. There's a love interest for the writer that is renting the house in Wales for 8 weeks to work on his writing-believe me, that's not the only time The Shining is ripped off-but it's mainly a way to fill time, those two characters talking about not much at all. This was not meant as a graphically gory movie and I am fine with that. Unfortunately, this is just deathly dull as the “scary” moments aren't terrifying or even mildly chilling at all, the “surprises” and even worse, the story makes absolute zero sense.
Let me explain why: the opening has a real estate agent showing the house to that idiot writer (John) and he is told that an old blind woman lives in the attic and “she hasn't left the attic in years” and he “won't ever see her”. Um, what? How does she eat... how does she go to the bathroom? John never questions this and he decides that he'll go with renting the place. I turned against the movie right there, as it's so stupid and illogical... but there are other moments that'll give you brain cramps.
Besides all that, there's an overbearing score, weird lighting throughout, and a lot of amateurish filmmaking. I suppose the acting is serviceable but when the rest is so bad, they somehow included an Ouija board scene, they made the low budget so damn obvious and there are other movies in the genre that they rip off-all better than this tripe-and there is no need to ever watch this; while there's plenty of mediocre or worse films on Netflix Instant, there are still enough worthwhile ones to see where you needn't bother with something like this.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
I Talk About An Atrocious Short Film
I didn't even want to say in the title what the film was called... to me that is appropriate when I saw something called PENIS BOY, and I only watched it as it got a legendarily bad backlash against it on Letterboxd; it was made by someone who is a member of the site and well... read what I said about it below in my Letterboxd review of a short that came out earlier this year:
Or: Watching something from men that must be Meninists is incredibly disturbing, in the worst possible ways.
Or: This short HAD to be a troll job only designed to piss off any decent human being who sees it, right?
Or: Oh My God, this piece of crap actually included the names of Mike Leigh and Alejandro Jodorowsky in the Special Thanks part of the credits... or maybe the latter is someone else entirely, as the name listed is “Alejandro Jordowosky”.
I pretty much never watch shorts unless I rewatch old ones from the likes of The Three Stooges or what have you, and I've decided never to review such things here; it's just a personal choice. However, when the buzz around this film began a few days ago when people started watching it once it was posted on YouTube, I was curious and I had to see it too; note that this “buzz” was of the “amazingly toxic and negative” variety. I mean, it's now to the point of people feeling it's a dare to see this, as if it was A Serbian Film or something... but that's an insult to an actual motion picture with some talent involved like A Serbian Film was. I personally don't have much hope for such things with a juvenile title that was used just for shock value, but I still took the chance and I was curious to see if this was truly as bad as most are saying it is.
It is.
It is quite atrocious; it was so terrible I seriously wonder if the director James Healey (a Letterboxd member who has done some shorts before but I've never seen them so there's no opportunity for me to compare) made this bad on purpose as a meaning of trolling the audience. I don't know why you'd do such a thing, but then again there's no shortage (IMO) of European directors from the past few decades who have made motion pictures designed to enrage and anger the audience and yet most seem to love them... anyhow, Mr. Healey is definitely not even one of those heralded Eurodouche directors by any stretch of the imagination. A common comparison in the reviews I've seen are to Harmony Korine; I've avoided Harmony's films for a reason but everyone has said that he tries to copy him and fails in every way.
In this 17 minute short, we follow an ex call girl who returns to the game for a big payout, and she has a pretty awful night... although not as bad as the story itself-which gets worse and worse as it goes along, and an ending where if you saw James Healey mooning the camera it wouldn't be as much of an insult-or the agonizing experience of actually watching this. It gets off on a bad foot with some random woman delivering a soliloquy and it's patently obvious it was written by a guy who not only hates anyone with a vagina, but knows nothing about anyone who happens to have one. It somehow spirals downhill from there.
We follow a random brunette who is hoping for a few thousand bucks, she rides on the NYC subway, she runs into a Weeaboo, she randomly states out of nowhere that she wishes to kill herself (this means nothing), then we see some REALLY repulsive characters... including the titular Penis Boy, who only appears in the end and is a boy under the age of 18 who says some incredibly vulgar things … which means nothing as everyone says incredibly vulgar things, as the script is full of incredibly vulgar dialogue and it becomes tiresome immediately. There's no story or point to speak of, really. Why was this even made, besides displaying a bunch of characters that only serve to be horrible human beings? I don't even want to talk about the chubby douche who was in an Iron Man suit or someone else who was in a pig suit.
But what I think the worst part of all this is, it has to be the misogyny. It's not just the director but everyone who was involved behind the scenes. They all came off as MRA (Men's Rights Activists) members; I used to laugh at idiots who are so terrified of women (or just hate them for whatever reasons) that they think men now need more rights because of “those damn feminists”. Now, I realize it's not such a humorous thing when people who think similarly or even the same have done horrible things against members of the opposite sex. I am not saying any of these people have perpetrated such acts... but it's all just sad, and the misogyny is as bad as most reviews have said it is.
The acting is not great, there's obvious ADR, and while looks-wise I can't complain, people these days are doing shorts on their new iPhone 6 that look nice too, so that isn't a big selling point in this microbudget world anymore. With all the time and effort I wish everyone involved would have come up with something better than something which fails in every which way, even as an avant garde piece. I also wish that the filmmakers could find other ways to work out their issues with females... or even better, realize that “chicks” aren't the vile evil creatures those clowns think they are.
I realize the joke's on me for actually watching this, but I can take solace in telling everyone who has never heard of this before that this is not worth watching... even as a laugh as it's about as pleasant as ripping out your own toenails with a pair of rusty pliers.
Or: Watching something from men that must be Meninists is incredibly disturbing, in the worst possible ways.
Or: This short HAD to be a troll job only designed to piss off any decent human being who sees it, right?
Or: Oh My God, this piece of crap actually included the names of Mike Leigh and Alejandro Jodorowsky in the Special Thanks part of the credits... or maybe the latter is someone else entirely, as the name listed is “Alejandro Jordowosky”.
I pretty much never watch shorts unless I rewatch old ones from the likes of The Three Stooges or what have you, and I've decided never to review such things here; it's just a personal choice. However, when the buzz around this film began a few days ago when people started watching it once it was posted on YouTube, I was curious and I had to see it too; note that this “buzz” was of the “amazingly toxic and negative” variety. I mean, it's now to the point of people feeling it's a dare to see this, as if it was A Serbian Film or something... but that's an insult to an actual motion picture with some talent involved like A Serbian Film was. I personally don't have much hope for such things with a juvenile title that was used just for shock value, but I still took the chance and I was curious to see if this was truly as bad as most are saying it is.
It is.
It is quite atrocious; it was so terrible I seriously wonder if the director James Healey (a Letterboxd member who has done some shorts before but I've never seen them so there's no opportunity for me to compare) made this bad on purpose as a meaning of trolling the audience. I don't know why you'd do such a thing, but then again there's no shortage (IMO) of European directors from the past few decades who have made motion pictures designed to enrage and anger the audience and yet most seem to love them... anyhow, Mr. Healey is definitely not even one of those heralded Eurodouche directors by any stretch of the imagination. A common comparison in the reviews I've seen are to Harmony Korine; I've avoided Harmony's films for a reason but everyone has said that he tries to copy him and fails in every way.
In this 17 minute short, we follow an ex call girl who returns to the game for a big payout, and she has a pretty awful night... although not as bad as the story itself-which gets worse and worse as it goes along, and an ending where if you saw James Healey mooning the camera it wouldn't be as much of an insult-or the agonizing experience of actually watching this. It gets off on a bad foot with some random woman delivering a soliloquy and it's patently obvious it was written by a guy who not only hates anyone with a vagina, but knows nothing about anyone who happens to have one. It somehow spirals downhill from there.
