Sholay

Sholay (1975)

Runtime: 204 minutes; no kidding.

Directed by: Ramesh Sippy

Starring: Dharmendra, Amitabh Bachchan, Sanjeev Kumar, Hema Malini, Jaya Bhaduri, Amjad Khan

From: United Producers

This is a classic movie from India that I finally was able to track down and see last night. Thankfully, it was worth the big hype I had heard about it the past several years. A nice way to end 2016, as I don't plan on watching anything tonight. 2016 was not a great year (which is an opinion all of us can agree with) but at least I saw some quality films and hopefully 2017 will be better all around. Why this movie deserves its reputation is explained below: 

In the past I have remarked how the country of India has made an incredible number of movies throughout the decades and yet to the Western world, they typically look at the country's output as being wacky Bollywood musical numbers and/or insane over the top action beats. A prolific film scene with films in several different languages shouldn't be judged like that, so more often I should check out what the country has to offer, as I unfortunately have only seen a small handful of films in my life.

For awhile now I've known of Sholay and it was just recently that I tracked it down so throughout last night I saw all 204 minutes of the Director's Cut. I know that this is not only one of the highest rated movies ever to come out of India (topping various polls throughout the years) but it's beloved to the point that it is part of Indian culture, various characters, phrases and scenes becoming a part of daily life. Something which has such a monumental impact sounds like a piece of work that I should check out. Well, while the reviews of some added important context to how certain moments and motifs relate to Indians, on its own the film is pretty great.

The tale sounds simple on paper: two anti-hero criminals (Veeru and Jai) are hired by ex-policeman Thakur to not only protect the small rural village he lives in, but capture the loathsome bandit known as Gabbar Singh as means of revenge for a past deed. Yep, Seven Samurai was a definite inspiration, along with The Magnificent Seven, various Spaghetti Westerns and Peckinpah films like The Wild Bunch. The setting will remind you of a Western (it's set in modern times, yet you rarely see modern trappings, so it might as well be set decades earlier), and from that aspect alone I was digging this. Veeru and Jai of course find love interests and the expected happens there, although those female characters-Basanti and Radha-are pretty cool in their own right.

Our heroes aren't always honorable people but several events cause them to do the right thing and help out those who need assistance the most. Lord knows that Gabbar Singh is a horrible human being who either orders some awful acts to be done or he does the terrible deeds himself. It's a compelling story with very exciting/thrilling action scenes so those that dig Seven Samurai/Magnificent Seven for its action beats should enjoy this for the same reason. There are some “only in India” moments, such as a few things being rather over the top, some rather dramatic acting, the romantic angle including some rather odd comedy, and yes, there are a few musical numbers. I have no idea what the songs are about but at least they were catchy. The most memorable dance number showed that among the main languages you get in Indian film (Tamil, Hindi, Bengali and Telugu) this is Hindi... the dance number in question takes place during the Hindu festival known as Holi. Some may have seen it before and not known it's name... it's where colored powder or colored water is thrown all around.

This movie has universal themes which translate to every language but has unique things which make it a product from India. Certainly, the moment where on a motorcycle w/ sidecar one of the heroes sits on the shoulders of the other while playing the harmonica is not the sort of thing you see often. The few minutes spent with a prison ward who was basically Adenoid Hynkel from The Great Dictator... sure, why not? It seems odd with the rest of the movie but that is what makes Bollywood, Bollywood. It is nicely directed by Ramesh Sippy and has a distinctive score from Rahul Dev Burman. I say this should be watched and enjoyed by film fans all across the world.

Rewatching Old Movies...

is what I did yesterday. For entirey different reasons, both Orphan and Black Belt Jones are greatly enjoyable. Tonight, I'll watch something completely different; it's a beloved movie in a heavily populated country that is nonetheless little known in the Western world. You can read the review for that the night of New Years Eve.

Alvin and the Chipmunks

Alvin and the Chipmunks (2007)

Runtime: 92 minutes

Directed by: Tim Hill

Starring: Jason Lee, David Cross, Cameron Richardson, Jane Lynch, and various voices

From: Fox 2000

This was the one movie I saw while on vacation; I returned yesterday afternoon back home and it's nice to be back. This movie... not so nice. I give some short thoughts about it below:

I did not see this by choice. It was put on TV for the sake of my twin 4 year old nephews. As a little kid I watched the 80's cartoon version of the Chipmunks. Last December while on vacation w/ the family, I saw the new CGI show on Nickelodeon; it was pretty bad. It tried to be “hip” and “cool” and it was not the old cartoon I remembered. I won't complain too loudly as it's always nice to see family; I just know that I am not the type to have kids of my own. Raising one (or more) would be quite stressful in general and in particular, I wouldn't want to see such programming on a frequent basis.

After having to see this movie, it's just as bad when it comes to the “hip” and “cool” aspect. This is an origin story where Alvin, Simon and Theodore first meet Dave Seville, and how they become singing stars. Sad to say, there are some problems... it is married to what is now 10 year old pop culture so at times it seems incredibly dated. Then there's the little thing of the Chipmunks being real terrors. For the first half of the movie, I felt really bad for Dave Seville... they got him fired from his job and screwed things up with a woman he was interested in.