We follow a random brunette who is hoping for a few thousand bucks, she rides on the NYC subway, she runs into a Weeaboo, she randomly states out of nowhere that she wishes to kill herself (this means nothing), then we see some REALLY repulsive characters... including the titular Penis Boy, who only appears in the end and is a boy under the age of 18 who says some incredibly vulgar things … which means nothing as everyone says incredibly vulgar things, as the script is full of incredibly vulgar dialogue and it becomes tiresome immediately. There's no story or point to speak of, really. Why was this even made, besides displaying a bunch of characters that only serve to be horrible human beings? I don't even want to talk about the chubby douche who was in an Iron Man suit or someone else who was in a pig suit.
But what I think the worst part of all this is, it has to be the misogyny. It's not just the director but everyone who was involved behind the scenes. They all came off as MRA (Men's Rights Activists) members; I used to laugh at idiots who are so terrified of women (or just hate them for whatever reasons) that they think men now need more rights because of “those damn feminists”. Now, I realize it's not such a humorous thing when people who think similarly or even the same have done horrible things against members of the opposite sex. I am not saying any of these people have perpetrated such acts... but it's all just sad, and the misogyny is as bad as most reviews have said it is.
The acting is not great, there's obvious ADR, and while looks-wise I can't complain, people these days are doing shorts on their new iPhone 6 that look nice too, so that isn't a big selling point in this microbudget world anymore. With all the time and effort I wish everyone involved would have come up with something better than something which fails in every which way, even as an avant garde piece. I also wish that the filmmakers could find other ways to work out their issues with females... or even better, realize that “chicks” aren't the vile evil creatures those clowns think they are.
I realize the joke's on me for actually watching this, but I can take solace in telling everyone who has never heard of this before that this is not worth watching... even as a laugh as it's about as pleasant as ripping out your own toenails with a pair of rusty pliers.
Monday, October 19, 2015
The Grim Game
The Grim Game (1919)
Runtime: 71 minutes
Directed by: Irvin Willat
Starring: Harry Houdini (!), Thomas Jefferson (no, not that Jefferson; this movie is not that old), Ann Forest, Augustus Phillips, Tully Marshall
From: Paramount
Yes, a fictional movie where Houdini acts. I did not know until recently this was ever a thing. Let me explain in my Letterboxd review what this is all about, and that is no illusion:
Last night on Turner Classic Movies they showed several silents that were feared lost but were later found. I decided to check out this one, as I was greatly interested in it as it starred... Harry Houdini. I did not know he acted in a fictional film and turns out, he did a few of them before he died at too young an age. Besides doing various stunts and illusions, he was also a skeptic and was against such things as spirtualists and psychics; this had an obvious effect and influence on such later magicians as James Randi and Penn & Teller, so I was real interested in watching this. Anyway, this was retrieved from a collector and it was restored and shown to the public just earlier this year.
The plot revolves around the newspaper business (of all things) and has a wacky plot where some people and Houdini pull a scam to try and get more newspaper buys... only he gets double-crossed and he has to escape from jail to get the bad guys... and yes there is a love interest for him.
The story isn't anything special but that is OK. I was more interested in seeing Houdini do his magic and while there are contrivances to how those are set up, I am glad that it was available on film for me to see with my own eyes. Plus, he does some physical comedy and that immediately made me think of such people as Buster Keaton and (much later) Jackie Chan, so that was nice.
The ending is definitely memorable, as some insane things happen; this includes moments with a pair of-at the time modern-airplanes and that includes them smashing into each other and crashing on the ground... which was not supposed to happen. It being in the film was not a tasteless act as thank heavens no one was killed and they decided to write it into the story.
I normally wouldn't rate it this high based on what was in the film, but its historical significance and my personal fandom required it to be rated at 3 ½ stars.
Runtime: 71 minutes
Directed by: Irvin Willat
Starring: Harry Houdini (!), Thomas Jefferson (no, not that Jefferson; this movie is not that old), Ann Forest, Augustus Phillips, Tully Marshall
From: Paramount
Yes, a fictional movie where Houdini acts. I did not know until recently this was ever a thing. Let me explain in my Letterboxd review what this is all about, and that is no illusion:
Last night on Turner Classic Movies they showed several silents that were feared lost but were later found. I decided to check out this one, as I was greatly interested in it as it starred... Harry Houdini. I did not know he acted in a fictional film and turns out, he did a few of them before he died at too young an age. Besides doing various stunts and illusions, he was also a skeptic and was against such things as spirtualists and psychics; this had an obvious effect and influence on such later magicians as James Randi and Penn & Teller, so I was real interested in watching this. Anyway, this was retrieved from a collector and it was restored and shown to the public just earlier this year.
The plot revolves around the newspaper business (of all things) and has a wacky plot where some people and Houdini pull a scam to try and get more newspaper buys... only he gets double-crossed and he has to escape from jail to get the bad guys... and yes there is a love interest for him.
The story isn't anything special but that is OK. I was more interested in seeing Houdini do his magic and while there are contrivances to how those are set up, I am glad that it was available on film for me to see with my own eyes. Plus, he does some physical comedy and that immediately made me think of such people as Buster Keaton and (much later) Jackie Chan, so that was nice.
The ending is definitely memorable, as some insane things happen; this includes moments with a pair of-at the time modern-airplanes and that includes them smashing into each other and crashing on the ground... which was not supposed to happen. It being in the film was not a tasteless act as thank heavens no one was killed and they decided to write it into the story.
I normally wouldn't rate it this high based on what was in the film, but its historical significance and my personal fandom required it to be rated at 3 ½ stars.
Whoops; My Review Of The Baron Of Arizona
The Baron of Arizona (1950)
Runtime: 97 minutes
Directed by: Samuel Fuller
Starring: Vincent Price, Ellen Drew, Vladimir Sokoloff, Beulah Bondi, Reed Hadley
From: Deputy Corporation
I got wrapped up in other things so that's why I am posting this after midnight. I'll also post a review on Monday proper, and I'll make sure that happens. The Letterboxd review for this motion picture is below:
I decided to watch this (Saturday) night as this is not only from Samuel Fuller-his second ever film-but it stars Vincent Price, which is good enough reason right there to see a motion picture.
The plot is quite loosely based on a real life event. It relates to the Gadsden Purchase; in 1853 the United States paid for what became the lower sections of Arizona and New Mexico from Mexico as not only was it disputed, but a company wanted to build a railroad through that land. The deal was that if anyone had a land grant from Mexico or Spain, it had to be honored. A fraudster named James Reavis (Price) concocted a scam in the 1870's and 1880's where he would forge documents to have a lot of territory in the Gadsden Purchase area, and he almost succeeded.
As shown in the movie, it was an elaborate scam that involved a lot of falsified records and even a girl who he claimed was the last living descendant of a fictitious Baron of Arizona. He first meets up with her when she's definitely under 18 years old and they have a dad/adopted daughter kind of relationship; to try and help his case, years later he pulls a Woody Allen and marries her. Yeah, that is quite disgusting, and I don't know what to think of the movie making their relationship a standard romance sort of thing.
It is a wacky tale not just for the disturbing male/female relationships; among other things, Price becomes a monk for a few years. It's an odd little thing that I can at least say is fine. The quality directing from Fuller helped, as did the cinematography from James Wong Howe (who worked for decades and did everything from The Thin Man and Hud to Funny Lady and Yankee Doodle Dandy)... but it was the performance of Price as the titular Baron that made this hokum watchable. Fuller definitely went on to better things after this but as only the second thing he ever did and filmed in only 15 days, not bad at all.
Runtime: 97 minutes
Directed by: Samuel Fuller
Starring: Vincent Price, Ellen Drew, Vladimir Sokoloff, Beulah Bondi, Reed Hadley
From: Deputy Corporation
I got wrapped up in other things so that's why I am posting this after midnight. I'll also post a review on Monday proper, and I'll make sure that happens. The Letterboxd review for this motion picture is below:
I decided to watch this (Saturday) night as this is not only from Samuel Fuller-his second ever film-but it stars Vincent Price, which is good enough reason right there to see a motion picture.
The plot is quite loosely based on a real life event. It relates to the Gadsden Purchase; in 1853 the United States paid for what became the lower sections of Arizona and New Mexico from Mexico as not only was it disputed, but a company wanted to build a railroad through that land. The deal was that if anyone had a land grant from Mexico or Spain, it had to be honored. A fraudster named James Reavis (Price) concocted a scam in the 1870's and 1880's where he would forge documents to have a lot of territory in the Gadsden Purchase area, and he almost succeeded.
As shown in the movie, it was an elaborate scam that involved a lot of falsified records and even a girl who he claimed was the last living descendant of a fictitious Baron of Arizona. He first meets up with her when she's definitely under 18 years old and they have a dad/adopted daughter kind of relationship; to try and help his case, years later he pulls a Woody Allen and marries her. Yeah, that is quite disgusting, and I don't know what to think of the movie making their relationship a standard romance sort of thing.
It is a wacky tale not just for the disturbing male/female relationships; among other things, Price becomes a monk for a few years. It's an odd little thing that I can at least say is fine. The quality directing from Fuller helped, as did the cinematography from James Wong Howe (who worked for decades and did everything from The Thin Man and Hud to Funny Lady and Yankee Doodle Dandy)... but it was the performance of Price as the titular Baron that made this hokum watchable. Fuller definitely went on to better things after this but as only the second thing he ever did and filmed in only 15 days, not bad at all.
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Western Heritage
Western Heritage (1948)
Runtime: 61 minutes
Directed by: Wallace Grissell
Starring: Tim Holt, Nan Leslie, Richard Martin, Walter Reed, Harry Woods
From: RKO
Here's a film so obscure that as of now, only me and someone else has ever admitted to seeing it on Letterboxd. I watched this in conjunction with a movie I'll post a review of a little before midnight; they have similar plots but unlike that, this is something which took the general idea and modified it for a typical B Western of the time. The Letterboxd review is below:
The reason why I watched this movie is not just that I don't check out nearly enough in the Western genre or that it relates to something else I saw last night-the review of which I'll post in the early evening-but that as of the time I post this, only one other person on the site has seen it, and I am the first to rate & review it.
This relates to the Gadsden Purchase; in 1853 the United States paid for what became the lower sections of Arizona and New Mexico from Mexico as not only was it disputed, but a company wanted to build a railroad through that land. The deal was that if anyone had a land grant from Mexico or Spain, it had to be honored. A fraudster attempts to acquire some land and as first he's successful but...
There are some twists & turns but otherwise this is a standard programmer, a B movie Western barely an hour long with gunfights, fistfights and the rest, the sort of genre entry where the villain is a villain in part because he has a mustache and wears a black vest. There isn't much to say about it besides that. It's not awful but it's not great either.
About the only interesting thing I can mention is that Holt's co-star was Richard Martin, who played an Irish-Mexican and he's a stereotypical Latin Lover with the stereotypical name of Chito Jose Gonzalez Bustamante Rafferty. He actually played that character in at least 29 different films. A time or two, I was wondering if Rafferty and Holt's character of Ross Daggert had a Brokeback Mountain sort of relationship, but maybe I was misreading it.
Runtime: 61 minutes
Directed by: Wallace Grissell
Starring: Tim Holt, Nan Leslie, Richard Martin, Walter Reed, Harry Woods
From: RKO
Here's a film so obscure that as of now, only me and someone else has ever admitted to seeing it on Letterboxd. I watched this in conjunction with a movie I'll post a review of a little before midnight; they have similar plots but unlike that, this is something which took the general idea and modified it for a typical B Western of the time. The Letterboxd review is below:
The reason why I watched this movie is not just that I don't check out nearly enough in the Western genre or that it relates to something else I saw last night-the review of which I'll post in the early evening-but that as of the time I post this, only one other person on the site has seen it, and I am the first to rate & review it.
This relates to the Gadsden Purchase; in 1853 the United States paid for what became the lower sections of Arizona and New Mexico from Mexico as not only was it disputed, but a company wanted to build a railroad through that land. The deal was that if anyone had a land grant from Mexico or Spain, it had to be honored. A fraudster attempts to acquire some land and as first he's successful but...
There are some twists & turns but otherwise this is a standard programmer, a B movie Western barely an hour long with gunfights, fistfights and the rest, the sort of genre entry where the villain is a villain in part because he has a mustache and wears a black vest. There isn't much to say about it besides that. It's not awful but it's not great either.
About the only interesting thing I can mention is that Holt's co-star was Richard Martin, who played an Irish-Mexican and he's a stereotypical Latin Lover with the stereotypical name of Chito Jose Gonzalez Bustamante Rafferty. He actually played that character in at least 29 different films. A time or two, I was wondering if Rafferty and Holt's character of Ross Daggert had a Brokeback Mountain sort of relationship, but maybe I was misreading it.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Gettysburg
Gettysburg (1993)
Runtime: 271 minutes; that's right
Directed by: Ronald F. Maxwell
Starring: Tom Berenger, Martin Sheen, Jeff Daniels, Richard Jordan, Stephen Lang
From: Turner Pictures
Monday night I had both the time and desire to see this movie; as I prefer watching motion pictures in one shot, it does require a long block of time to see something that is 4 ½ hours long (in Director's Cut form) and not be distracted by anything else. I am glad I made that investment.
I am a history nerd; I got it from my father. So things like the American Civil War are interesting to me. To be brief, this battle took place in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania in early July, 1863 during the span of three days; while its importance has been argued through history, it certainly did seem like the tide turned towards the Union and after that the Confederates were on the defensive. The movie looks at both sides and some key players from each, from Robert E. Lee to Joshua Chamberlain. Along with the nicely done battles there are also plenty of big speeches... but as they are delivered from a talented cast that includes Sam Elliott, Tom Berenger, Martin Sheen, Jeff Daniels, Richard Jordan, Stephen Lang, and C. Thomas Howell, so they are always interesting.
As this movie was based on the 1974 novel The Killer Angels from Michael Shaara, they filmed in the general area of where combat took place and it was brought to the screen by Civil War buff Ted Turner, you know that the film is authentic and it's not historically inaccurate. There are several big moments that happen and they actually did take place in 1863. With the long runtime it allows you to look at the Civil War from many facets, from what the typical soldier thinks to the thought processes of the generals and colonels. While this was originally going to be a TV miniseries-meaning there is little blood, let alone gore-it still demonstrates that war is hell by showing hundreds of people getting killed and the misery of the makeshift hospitals on the battlefields and how many needed limbs amputated.
There are plenty of Civil War reenactors who cosplay as soldiers from the era and they put on reenactments of classic battles. Thus, it was easy to find many extras to play soldiers in this film. At the end there's a huge battle involving hundreds of them. Even if you know little about the battle, the movie is not too difficult to follow. If you want to learn more about an important time in American history and how things were like back then, even with the long runtime I say that this is worth watching.
Runtime: 271 minutes; that's right
Directed by: Ronald F. Maxwell
Starring: Tom Berenger, Martin Sheen, Jeff Daniels, Richard Jordan, Stephen Lang
From: Turner Pictures
Monday night I had both the time and desire to see this movie; as I prefer watching motion pictures in one shot, it does require a long block of time to see something that is 4 ½ hours long (in Director's Cut form) and not be distracted by anything else. I am glad I made that investment.