David Cross (he literally took this role for a paycheck) as the evil record company executive villain was a saving grace. I mean, Jason Lee was He was such an A-hole that you did feel bad for the protagonists. But there's references to The Pussycat Dolls and toilet humor, so I sighed at that as while I doubt I have seen any episodes of the 80's cartoon since it went off the air in 1990, I know they didn't reference crass 80's songs or have such things as burping & farting. The wisecracks about marketing and product tie-ins seem rather disingenuous here. I do know that all four movies in the franchise made a boatload of cash no matter what me and actual critics think. What do we know? Them becoming a big deal again was a surprise to me and I do have fond memories of the cartoon. I just wish it'd be more timeless and not so unrefined. I could really carp and nitpick about particular scenes & moments, but I'll let the rating say a lot here.

Still, my now annual Christmas trips are nice and I hope everyone has a Happy Holidays this year.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)

Runtime: 107 minutes

Directed by: William Shatner

Starring: The Shat and the rest of the expected crew. There's also the likes of David Warner and Laurence Luckinbill

From: Paramount

This is up a little late, but I was literally getting ready for my vacation, which will begin in a few hours. This is actually what I watched last night. It's not atrocious and yet it's so slight and inconsequential, it's not something that really needs to even be seen. I talk all about it below: 

In a few hours, I'll be off on vacation for Christmas, as has been customary the past few years. I've been busy with getting ready for the trip; thus, that is why this review is going up at such an odd hour, at least for me. I'll wish everyone a Happy Holidays. I might post a review of something while I'm gone, but it literally depends on what the family wants to watch. Things will be back to normal for me in about a week's time.

I know, what a film to see before you leave. I did watch this once before, but that was shortly after it came out on VHS. Yes, it was many years ago. Even as a 10 year old or so, I know I did not enjoy this as much as the first four movies in the franchise, although I couldn't have articulated why at the time. I was dreading seeing this again; I put it off for awhile. Finally, I decided to bite the bullet. This isn't unwatchable; it's just dull and totally forgettable.

While the movie is about more than just literally trying to “find God”, bringing up religion like that in a bold manner in the Star Trek universe just seems like a bad idea. So is having the villain be a Vulcan New Age hippy who can read minds and tries to help people ease the pain in their lives. I understand that Shatner wanted the villain to be a televangelist type character, and that idea isn't awful. Things changed by the time they started filming. Another problem is trying to be as glib and amusing as The Voyage Home while telling a story where-among other things-Bones deals with his grief over his father passing away... it doesn't work. You have that while you have Scotty do a pratfall and mid 50's Uhura does a “sexy dance” as a distraction; what a mess. The movie isn't that funny and it does stupid things such as sending a barely working Enterprise to deal with an important situation because of Captain Kirk; they couldn't have had the Enterprise crew get on a ship that was fully operational...???

What didn't help matters was that Paramount left first time movie director Shatner (of course William would have Captain Kirk literally climb a mountain with no harnesses or support) out to dry. They did not give the movie much money so it always looks cheap and the special effects... ooh boy. Some of them look really bad in HD. The Shat wished to go back and properly fix those effects in a new edition of the movie but as I imagine Paramount would like to forget everything revolving around this movie, they declined.

At least the famous cast of characters is there and the new people are fine. Thank goodness Sean Connery wasn't Sybok as originally planned, as he couldn't have helped make this any better. But it's obvious at times that this was heavily edited down and you should probably be like Paramount and pretend this doesn't exist. Sure, you don't get to find out why God needs a starship, but you also don't get to see some beloved pop culture figures sing Row, Row, Row Your Boat, nor see a hellhole ironically called Paradise City, where the grass isn't green and the girls aren't always pretty...

Home Alone Is Still Fun

That is all. I'll see the second one again tonight and tomorrow night I might see Rogue One again... so I'll see y'all in a few days.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

84% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 264 reviews)

Runtime: 134 minutes

Directed by: Gareth Edwards

Starring: Felicity Jones, Diego Luna, Donnie Yen, Ben Mendelsohn... and yes, Peter Cushing

From: Disney

I'll admit this is not my best review. I've been preoccupied with things as of late and that won't be over with until late tomorrow night. Thus, don't expect any reviews until Monday night. Sorry about that. In short, I thought this movie was awesome, despite its flaws. I have some non-spoiler thoughts below:

As I've mentioned in other Star Wars reviews, I've watched and loved the original three movies since I was a little kid. Thus, I know this won't be the most unbiased opinion you'll find on Letterboxd concerning this motion picture. That said, hopefully my review will still have some merit to everyone.

I wasn't sure about the movie until I saw it last night. The general idea sounded awesome... a grittier look at the universe and seeing how things were set up for the '77 beginning of the franchise. Then there were the re-shoots and the composer changing. I was hoping that “the corporate idiots” I sometimes talk about here and talk about a lot outside of Letterboxd, that they'd ruin things by meddling when their presence was not needed at all.