I am a history nerd; I got it from my father. So things like the American Civil War are interesting to me. To be brief, this battle took place in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania in early July, 1863 during the span of three days; while its importance has been argued through history, it certainly did seem like the tide turned towards the Union and after that the Confederates were on the defensive. The movie looks at both sides and some key players from each, from Robert E. Lee to Joshua Chamberlain. Along with the nicely done battles there are also plenty of big speeches... but as they are delivered from a talented cast that includes Sam Elliott, Tom Berenger, Martin Sheen, Jeff Daniels, Richard Jordan, Stephen Lang, and C. Thomas Howell, so they are always interesting.
As this movie was based on the 1974 novel The Killer Angels from Michael Shaara, they filmed in the general area of where combat took place and it was brought to the screen by Civil War buff Ted Turner, you know that the film is authentic and it's not historically inaccurate. There are several big moments that happen and they actually did take place in 1863. With the long runtime it allows you to look at the Civil War from many facets, from what the typical soldier thinks to the thought processes of the generals and colonels. While this was originally going to be a TV miniseries-meaning there is little blood, let alone gore-it still demonstrates that war is hell by showing hundreds of people getting killed and the misery of the makeshift hospitals on the battlefields and how many needed limbs amputated.
There are plenty of Civil War reenactors who cosplay as soldiers from the era and they put on reenactments of classic battles. Thus, it was easy to find many extras to play soldiers in this film. At the end there's a huge battle involving hundreds of them. Even if you know little about the battle, the movie is not too difficult to follow. If you want to learn more about an important time in American history and how things were like back then, even with the long runtime I say that this is worth watching.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Room 237
Room 237 (2012)
Runtime: 102 minutes
Directed by: Rodney Ascher
Starring: This is a documentary about The Shining and various bizarre conspiracy theories surrounding it
From: Highland Park Classics
I've known all about this documentary since it came out. I put it off until last night, as I figured it'd be best to watch it a few hours after seeing The Shining again for the first time in years, which I have reviewed right below this one. I know it was polarizing but I thought it was pretty awful, not really for the crackpot theories these people have, but rather how it was done, which was atrocious. Read why in my Letterboxd review below.
I have heard about this documentary for awhile now and yet I wanted to wait until I rewatched The Shining, which I did a few hours before finally seeing this on Netflix Instant. Wow, did I not like this, and it isn't even for the theories presented-which I think are crackpot for the most part and only a few of the “facts” presented really mean anything... maybe there's more to it but the way the movie presents the information, I was not convinced-but rather how the documentary was done.
The Shining is a legendary film and it was done in a way where you are left with a lot of questions & interpretation is easy. I ended up seeing that film last night on the big screen and some people randomly sat by me; afterwards they all said to each other that they wanted to look into the movie more and try to answer the queries they had about it. I didn't say anything to them but maybe I should have remarked, “Yeah, you and everyone else. Don't expect to find any clear answers”.
The documentary interviews a few different people and they present their conspiracy theories which range from it being about the genocide of Native Americans to a story about a minotaur (?!) and a favorite for people to deride, Kubrick helped fake the Apollo moon landings and he left clues about it in the film. No matter what a person thinks about each theory, I expected it being a talking head documentary where you see each person on screen speaking and footage from the movie is shown to demonstrate their points; they finish then they move on. Was that done here? Nope!
Instead, this movie is done in the most confusing manner possible. You never see any of the people interviewed; that's right. They are only identified in the beginning and you better know right away which voice belongs to which person (there's one woman so at least that helps) as otherwise it'll take you a few sentences of someone speaking before you realize, “Oh yeah, that's the Holocaust guy!” or “that's the Native American dude”. You see, all the theories are presented at once and it's all a jumbled mess; It's incredibly frustrating and infuriating. Then again, this is such a slipshod production that when one guy is talking, you hear his young kid in the background making noise and he stops talking so he can discipline their tyke/make them not so loud... and they left that all in instead of cutting it out or even better, recording that section over again.
The footage shown just isn't from The Shining but rather it's from other Kubrick films or heck, media that has nothing to do with Old Stanley at all. As a mutual pointed out in her review, the footage of people in a theatre watching a movie is from Demons; yes, the Lamberto Bava classic from 1985. I recognized some of the cast as the footage they used includes looks at the audience; I was not expecting to see the Tony the Pimp character appear in Room 237, that is for damn sure. Plus, when the score isn't borrowed from the movie, it is bad and overbearing and distracting.
About the only fact presented that I find credible is that the set doesn't make logical sense, but that's obvious and others beforehand and afterwards have noted that this was done on purpose to create a disorientating effect. That should not be a major revelation. Really, the only thing this did for me in terms of information is present how NOT to do a documentary.
Runtime: 102 minutes
Directed by: Rodney Ascher
Starring: This is a documentary about The Shining and various bizarre conspiracy theories surrounding it
From: Highland Park Classics
I've known all about this documentary since it came out. I put it off until last night, as I figured it'd be best to watch it a few hours after seeing The Shining again for the first time in years, which I have reviewed right below this one. I know it was polarizing but I thought it was pretty awful, not really for the crackpot theories these people have, but rather how it was done, which was atrocious. Read why in my Letterboxd review below.
I have heard about this documentary for awhile now and yet I wanted to wait until I rewatched The Shining, which I did a few hours before finally seeing this on Netflix Instant. Wow, did I not like this, and it isn't even for the theories presented-which I think are crackpot for the most part and only a few of the “facts” presented really mean anything... maybe there's more to it but the way the movie presents the information, I was not convinced-but rather how the documentary was done.
The Shining is a legendary film and it was done in a way where you are left with a lot of questions & interpretation is easy. I ended up seeing that film last night on the big screen and some people randomly sat by me; afterwards they all said to each other that they wanted to look into the movie more and try to answer the queries they had about it. I didn't say anything to them but maybe I should have remarked, “Yeah, you and everyone else. Don't expect to find any clear answers”.
The documentary interviews a few different people and they present their conspiracy theories which range from it being about the genocide of Native Americans to a story about a minotaur (?!) and a favorite for people to deride, Kubrick helped fake the Apollo moon landings and he left clues about it in the film. No matter what a person thinks about each theory, I expected it being a talking head documentary where you see each person on screen speaking and footage from the movie is shown to demonstrate their points; they finish then they move on. Was that done here? Nope!
Instead, this movie is done in the most confusing manner possible. You never see any of the people interviewed; that's right. They are only identified in the beginning and you better know right away which voice belongs to which person (there's one woman so at least that helps) as otherwise it'll take you a few sentences of someone speaking before you realize, “Oh yeah, that's the Holocaust guy!” or “that's the Native American dude”. You see, all the theories are presented at once and it's all a jumbled mess; It's incredibly frustrating and infuriating. Then again, this is such a slipshod production that when one guy is talking, you hear his young kid in the background making noise and he stops talking so he can discipline their tyke/make them not so loud... and they left that all in instead of cutting it out or even better, recording that section over again.
The footage shown just isn't from The Shining but rather it's from other Kubrick films or heck, media that has nothing to do with Old Stanley at all. As a mutual pointed out in her review, the footage of people in a theatre watching a movie is from Demons; yes, the Lamberto Bava classic from 1985. I recognized some of the cast as the footage they used includes looks at the audience; I was not expecting to see the Tony the Pimp character appear in Room 237, that is for damn sure. Plus, when the score isn't borrowed from the movie, it is bad and overbearing and distracting.
About the only fact presented that I find credible is that the set doesn't make logical sense, but that's obvious and others beforehand and afterwards have noted that this was done on purpose to create a disorientating effect. That should not be a major revelation. Really, the only thing this did for me in terms of information is present how NOT to do a documentary.