Well, while I think there were a few too many one-liners and I don't think some of them were really needed, otherwise I loved this movie. I'll admit that I am also biased in enjoying the type of story where various and disparate characters come together to fight against overwhelming odds and use their various skills to win the battle or the war. It's one of the many reasons why I love the Mass Effect series of games. Here we get that as Felicity Jones, Diego Luna, Donnie Yen, Riz Ahmed, and a few others have to come together and try to steal the plans for the Death Star. While we know the end result from having seen Star Wars, that doesn't make this any less exciting.

This was indeed a grittier look at the universe, more like a war film than a space opera. I was happy to see something different that nonetheless was obviously part of the same overall story. The Empire looked like serious threats (while it was obvious how and the action scenes (whether aerial or on the ground) are all great and they are all shot great and you can always figure out what's going on. The final act is tremendous. There is still plenty of fan service, for better or for worse. I wish we could have gotten to know some of the characters better but what we get, they are still quite entertaining. As many others have noted, the droid K-2SO was a big highlight. I presume the novel based on the movie will address that issue. The effects... the practical stuff was rad and most of the computer stuff was good, but still... I'll just say that certain things have not gotten past the Uncanny Valley aspect, although for me it wasn't a deal-breaker. The various ethical questions of this idea possibly becoming more popular, that is something else entirely. I hope it doesn't become a trend, as movie-making doesn't need more artificiality and phoniness, you know

I definitely understand why there are plenty of people who won't really care for the film. The focus on action and spectacle rather than making outstanding characters is a valid complaint. Yet even with its flaws, this worked like gangbusters for me. Then again, I enjoyed the director's Godzilla, which is even more a divisive movie. The scale, the score, the general war theme, Darth Vader being a badass, the lush beautiful new worlds, and some bold choices that were made with the story that you wouldn't expect considering this is a Disney production... I am thankful my initial concerns were unwarranted.

King of the Zombies

King of the Zombies (1941)

Runtime: 67 minutes

Directed by: Jean Yarbrough

Starring: Dick Purcell, John Archer, Mantan Moreland, Joan Woodbury, Henry Victor

From: Monogram

Here is a random movie I saw earlier tonight. I literally did not know of its existence until about 10 minutes before it showed on TCM. It's not a must-see but it is a curio. I mean, where else will you see a "zombie" have an existential crisis? I talk all about it below: 

I was able to squeeze in a viewing of this film when it played on TCM earlier tonight. It was something I hadn't heard of before I noticed it on the TCM schedule with the plot description: “A mad scientist raises the dead to fight for Hitler in World War II.” Now how can I NOT see a movie with such a scenario? Regrettably, that was not what actually happened. This horror/comedy is at least watchable, although I do have to give the warning that the three leads are two pilots... and one of the pilots' servants... who is black, and he speaks in what I'll call “the stereotypical Negro dialect” and he's comic relief.

The thing is, it was not as offensive as I first feared. You have to put up with the way he speaks (not to mention the other black people that are present speak the same way) but this servant is actually more of a hero than the two lunkhead white people, who are made to be buffoons. A nice bit of subversion, at least if that was done on purpose. It's also almost constantly amusing and sometimes pretty funny. I should explain that the actual plot is an airplane with our three leads crashes on a random Caribbean island, where they encounter this mad scientist (who is more than he first seems), a spooky old mansion, and various & sundry characters that are around.

Like I said, this wasn't as cringe-worthy as I first thought it was going to be. It's more funny than scary but that is alright. Mantan Moreland-as Jefferson, the servant-was the definite highlight, being entertaining despite all the handicaps of the character and of Hollywood at the time. I know that Moreland was an actor for a few decades and I'll presume that he rarely got the chance to be a big part of a movie like he was here. If given a chance, I am sure more people would know of his talents. Alas... this movie is public domain meaning it can easily be found online and it's only 67 minutes long, meaning it's not something that requires a lot of time if you so desire to check this out.

It's A Wonderful Life

It's A Wonderful Life (1946)

Runtime: 130 minutes

Directed by: Frank Capra

Starring: James Stewart, Donna Reed, Lionel Barrymore, Thomas Mitchell, Henry Travers

From: Liberty Films

Yep, this is something I have seen before, but the last time was many years ago. A familiar refrain from me, I know. Thankfully I got to see this last night. It's still great. I talk all about it below: 

Yet again this is a case where I had seen a movie before but the last viewing was a long time ago. To show how old I am (35 years old as of now) I watched this on TV more than once back when the film was still in public domain and thus it was on TV all the time during the holiday season, in various edits and either in black and white or colorized. I imagine I saw it on VHS in the day and yet I am not sure of the last time I checked it out from beginning to end, except it was figuratively when dinosaurs roamed the Earth.

Everyone knows the plot by now so I won't dwell on mentioning the specifics. Things aren't complex and yet it's perfect for this movie and its message. George Bailey is a likable “everyman” who has big dreams (he figuratively wishes he could lasso the moon) but because of circumstances and a really horrible skinflint penny-pinching rich antagonist named Mr. Potter (I had forgotten just how awful this dude was. Sad to say, I realize that there's always been rotten persons like this around so he isn't too much of a caricature), he's had to give up his dreams to try and help everyone else in his pastoral town of Bedford Falls. Everyone can feel overwhelmed by circumstances or feel down in the dumps because they think that they are facing insurmountable odds or think that no one cares about them. If only everyone had a simple yet kind-hearted guardian angel named Clarence.

Even 70 years later the main message of the film is important and something that we should all remember. Sure, it's been parodied to death by now but that doesn't lessen its impact. No matter what you may think or realize, everyone has a connection with numerous people throughout their lives and they would all be crushed if you decided to take your own life. That is a critical thing to remember during this holiday season, when many are feeling more depressed anyhow. I am thankful that this movie can charm and inspire even all these years later. A captivating story plus great performances from everyone (especially Jimmy Stewart), and a real tearjerker ending... if someone you have never seen this before, this is a mistake I say you need to fix right away. Even the biggest grinch should enjoy this.

I have been busy as of late and thus this is the first review I've posted in a few days. It may not be until Friday evening that I review another film. But this was something I felt like I had to see last night and I am definitely glad I did.

Black Christmas (Don't Worry, I Saw The Original)

Black Christmas (1974)

Runtime: 98 minutes

Directed by: Bob Clark

Starring: Olivia Hussey, Keir Dullea, Margot Kidder, John Saxon, Marian Waldman

From: Several low-budget Canadian companies

I realized it was about time I checked this out again so that I could have a proper review online; thankfully it's still a classic horror film and one of the first slashers. I dish about it below:

As I tend to say, this is a film I had seen before but the last viewing was years ago. I couldn't think of a better time to give this a review than now. Thankfully it is still a quality horror picture that was one of the first slashers and thus was incredibly influential. Between the chilling nature overall, the kills that were memorable even if there was hardly any gore, and the POV shots of the killer... Halloween was clearly inspired by this.

This tale is deceptively simple: a mysterious figure hides in the attic of a sorority house, makes obscene calls on another line to the house, and they start killing the sorority sisters. During all that, Jess (Olivia Hussey) has to deal with serious relationship problems when it comes to her boyfriend Peter (Keir Dullea). I had forgotten how funny the movie was at times, between a bumbling cop, the amazing 70's fashion/decor and both Barb (Margot Kidder) and house leader Mrs. Mac (Marian Waldman) are clear alcoholics, with the latter drinking sherry almost nonstop.

Even with the humorous bits, much of the movie is pretty frightening and it builds dread. After all, some disturbed individual living right in the attic of your home is enough to send chills up your spine. Then it's the nature of those phone calls which are also terrifying. It is shot quite well by Bob Clark and when it's augmented by an always creepy score with low tones by Carl Zittrer, it goes a long way to making this an always thrilling watch. A talented cast also helps in that regard... you typically can't go wrong with John Saxon.

Plus, the ending is tremendous and I loved how the story resolved itself; talk about a punch to the gut. I know from hearsay that even in the unrated form the director preferred, the remake of this film is a pale imitation which unfortunately does many things different and thus the story is a lot worse off. In addition, I wish that more slashers would have been like this or Halloween rather than the goofy cliché nonsense we got instead.

Woman of Fire

Woman of Fire (Hwanyeo) (1971)

Runtime: 100 minutes

Directed by: Kim Ki-Young

Starring: Namkoong Won, Jeon Gye-Hyeon, Yuon Yuh-Jung, Choi Moo-Ryong

From: Woo Jin Films Co., Ltd.

Here is something I saw via the free Korean Film Archive that anyone can watch on YouTube. It's a curio, as I explain below: 

Wednesday night I did not see any movies; instead I watched some documentaries about Pearl Harbor. As it was the 75th anniversary of that important day in American history, I figured that would be the most appropriate thing to do. Last night, I decided to see another Korean movie; it had been awhile. A few will be leaving Netflix Instant last next week and I hope to see at least one of those but but this isn't one of those. Instead, it's from the official YouTube Channel of the Korean Film Archive, which has over 100 movies available for free. Even to a lot of film fans, they really only know the past 15 to 20 years of filmmaking from that country, as they produced many acclaimed works. Well, even before then they made motion pictures that were worthy of being watched. It's just that things were different back then and international distribution did not happen too often, or at least to the United States.

Around this time 2 years ago I saw The Housemaid, a 1960 movie from Kim Ke-Young. It's about the title character entering the life of a young family and due to her predatory ways and being insane, she absolutely tore that family apart. Well, this film is a remake of that, from the same director. The general story is the same but various things are different; it's not just that the original was in black & white and this is in color. The housemaid here doesn't start off as predatory; she's just a girl from the country who ends up in Seoul to try and earn money for her poor family. Because of the husband being henpecked and weak, even though he brags about being faithful, he has issues... he becomes unfaithful after getting drunk. Things happen, and that's when the housemaid becomes crazed.