The Shining
The Shining (1980)
Runtime: 144 minutes
We all know the rest of the stats, don't we?
In short, I got to watch this on the big screen last night. You can read all about it in my Letterboxd review below:
Runtime: 144 minutes
We all know the rest of the stats, don't we?
In short, I got to watch this on the big screen last night. You can read all about it in my Letterboxd review below:
This is not my first viewing of this classic movie. Heck, this wasn't the first time I got to see it on the big screen. But the last viewing was a long while ago and it was perfect for this time of year so thanks to the Cinepolis chain I got to see this again, and for only 8 bucks.
I presume that everyone is familiar with the plot, but then again I ended up sitting by some British people including one who had never seen this before. But considering this sort of site I am sure that everyone knows the story of Jack Torrance and how he goes mad in a haunted hotel and his family has to deal with that. I've never read the Stephen King novel but I know a lot was changed from page to screen and King did not approve of the different material.
If you really wanted to, you could nitpick some things, note that the script changing all the time during filming was dangerous as that is usually a bad sign and I certainly do not approve of how Shelley Duvall was treated on set-not to mention making kind old man Scatman Crothers cry-but with all that said, Kubrick did do a magnificent job directing this, and it is a great film. A popular criticism is that Jack seems a little unhinged even before the family moves into the hotel for the winter. I say that's true,, but it was the idea that an alcoholic with job troubles is destined for disaster in a secluded area for months; once things go south it is clear that he's lost his mind, and it was an iconic performance from him. Even that person who had never seen it before knew of the “Here's Johnny!” scene. To think that the moment which got the biggest reaction from her in that virgin experience... the moment I'll simply call “the guy in the bear suit”! Although that is understandable as it's so unexpected and turns out, unexplained.
Anyhow, while the methods used were questionable at the very best, the performance from Duvall was also great as Wendy, even if by the final act she's a hysterical mess and does some unwise things. There's someone who has vanished from the spotlights years ago and has never returned, and maybe because of that there were or are rumors about her mental health, which I hope are not true. I wish there were more ladies around Hollywood who had the sort of unique talents that she did. At least Kubrick knew that when it came to young child actor Danny Lloyd that he had to be careful, so the kid at the time thought he was making a drama and was shielded from the actual horror material and never saw it in its R-rated form until he was in his upper teens. He did a swell job, too.
The movie initially saddled with middling reviews but since then has become wildly popular and even today people are coming up with all sorts of theories about the alleged symbolism present throughout, from the movie being about the genocide of Native Americans or how allegedly Kubrick helped fake the moon landings and somehow he put subtle messages about this in the movie for who knows what reason. To me all that does disguise the fact that the movie is greatly effective at being creepy and terrifying, and in a film that was done expertly with a note-perfect use of the then new Steadicam.
It starts off right away with the opening credits song from Wendy Carlos and Rachel Elkind (while only a small part of their score was used for the movie, it freaks me out, to be honest; the music you hear overall-mainly older classical ditties-was nicely put together and hearing it in a theatre will make you appreciate that) and what the story is about is greatly disturbing, an evil force driving someone to madness, all the unnerving sights you see while in the Overlook Hotel, and how things get worse and worse until it reaches a breaking point. The setting of the hotel being designed in a way that doesn't make logical sense and there being doors and windows where there shouldn't be... that helps add to the nightmare feeling of it all. Believe me, the movie worked on those British fellows, even if most of them had seen it before.
With all that said, I am glad I got to see this on the big screen for a second time. Its pace being deliberate and building up suspense and terror does work oh so well in such a setting. What an incredible motion picture experience, filled with a panoply of great moments that work perfectly together.
Monday, October 12, 2015
The Thieves
The Thieves (Dodookdeul) (2012)
Runtime: 136 minutes
Directed by: Dong-hun Choi
Starring: Kim Yun-Seok, Kim Hye-Soo, Lee Jung-Jae, Jun Ji-Hyun, Simon Yam
From: Several Korean companies
It's been months since I've seen a Korean film; I figured it was about time I changed this... plus by the time I am posting this review the film will all but be gone from Netflix Instant so I had to see it then. My review from Letterboxd is below:
It has been months since I've seen a Korean movie and as this one will disappear from Netflix Instant in a matter of hours, that is why I picked this one to watch last night, a film that is one of the highest domestic grossing motion pictures in the history of South Korean cinema.
The plot is that some thieves from South Korea and their fellow counterparts from China are brought together to steal an expensive diamond necklace from a casino in Macau; all those people have to work together to pull it off yet none of them can fully trust each other and there are many twists, turns, and surprises along the way. You have to pay attention as there are many characters and subplots but don't worry it's not too difficult to follow in this tale set in South Korea, Macau and Hong Kong. I've heard it described as like Ocean's 11, and I am unable to confirm as I've never seen the original or the lame-looking Ocean's 11 through 13 with George Clooney and gang.
Like I said there are many surprises throughout, which of course I won't spoil, except that I was shocked more than once. This could be called an action comedy. While there are many serious moments there are also plenty of 'funny bits and the tone is light, although mainly in the first half. Things are more grounded in the second half, and there are some nice action scenes throughout. Things become pretty crazy by the end, and it's all nicely directed, shot, and put together. I'll say that this is a different take on the heist film and I'll leave it at that.
With its all-star cast (some of which I did recognize from things I've seen before) and fun plot it isn't so hard to see why it was so successful in its home country. I know now that it won't be so long before I see another flick from South Korea.
Runtime: 136 minutes
Directed by: Dong-hun Choi
Starring: Kim Yun-Seok, Kim Hye-Soo, Lee Jung-Jae, Jun Ji-Hyun, Simon Yam
From: Several Korean companies
It's been months since I've seen a Korean film; I figured it was about time I changed this... plus by the time I am posting this review the film will all but be gone from Netflix Instant so I had to see it then. My review from Letterboxd is below:
It has been months since I've seen a Korean movie and as this one will disappear from Netflix Instant in a matter of hours, that is why I picked this one to watch last night, a film that is one of the highest domestic grossing motion pictures in the history of South Korean cinema.
The plot is that some thieves from South Korea and their fellow counterparts from China are brought together to steal an expensive diamond necklace from a casino in Macau; all those people have to work together to pull it off yet none of them can fully trust each other and there are many twists, turns, and surprises along the way. You have to pay attention as there are many characters and subplots but don't worry it's not too difficult to follow in this tale set in South Korea, Macau and Hong Kong. I've heard it described as like Ocean's 11, and I am unable to confirm as I've never seen the original or the lame-looking Ocean's 11 through 13 with George Clooney and gang.
Like I said there are many surprises throughout, which of course I won't spoil, except that I was shocked more than once. This could be called an action comedy. While there are many serious moments there are also plenty of 'funny bits and the tone is light, although mainly in the first half. Things are more grounded in the second half, and there are some nice action scenes throughout. Things become pretty crazy by the end, and it's all nicely directed, shot, and put together. I'll say that this is a different take on the heist film and I'll leave it at that.
With its all-star cast (some of which I did recognize from things I've seen before) and fun plot it isn't so hard to see why it was so successful in its home country. I know now that it won't be so long before I see another flick from South Korea.