While this is a good movie, I find The Housemaid to be great. Just personal preference, that's all. Both have crazed moments that make you realize South Korea didn't just start making movies w/ outrageous moments yesterday; it's happened for decades now. Those moments in the two movies are sometimes different. It's a shame that plenty of the director's films are lost; from what I've seen he is quite good, and also lenses things in a unique way, with interesting shots and camera placement. The prints for both films would be lost if a hardcoded French subtitled version wasn't around. When the World Cinema Foundation put out The Housemaid, they took the painstaking task of erasing all those subtitles; Woman of Fire still has those, but hopefully they won't be a bother.

You'll notice that this movie also has a bold use of red and blue, and also has songs that I presume are early 70's version of K-Pop. Oh, and this is a rare film which takes place on a chicken farm. Apparently, you're supposed to knock on the door of chicken coops before you enter, else you scare the chickens. Hey, that's what they said!

Silent Night, Deadly Night 2

Silent Night, Deadly Night 2 (1987)

Runtime: 88 minutes

Directed by: Lee Harry

Starring: Eric Freeman, James Newman, Elizabeth Kaitan, Jean Miller, many people from the first movie, via the lengthy and copious flashbacks

From: Silent Night Releasing Corporation

I finally saw this infamous movie in full. It is famous for several different things... or rather, infamous. I explain all that below: 

A few times in my life I've seen the original Silent Night, Deadly Night. It's an interesting story and you actually feel bad for Bobby and his little brother Ricky; while it has its faults, I always thought it was entertaining. Before last night I hadn't seen any of the sequels. Sure, I knew that most of the first half of this is stock footage as a now-adult Ricky talks to a psychiatrist and the second half includes a scene simply known as GARBAGE DAY, where we see an overacting Ricky due a bunch of crazy things in the span of a few minutes as he walks around a suburban neighborhood. Now that I've finally seen it in full, the film is awful and yet it's about 5 stars in terms of sheer entertainment value.

As I already mentioned, the first half is Ricky talking to a psychiatrist-who turns out to be a real dick, to put it bluntly-and long clips from the first film are shown. After that, Ricky stops talking about his murderous brother Billy and chats about himself; he's also a murdering SOB and this is where things really ramp up. The stock footage is definitely better made than the new footage, which is comedy in of itself. Then there's how Ricky (Eric Freeman) constantly overacts; as others have noted, he loves to emote with his eyebrows. Among the hilarious bits:

* Ricky being adopted by a Jewish couple, so he doesn't have to worry about Christmas being celebrated. Really.
* Ricky's relationship with his new girlfriend.
* Ricky running over a Tecate-drinking man a few times due to that man being rather rape-y.
* A kill involving an umbrella
* The entire scene inside the movie theatre.
* The address of where Mother Superior currently lives. Not to mention, the goofy way they try to disguise that the actress playing her was different than in the original film.

It's amazingly bad. I wish that GARBAGE DAY was still in full on YouTube, as I first saw it a few years ago. While I do recommend renting the movie so you can witness the badness from beginning to end, it'd be nice for those who have never seen anything from this before to bask in the majesty of the scene and how surreal it really is... although there is a killcount video up on YouTube and it is amusing. From the jumper cable death to a Chevy Chevette blowing up after only a few gunshots (well, that may not be so hard to believe...), from Ricky constantly laughing at the mayhem he's causing to the cops here being as inept as in the first movie... in context or out of it, the scene is incredible.

This should be a bad movie cult classic, if it isn't already is. There's more insanity than just an unforgettable 5 or so minutes, trust me. 

Black Sheep

Black Sheep (1996)

Runtime: 87 minutes

Directed by: Penelope Spheeris

Starring: Chris Farley, David Spade, Tim Matheson, Christine Ebersole, Gary Busey

From: Paramount

You know, this isn't that bad. It's no Tommy Boy, but it's still watchable. I try to explain why below: 

A few nights ago I used Netflix Instant to watch this. The only other time I watched it was shortly after Farley died, so it's been a very long time. I remember it being not as good as Tommy Boy and only a few bits stuck out. The biggest one was Farley yelling, “Kill Whitey!” I had no memory of it being after Mudhoney performed at an MTV Rock the Vote event.

The plot is simple: the writers realized that a politician dealing with a buffoon brother (as Roger Clinton was in everyone's mind as the headache half-brother of Bill Clinton) can be pretty funny, so the story is that Tim Matheson is running for Governor of Washington state and he's trying to dethrone current Governor Christine Ebersole. Matheson's brother is Farley, and he is embarrassing so he has David Spade try to control him, to little effect. Gary Busey is also present, as a militia man sort of people who lives off the grid. His character is seen as sort of a hero; in late 2016, such a character probably wouldn't be a hero..

The movie is quite silly and also on the stupid side. Yet I can say that this is average. I still laughed enough to where I could get past how the story wasn't so strong, and when they tried to introduce an actual plot with actual intrigue, it's not always great. There's some good physical comedy also. While apparently the director hated Spade and Farley had to be convinced by Spade to make the film, it's not so bad that it deserved the savage attacks the critics gave it at the time, treating it like the cinematic scrapple for 1996. It's not as funny or memorable as Tommy Boy but it's still watchable.

Spirited Away

Spirited Away (Sen To Chihiro No Kamikakushi) (2001) 

Runtime: 125 minutes

Directed by: Hayao Miyazai

Starring: I saw the subbed version, so it was a bunch of random Japanese voice actors

From: Studio Ghibli

Would you believe I had never seen this before? It's true. Would you believe that Fathom Events showed it both dubbed and subbed, so I got to see it subbed last night? Also true. Would you even believe that I did not love this movie... or even really like it? It sounds impossible but regrettably, also true. I try to explain why this was such a letdown below: 

I just don't get it.

I will admit that by now I thought I would have seen more of Studio Ghibli's movies. If there was a legal way to stream them by paying just a few bucks each... I can say that last year I saw Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind and thought it was really cool, and Porco Rosso... well, that was fine and that's it. It's been more than a year since seeing something from them, but when I saw that Fathom Events would be showing this both dubbed and subbed, what better time to check out what I understand is the studio's most beloved and most popular film. Don't worry, I saw the subbed version.

There have been various times in the past where here and elsewhere, I've stated that I did not care for a film most everyone else loves. Fury Road is the most famous example but there have been others. I never thought beforehand that this could possibly go into such a category, as it has universal acclaim among critics and fans; I literally knew nothing about the story besides seeing .gifs and pictures of a few characters. As I presume most have seen this already, a plot descirption shouldn't be necessary.

Now, I won't get into what drugs I may or may not have done in my lifetime. However, maybe I would have been better off smoking some pot before seeing this! Sludge monsters, animals that are now walking bipedal things, a person changes into another animal, soot w/ legs and eyes, garish creatures all around... this was WAY weirder than I expected. Unfortunately, I found it to be off-puttingly weird, especially when you factor in how most of the characters you see are real a**holes, even some that end up helping out our heroine. I did not enjoy the bizarre nonsensical story either, nor how our heroine was more often than not a clumsy buffoon, although finally in the final act she became more of a hero; there isn't a lot of character growth with her, regrettably. The ending... in various ways, it came across like a wet fart.

This movie just left me cold. The rating reflects that the animation was top-notch and the musical score was great. It's just the story and characters... I am disappointed in that I am disappointed with the movie. I could have lied and said that this was great, but I wanted to be honest here, even if I know that everyone else will vehemently disagree with my opinion. I don't know if it's me never liking Alice in Wonderland-there are obvious parallels-or something else... I was just not enchanted with the story or the unpleasant characters. I'll still watch more Miyazaki in the future; from what I understand I shouldn't have such a detached, negative feeling to his other stone cold classics.

The Squall

The Squall (1929)

Runtime: 102 minutes

Directed by: Alexander Korda

Starring: Richard Tucker, Alice Joyce, Loretta Young, Myrna Loy, ZaSu Pitts

From: First National

This is a pretty obscure movie I saw last night. It's not great but at least it was watchable, if a little silly. I talk about this bunk below:

Here is a random movie that was played late last night on Turner Classic Movies. All this month, each Friday they will show plenty of Myrna Loy movies; I will see some of them. This one is pretty obscure but it sounded so odd, I wanted to check it out. Basically, Loy wears bronzer and is a Gypsy (not to use what the Romani people say is a slur against them. It's just an easy way to describe the type of character she played, as it was greatly stereotypical, including the accent she used) who ends up on a Hungarian farm during a squall (i.e. bad storm) and as she claimed she was mistreated, she was allowed to stay on that family farm... only to act like a vamp and thus cause a lot of trouble among the adult males who live and/or work there.

Things are cliché and some of the acting is rather not good. Yet it's still watchable. Some of the cast does well, including Loy (playing an ethnic character, as she often did early in her career), Alice Joyce, and Loretta Young. Plus, this is the only film I've seen where a guy sings to his horse as ducks quack LOUDLY in the background. There are several songs heard; I understand, as the talkie era was still new and people weren't used to hearing such things as the cinema.

While this is overlong and the play this was based on was probably better on stage, I at least can say that this is average. I can laugh that the title girl caused a lot of problems but it was mainly because the men were all horndogs and figuratively couldn't keep it in their pants. There's melodrama about broken relationships, stolen money, etc. The fact that the cast includes some other familiar faces (Alice Joyce, Loretta Young, ZaSu Pitts) does help make this hokum palpable.

Noah's Ark

Noah's Ark (1928)

Runtime: 100 minutes

Directed by: Michael Curtiz

Starring: Dolores Costello, George O'Brien, Guinn “Big Boy” Wiliams, Noah Beery, Louise Fazenda

From: Warner Bros.