The Flying Dagger
The Flying Dagger (Fei Dao Shou) (1969)
Runtime: 103 minutes
Directed by: Cheh Chang
Starring: Lo Lieh, Pei-Pei Cheng, Lei Cheng, Chih-Ching Yang, Miao Ching
From: Shaw Brothers
It has been a long time since seeing something like this from the Shaw Brothers so when I stumbled across this random film on the El Rey Network, I had to check it out and it wasn't a bad decision on my part. My Letterboxd review is below:
Runtime: 103 minutes
Directed by: Cheh Chang
Starring: Lo Lieh, Pei-Pei Cheng, Lei Cheng, Chih-Ching Yang, Miao Ching
From: Shaw Brothers
It has been a long time since seeing something like this from the Shaw Brothers so when I stumbled across this random film on the El Rey Network, I had to check it out and it wasn't a bad decision on my part. My Letterboxd review is below:
It has been way too long since I've seen a traditional Shaw Brothers martial arts film so I went with this one, as it was on the El Rey Network (last night).
The plot: A swordswoman named Ying (Cheng Pei-Pei) sees a bad guy murder a couple and rape the female; she kills him. The bad guy is part of a gang known as the Green Dragons and well, they do get revenge, but it's not the same as that one film from last year that's apparently disappointingly bad. They go after her clan. The Green Dragons are a lethal bunch and their leader is a master at the title instrument-he's also a master at laughing maniacally-so they are glad when a rogue swordsman known as Ching (Lo Lieh) gets involved and he usually doesn't like to meddle in the affairs of others but he slowly changes his mind. A romance is also part of the equation.
This is not the most spectacular Shaw Brothers film I've seen, the most inventive or the most creatively shot. Yet this is still a solid entry. Most of the action is either the titular flying daggers or swords. This results in a lot of blood flowing or spraying all over the place. The hero comes off as a jerk at first but he goes on a hero's journey which includes having a downfall and training for a big comeback and redemption.
Like I said, it's a solid entry where you get a lot of what you expect (scenic locations, people being badasses, over the top villains, etc.) and a nice return to the genre for me. It was cool seeing several badasses, from Ying and Ching to a few others.
Sunday, October 11, 2015
A Nightmare On Elm Street 4: The Dream Master
A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: Renny Harlin
Starring: Robert Englund, Lisa Wilcox, Danny Hassel, Brooke Theiss, Andras Jones
From: New Line Cinema
I figured it was about time I saw another Freddy Krueger film and while this is only average, it certainly is better than the next few films in the series. I talk about it in my Letterboxd review below:
It had been awhile since I had watched an Elm Street movie and with this one in particular it was years since I last checked it out so this was the perfect time to kill two birds with one stone and see this entry; while it helped make Freddy Krueger a popular pop culture figure for awhile it also was a detriment to the series to have him become a wisecracking comedian and a goofball.
This film concludes the story told in the last entry and begins a new one with shy milquetoast Alice and her friends that are literally dragged into the proceedings. How Freddy is revived and brought back to life... it was certainly outside the box thinking, for sure. It's also utterly preposterous; a dog pissing fire? The general idea of the story seemed fine and how Alice is able to fight Freddy at the end I am okay with. It's just the execution that wasn't always there. I'll blame it on how this was rushed into production and started filming even before the script was finished, which is usually a pretty bad idea. No offense to Tuesday Knight but everyone would have preferred it if Patricia Arquette had returned as Kristen for this one. Most of the adult characters you see... bad and lame stereotypes. And some of the deaths were lacking.
That said, I can still rate this as average. Most film fans laugh or groan when you bring up the name Renny Harlin today. His career did go downhill after the 90's and I haven't watched a new film from him in ages. But I thought he did a nice job with this movie. The 80's-ness of it also tickled me pink; giant hair & references to Dynasty abound.
The soundtrack is a wacky mish-mash of 80's artists: Sinead O'Connor, Billy Idol and The Fat Boys all together? Yes. And there still are some good death sequences, with “the cockroach scene” being great in my eyes; at least personally it really is creepy and disturbing. That alone may have been the reason why I even have it rated as 2 ½ stars. The fact that the next two in the franchise are notably worse is definitely another explanation for my opinion.
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: Renny Harlin
Starring: Robert Englund, Lisa Wilcox, Danny Hassel, Brooke Theiss, Andras Jones
From: New Line Cinema
I figured it was about time I saw another Freddy Krueger film and while this is only average, it certainly is better than the next few films in the series. I talk about it in my Letterboxd review below:
It had been awhile since I had watched an Elm Street movie and with this one in particular it was years since I last checked it out so this was the perfect time to kill two birds with one stone and see this entry; while it helped make Freddy Krueger a popular pop culture figure for awhile it also was a detriment to the series to have him become a wisecracking comedian and a goofball.
This film concludes the story told in the last entry and begins a new one with shy milquetoast Alice and her friends that are literally dragged into the proceedings. How Freddy is revived and brought back to life... it was certainly outside the box thinking, for sure. It's also utterly preposterous; a dog pissing fire? The general idea of the story seemed fine and how Alice is able to fight Freddy at the end I am okay with. It's just the execution that wasn't always there. I'll blame it on how this was rushed into production and started filming even before the script was finished, which is usually a pretty bad idea. No offense to Tuesday Knight but everyone would have preferred it if Patricia Arquette had returned as Kristen for this one. Most of the adult characters you see... bad and lame stereotypes. And some of the deaths were lacking.
That said, I can still rate this as average. Most film fans laugh or groan when you bring up the name Renny Harlin today. His career did go downhill after the 90's and I haven't watched a new film from him in ages. But I thought he did a nice job with this movie. The 80's-ness of it also tickled me pink; giant hair & references to Dynasty abound.
The soundtrack is a wacky mish-mash of 80's artists: Sinead O'Connor, Billy Idol and The Fat Boys all together? Yes. And there still are some good death sequences, with “the cockroach scene” being great in my eyes; at least personally it really is creepy and disturbing. That alone may have been the reason why I even have it rated as 2 ½ stars. The fact that the next two in the franchise are notably worse is definitely another explanation for my opinion.
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Creep
Creep (2014)
Runtime: 77 minutes
Directed by: Patrick Brice
Starring: Mark Duplass, Patrick Brice
From: Yes, another damn horror movie from Blumhouse
Note that I posted a review this afternoon; it's directly below this one.
This is a movie that has gotten a buzz behind it since it came out on Netflix a few months ago. It's not a 5 star classic but it is at least better than the majority of horror films the past few years. Read why in my Letterboxd review below:
For the past few months I've seen multiple reviews of this from mutuals and from various messageboards so I figured it was about time I saw this movie, even though it's found footage and I am like most people in that it's usually tiresome and I groan when I hear that the trend has not stopped yet. But, many liked this film so I figured I'd give it a chance.
It's important to note that this is a two character movie and nothing more; you see no one else. A bearded hipster named Aaron (director Patrick Brice) captures video for cash, so when a random dude named Josef (mumblecore king Mark Duplass; I had never seen him before as I rarely watch that genre, although maybe I should give it more of a shot in the future) promises a nice chunk of cash for a day's work, he is happy to accept. Turns out, he's a guy who says he's terminally ill and wishes to have himself filmed for his unborn kid; yes, like that Michael Keaton movie My Life, and that's explicitly brought up. Josef seems weird right away and is a Stage 5 clinger friend to a guy he just met but as things progress, you realize how weird he is and things go downhill for Aaron.
I am rating this film as being fine. Josef lived up to the movie's title, and the whole enterprise was creepy throughout, especially once you see where it's going. It's less than 80 minutes so it's never boring. Some things were so absurd that I couldn't help but laugh, which I presume was the intent. Both performances were nice, especially from Duplass, who goes through a whole range of emotions.
I just wish there wouldn't have been a few illogical things that popped up that were needed to make this story play out the way they did. I won't spoil them but in the second half of the film I thought that things at times were nonsensical. Also, it's a goofy trick of jump scares by having Josef being a dick who likes to jump out and frighten poor Aaron. Still, like I said this is at least fine and is better and more imaginative than the majority of horror films that have come out in recent years.