Here's a random movie I saw on TCM a few hours ago. It has a small appearance from Myrna Loy. I hadn't seen something from her in months. The movie has a whole isn't great but it does have some noteworthy things. I explain what those things are below: 

Maybe it made more sense in the 135 minute original version that is now lost in the annals of time... instead, there's a 100 minute restored version.

A few hours ago I watched this film on TCM. It is mostly silent, with a few “talkie” scenes and the rest is augmented with various sound effects. Comparing such things as the Tower of Babel and the Golden Calf to the problems of the late 1920's stock market, I get. That was the opening few minutes. But, the rest of the movie tries to tie in Noah & The Great Flood to World War I, and the connection is tenuous, at best. Intolerance, this ain't.

The plot: the majority of it is following a few people during World War I. There's Travis & Al, who at times have a homoerotic relationship. Travis meets a German gal named Marie and they fall in love. Both Al and Travis enter the first World War, where of course tragedy strikes. Then there's the parallel story about Noah and the building of his Ark, where the same actors play different roles. The story is not the greatest and there's plenty of goofy or eye-rolling moments. Yet what does help is that the effects still look nice even 88 years later, especially those that bring the Biblical world to life.

The standout scene is the Great Flood. Unfortunately, part of the reason why is that safety standards were rather lax... or actually, they were nonexistent. Three people were killed and many others were injured, some pretty badly. A year later we finally got regulations there. The full sequence can't be found online so unfortunately you can't stream just that and forget about the rest of the picture. As for the cast, many were silent stars that did not have as much success in the talkie era, although Myrna Loy appears in one scene and both John Wayne & Andy Devine were extras, albeit ones that you can't spot on camera. Wayne even worked on the prop department.

The movie is only best as a curio. There definitely are better World War I films to see. As for works concerning Noah and the Great Flood, there have only been a few flicks and Aranofsky's Noah left many disappointed. I guess you can read the original Scriptures...

Werewolf of London

Werewolf of London (1935)

Runtime: 75 minutes

Directed by: Stuart Walker

Starring: Henry Hull, Warner Oland, Valerie Hobson, Lester Matthews, Lawrence Grant

From: Universal

Here's a not so famous Universal horror movie from the past that is nonetheless pretty entertaining and worth seeing, especially if you enjoy the werewolf genre. I talk all about this and how the famous song did take its title from the movie, below: 

As sometimes happens, a messageboard conversation spurned me to watch this film. Indeed, The Wolf Man was not the first Universal horror film to focus on werewolves. Note that while this actually WAS the source for the famous song, the lyrics have nothing to do with the film.

Instead, it's about botanist Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull), who is in Tibet looking for a wacky fictional plant that grows in moonlight. Later on, you see another fake plant.. that eats frogs. He encounters a werewolf and that goes badly. From what I understand this was the first piece of fiction which stated that people could become a werewolf in this way. Instead of holding a Chinese menu in his hand, walking the streets of SoHo in the rain or drinking a Pina Colada at Trader Vic's, he goes on a prowl and he does mutilate ladies late at night, but it's young ones. There is obvious subtext as Wilfred feels inadequate around his much-younger wife Lisa (Valerie Hobson) and when an old flame from her past shows up, he's howling at the moon. He's just an Excitable Boy. Oh, and Warner Oland is also here, playing what would be known during the time as yet another “Oriental character.”

The movie doesn't follow all the conventions you'd expect from the genre, and yet that is OK. Wilfred as the hairy-handed gent is actually a well-dressed gent during his lycanthrophic time, showing that he's not a feral beast. I even learned that there's a time where a werewolf can be rather loquacious. Overall, this is still a good film. The story is interesting, the actors do a fine job, and I enjoyed such touches as the pair of drunk women & the jabs at the upper crust of British society. Plus, it's only 75 minutes so you don't need to invest too much time in order to check this out. If you enjoy werewolf movies and lament that the past few decades, most of them have been less than worthwhile...

Arrival

Arrival (2016)

93% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 262 reviews)

Runtime: 116 minutes

Directed by: Denis Villeneuve

Starring: Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Forest Whitaker, Michael Stuhlbarg, Tzi Ma

From: Paramount

I got to see this film on the big screen last night at a new theatre in the Tampa area. It was Xscape in Riverview; Xscape is new and only has a few locations across the country. It is one of those luxury theatres with the leather reclining seats, which is such a hot trend this year that even older places have retrofitted them in. Will that get people to the cineplex... I am not so sure about that. Anyhow, Arrival is worth seeing anywhere. I explain why below: 

One reason why I saw Prisoners a few days ago was that the buzz surrounding this was so strong, I had to see this on the big screen and I might as well watch another Denis Villeneuve joint before I do that. After seeing Arrival, I had to think about the movie and what I thought about it, as it wasn't what I was expecting and it definitely had its surprises. A comparison with a certain movie suddenly made more sense to me. Then I realized that this is great and it deserves the high praise that many have given it.