Runtime: 77 minutes
Directed by: Patrick Brice
Starring: Mark Duplass, Patrick Brice
From: Yes, another damn horror movie from Blumhouse
Note that I posted a review this afternoon; it's directly below this one.
This is a movie that has gotten a buzz behind it since it came out on Netflix a few months ago. It's not a 5 star classic but it is at least better than the majority of horror films the past few years. Read why in my Letterboxd review below:
For the past few months I've seen multiple reviews of this from mutuals and from various messageboards so I figured it was about time I saw this movie, even though it's found footage and I am like most people in that it's usually tiresome and I groan when I hear that the trend has not stopped yet. But, many liked this film so I figured I'd give it a chance.
It's important to note that this is a two character movie and nothing more; you see no one else. A bearded hipster named Aaron (director Patrick Brice) captures video for cash, so when a random dude named Josef (mumblecore king Mark Duplass; I had never seen him before as I rarely watch that genre, although maybe I should give it more of a shot in the future) promises a nice chunk of cash for a day's work, he is happy to accept. Turns out, he's a guy who says he's terminally ill and wishes to have himself filmed for his unborn kid; yes, like that Michael Keaton movie My Life, and that's explicitly brought up. Josef seems weird right away and is a Stage 5 clinger friend to a guy he just met but as things progress, you realize how weird he is and things go downhill for Aaron.
I am rating this film as being fine. Josef lived up to the movie's title, and the whole enterprise was creepy throughout, especially once you see where it's going. It's less than 80 minutes so it's never boring. Some things were so absurd that I couldn't help but laugh, which I presume was the intent. Both performances were nice, especially from Duplass, who goes through a whole range of emotions.
I just wish there wouldn't have been a few illogical things that popped up that were needed to make this story play out the way they did. I won't spoil them but in the second half of the film I thought that things at times were nonsensical. Also, it's a goofy trick of jump scares by having Josef being a dick who likes to jump out and frighten poor Aaron. Still, like I said this is at least fine and is better and more imaginative than the majority of horror films that have come out in recent years.
Early Warning
Early Warning (1981)
Runtime: 86 minutes
Directed by: David R. Elliott
Starring: Delana Michaels, Christopher Wynne, Joe Chapman, Alvy Moore, Bill Sax
From: Missionary Enterprises
Note that tonight I'll be posting another review. This film is quite obscure and in a genre I rarely cover: Christian movies. I explain below in my Letterboxd review how I found out about it and how it's at least a competent motion picture:
Here is something out of the ordinary for me, but I am glad for a breath of fresh (or in this case, different) air once in awhile. I will admit that it was a review from a mutual (Jason Coffman) which informed me that this even existed; I won't talk about my religious beliefs here as I know that would only lead to trouble, but Christian films aren't ones I usually seek out. As he gave it a decent review and from the trailer I saw online and the plot description, when I found it being sold for super cheap by a private seller on Amazon, I took the chance and got it. It's only an average film but I don't regret the purchase or watching it.
This is a low budget thing which isn't like what I understand the original Left Behind films or the Omega Code series to be, where you see a bunch of extravagant things happen and they usually come off campy or goofy. Instead, we follow a gal named Jenny who is with a Christian group and they believe that a group named the One World Foundation is controlling much of the world behind the scenes and will soon bring the one world government as foretold in The Bible. Well, that group is right. She goes to a newspaper reporter named Sam and she has a cassette tape w/ a recording of the OWF's sinister plans. They end up on the run from the group and that's most of the film, a paranoid conspiracy thriller & a chase movie, part of it set in the desert and all of it filmed in Southern California. So it's not a movie where you see Revelations or the Rapture happen; rather, our two heroes wish to stop them before it reaches that point.
I won't spoil anything but there are some stupid moments, oh yes there is. Yet overall I can rate this as average. The cast of mainly no-names does a fine job, especially Delana Michaels and Christopher Wynne as the leads. It does not try to do more than it realistically can do with its budget; there are at least a few exciting moments along the way. The film is done competently overall; think of it like a TV movie from the time. And it's not that preachy, which will be good news for those people that aren't too religious; it's not constantly shoved down your throat.
I do have to note that not only was a supporting player here someone who apparently was a supporting player on Green Acres (Alvy Moore) but playing the part of a militia man named Tucker (w/ bib overalls and carrying an assault rifle) was none other than George “Buck” Flower. I know of at least one big fan of his so I'll mention that his role is small but as it's Buck Flower it is memorable. I laugh that he did a Christian film considering that before this not only did he appear in motion pictures like Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS and 70's sex comedies, he did at least one adult movie early in his career.
Also, I was amused by such things as Jenny driving a Mini Moke (an old open-air vehicle designed for cities by the beach) and the villain having an office with a door that opens horizontally when you stand by it... you know, like the doors on Star Trek and the Starship Enterprise.
Runtime: 86 minutes
Directed by: David R. Elliott
Starring: Delana Michaels, Christopher Wynne, Joe Chapman, Alvy Moore, Bill Sax
From: Missionary Enterprises
Note that tonight I'll be posting another review. This film is quite obscure and in a genre I rarely cover: Christian movies. I explain below in my Letterboxd review how I found out about it and how it's at least a competent motion picture:
Here is something out of the ordinary for me, but I am glad for a breath of fresh (or in this case, different) air once in awhile. I will admit that it was a review from a mutual (Jason Coffman) which informed me that this even existed; I won't talk about my religious beliefs here as I know that would only lead to trouble, but Christian films aren't ones I usually seek out. As he gave it a decent review and from the trailer I saw online and the plot description, when I found it being sold for super cheap by a private seller on Amazon, I took the chance and got it. It's only an average film but I don't regret the purchase or watching it.
This is a low budget thing which isn't like what I understand the original Left Behind films or the Omega Code series to be, where you see a bunch of extravagant things happen and they usually come off campy or goofy. Instead, we follow a gal named Jenny who is with a Christian group and they believe that a group named the One World Foundation is controlling much of the world behind the scenes and will soon bring the one world government as foretold in The Bible. Well, that group is right. She goes to a newspaper reporter named Sam and she has a cassette tape w/ a recording of the OWF's sinister plans. They end up on the run from the group and that's most of the film, a paranoid conspiracy thriller & a chase movie, part of it set in the desert and all of it filmed in Southern California. So it's not a movie where you see Revelations or the Rapture happen; rather, our two heroes wish to stop them before it reaches that point.
I won't spoil anything but there are some stupid moments, oh yes there is. Yet overall I can rate this as average. The cast of mainly no-names does a fine job, especially Delana Michaels and Christopher Wynne as the leads. It does not try to do more than it realistically can do with its budget; there are at least a few exciting moments along the way. The film is done competently overall; think of it like a TV movie from the time. And it's not that preachy, which will be good news for those people that aren't too religious; it's not constantly shoved down your throat.
I do have to note that not only was a supporting player here someone who apparently was a supporting player on Green Acres (Alvy Moore) but playing the part of a militia man named Tucker (w/ bib overalls and carrying an assault rifle) was none other than George “Buck” Flower. I know of at least one big fan of his so I'll mention that his role is small but as it's Buck Flower it is memorable. I laugh that he did a Christian film considering that before this not only did he appear in motion pictures like Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS and 70's sex comedies, he did at least one adult movie early in his career.
Also, I was amused by such things as Jenny driving a Mini Moke (an old open-air vehicle designed for cities by the beach) and the villain having an office with a door that opens horizontally when you stand by it... you know, like the doors on Star Trek and the Starship Enterprise.
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
The Den
The Den (2013)
Runtime: The version on Netflix Instant is 76 minutes long
Directed by: Zachary Donohue
Starring: Melanie Papaila, David Schlactenhaufen, Adam Shapiro, Anna Margaret Hollyman, Matt Riedy
From: Cliffbrook Films/Onset Films
I got Netflix back today and due to word of mouth I decided to see this film. I do not regret the decision. Read why in the Letterboxd review below:
I am not always a member of Netflix. At times I stay away from the site for awhile. Today I joined it again and not for Netflix & Chill reasons. Rather, it's to catch up on various films, especially in the horror realm. With this entry I am at number 11 in my list of horror watching during this Halloween season; that list will be posted I have known of this since Unfriended came out; many people have said the two are quite similar, and I can confirm that is the case. As I surprisingly enjoyed Unfriended and this movie came first, I figured it was about time to check this out.
Like the Blumhouse film, The Den (the title refers to the chat service that the main character uses; for a college experiment she has to spend the next few month using that site... which is just like the famed-or infamous-Chatroulette) is a found footage thing where a lot of the footage is from the computer screen of the protagonist, in this case Elizabeth. It will seem familiar to everyone, as she uses a Mac, has a Gmail account, and there's a faux YouTube where naturally all the comments are hateful garbage. She sees what looks like a murder then things spiral out of control as her friends are then targeted. How things end up... definitely different from Unfriend, and also definitely a little ridiculous... but that can be said about plenty of horror films.
The film definitely feels authentic, at least when it comes to how people act online. You see people do various pranks, some silly and others rather morbid and more gross than funny, at least in my eyes. You definitely also see Elizabeth get sexually harassed, getting asked vulgar questions and seeing men do disgusting things just to get their jollies. The horrors of the Internet are almost as bad as the traditional horrifying things that happen to the characters, which is murders and things I won't spoil. Those elements were creepy and disturbing which is why I rate this the same as Unfriended. I also have to mention that Melanie Papaila did a swell job as Elizabeth. You see her most of the time in this 76 minute movie that at least knows not to wear out its welcome, and thankfully she was able to rise to that challenge in what was not an easy role.
In short, if you enjoyed the story all about Laura Barnes, then it is likely you will get your kicks from this also.
Runtime: The version on Netflix Instant is 76 minutes long
Directed by: Zachary Donohue
Starring: Melanie Papaila, David Schlactenhaufen, Adam Shapiro, Anna Margaret Hollyman, Matt Riedy
From: Cliffbrook Films/Onset Films
I got Netflix back today and due to word of mouth I decided to see this film. I do not regret the decision. Read why in the Letterboxd review below:
I am not always a member of Netflix. At times I stay away from the site for awhile. Today I joined it again and not for Netflix & Chill reasons. Rather, it's to catch up on various films, especially in the horror realm. With this entry I am at number 11 in my list of horror watching during this Halloween season; that list will be posted I have known of this since Unfriended came out; many people have said the two are quite similar, and I can confirm that is the case. As I surprisingly enjoyed Unfriended and this movie came first, I figured it was about time to check this out.
Like the Blumhouse film, The Den (the title refers to the chat service that the main character uses; for a college experiment she has to spend the next few month using that site... which is just like the famed-or infamous-Chatroulette) is a found footage thing where a lot of the footage is from the computer screen of the protagonist, in this case Elizabeth. It will seem familiar to everyone, as she uses a Mac, has a Gmail account, and there's a faux YouTube where naturally all the comments are hateful garbage. She sees what looks like a murder then things spiral out of control as her friends are then targeted. How things end up... definitely different from Unfriend, and also definitely a little ridiculous... but that can be said about plenty of horror films.
The film definitely feels authentic, at least when it comes to how people act online. You see people do various pranks, some silly and others rather morbid and more gross than funny, at least in my eyes. You definitely also see Elizabeth get sexually harassed, getting asked vulgar questions and seeing men do disgusting things just to get their jollies. The horrors of the Internet are almost as bad as the traditional horrifying things that happen to the characters, which is murders and things I won't spoil. Those elements were creepy and disturbing which is why I rate this the same as Unfriended. I also have to mention that Melanie Papaila did a swell job as Elizabeth. You see her most of the time in this 76 minute movie that at least knows not to wear out its welcome, and thankfully she was able to rise to that challenge in what was not an easy role.
In short, if you enjoyed the story all about Laura Barnes, then it is likely you will get your kicks from this also.
Monday, October 5, 2015
The Phantom Of The Opera
The Phantom of the Opera (1925)
Runtime: The version I saw was approximately 90 minutes long
Directed by: This was actually done by a few different directors
Starring: Lon Chaney, Mary Philbin, Norman Kerry, Arthur Edmund Carewe, Gibson Gowland
From: Universal
I return to watching horror films by seeing one I actually have never seen before. It being on TCM last night solved that and it does deserve its lofty reputation. I explain why in my Letterboxd review below:
Note: I saw this movie last night on Turner Classic Movies and among the many versions of this out there, it was the restoration of the 1929 reissue; it will take too long to explain the differences between this and other versions, but I wanted to make that clear.
Then again, I have never seen any version of the classic story by Gaston Leroux, whether it be stage or screen. I knew the general story, as I am sure many do already, so I won't say much about it except that it's about an evil man with a deformed face who falls in love with an opera singer named Christine and via the catacombs of Paris-where he resides-he does various awful things to try and ensure her love and her hand in marriage.
While I had never seen this in full of course I had seen images of Lon Chaney as the titular Phantom and how horrifying his visage was. You likely have seen the unmasking scene even if you did not know where it was from. Turns out, he delivered a great performances; the cast is fine as a whole but he was clearly the best. Also high quality was the set design and the cinematography. The catacombs did look quite spooky and creepy, which only added to the mood.
As what was popular at the time, while it was in black and white the footage had various tints on it to match the mood; if it was at night it was blue, something creepy was green, a fiery scene was red, daytime was yellow, etc. In addition, one section of the film was in full color, or at least a primitive version of it. I wonder what it would have been like if all the movie had been like that; the section in question involved The Phantom in a ghoulish red outfit. All those great images combined with a fantastic organ score means that this is a silent classic which does deserve such an honor.
Runtime: The version I saw was approximately 90 minutes long
Directed by: This was actually done by a few different directors
Starring: Lon Chaney, Mary Philbin, Norman Kerry, Arthur Edmund Carewe, Gibson Gowland
From: Universal
I return to watching horror films by seeing one I actually have never seen before. It being on TCM last night solved that and it does deserve its lofty reputation. I explain why in my Letterboxd review below:
Note: I saw this movie last night on Turner Classic Movies and among the many versions of this out there, it was the restoration of the 1929 reissue; it will take too long to explain the differences between this and other versions, but I wanted to make that clear.
Then again, I have never seen any version of the classic story by Gaston Leroux, whether it be stage or screen. I knew the general story, as I am sure many do already, so I won't say much about it except that it's about an evil man with a deformed face who falls in love with an opera singer named Christine and via the catacombs of Paris-where he resides-he does various awful things to try and ensure her love and her hand in marriage.
While I had never seen this in full of course I had seen images of Lon Chaney as the titular Phantom and how horrifying his visage was. You likely have seen the unmasking scene even if you did not know where it was from. Turns out, he delivered a great performances; the cast is fine as a whole but he was clearly the best. Also high quality was the set design and the cinematography. The catacombs did look quite spooky and creepy, which only added to the mood.
As what was popular at the time, while it was in black and white the footage had various tints on it to match the mood; if it was at night it was blue, something creepy was green, a fiery scene was red, daytime was yellow, etc. In addition, one section of the film was in full color, or at least a primitive version of it. I wonder what it would have been like if all the movie had been like that; the section in question involved The Phantom in a ghoulish red outfit. All those great images combined with a fantastic organ score means that this is a silent classic which does deserve such an honor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)