I won't reveal much of the plot besides what the trailers stated: 12 mysterious alien objects land across the world, one of them in the state of Montana. The federal government asks linguist Amy Adams (who has to deal with the ramifications of a big event in her life) and mathematician Jeremy Renner to assist in understanding what the aliens are trying to say. To reveal more would be criminal.

I've never read the short story this was based on (Story of Your Life, by Ted Chiang) so I went into the movie blind and thankfully nothing was spoiled for me. As I watched it I wondered why some things were so cliché; by the end I realized what it was all about, and it was masterfully done as I had no inkling before the reveal. While I wouldn't have minded more of a look into how they were able to crack the code and start communicating with the aliens, I realize that wouldn't have been what most of the mainstream audience would have cared for, so I'll accept what was explained about it. The film still explains pretty well the magic of language and how because it's so complex, that is why it would be so incredibly difficult to try and communicate with an alien species, even one far advanced of humanity.

The movie is always persuasive as it references and deals with similar themes that were brought up in cerebral classics like 2001 or Solaris. While it presents a sadly believable scenario of what would happen in real life if the world had to deal with “First Contact” with a sentient alien species, the message concerning humanity is still a positive one, and yet it is not saccharine or cloying. What helps is that it was nicely directed, the cinematography from Bradford Young looked real nice (even if the color palate wasn't exactly vibrant), and the score from Johann Johannsson was properly ethereal for this material.

But it is the quality cast that helps make this as great as it is. While people like Renner and Forest Whitaker did a real swell job, Adams was outstanding in the lead. As she's the strongest focus of the movie, thank goodness she was able to deliver. I am also thankful that unless the director's other work I have seen, the movie is neither nihilistic nor does it make its female characters one dimensional and/or make them incidental to the story. If you want to see a mainstream science fiction movie that is nonetheless still smart, this is a must-watch.

Prisoners

Prisoners (2013)

81% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 231 reviews)

Runtime: An overlong 153 minutes

Directed by: Denis Villeneuve

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Terrence Howard, Maria Bello, Melissa Leo

From: Warner Bros

Unfortunately, this is another case where I watch a heavily hyped movie from the past few years and I felt underwhelmed. I did not hate the movie... I just feel disappointed. I talk all about it below:

Man, I wish I could have loved this movie like most people do...

I was thinking of what to watch last night, and I was stumped. I certainly had no shortage of options. I won't go into all the machinations that led me to this, except that I realized the movie starts on Thanksgiving so what better weekend for me to check this out? I heard that this wasn't the easiest film to watch and I agree, although I've definitely had rougher experiences with films (yeah, I am referring to some examples from South Korea) and that was not my problem with this movie.

Things start off well enough. You get to see the anguish of both Hugh Jackman and Terrence Howard as they had their young daughters vanish in their neighborhood during Thanksgiving. You feel horrible for them as they can't do anything to help aside from talking to the police and search the area. You also see Jake Gyllenhaal (as Detective Loki; I heard the reason why he was given such a name. It's pretentious, not to mention giggle-worthy. I haven't even seen The Avengers but of course I am going to think of Tom Hiddleston wearing a black cloak) investigate the case. I am not quite sure if the procedural stuff we witness here is exactly like how the police really do it, but maybe things are different in Pennsylvania, I don't know. Even when Hugh Jackman does some rather preposterous s---, I realized that this movie was making a statement about religion (his character of Keller Dover was rather religious; him being a carpenter was not done by happenstance) and it's not the only time where this happens. It did not make for the most pleasant of viewing, but at least I was still engaged in the story and seeing who was behind it all. Then the final act hits...

Personally, finding out what the movie was all about and what exactly happened to those two little girls, it was so ludicrous, so goofy Hollywood BS, it soured the movie for me. It did not feel like a good reward for watching an overlong movie where Hugh Jackman acts like a real A-hole and Jake G. is a cop who is happy to bend or even break the rules, so it's not like there are plenty of sympathetic characters to go around. What doesn't help either is that the wives who had just lost their kids (Maria Bello and Viola Davis) were not portrayed in the best light either... they were irrational, shrill harpies who did some inexplicable things... I mean, I understand going crazy because of such an unspeakable tragedy, but how they acted went beyond that; they acted pretty stupid because the script asked them to.

It's a shame, as it is well-shot (the cinematographer was Roger Deakins, so of course it was. He was a big asset in keeping me engaged even as things got more and more inane) and the cast does a great job with what they were given. It's just that the story is so absurd, I couldn't believe it. I understood what the message of the movie was; it was as obvious as a blow from a hammer to your face, so it was impossible to miss. I just found it to be hokey nonsense. I'll stick to the true crime shows that are on TV. At least they show real life criminal acts.

Unfortunately this is also part of what happens in Hollywood too often these days, which is “stories that make no damn sense if you even do a modicum of examination of the plot”. To mention a similarly dour and overlong movie from recent times, Gone Girl was awful, and the plot was so bad, even random fools who still comment on the Internet Movie Database noted accurately how the story is as thin as tissue paper and it completely falls apart upon closer examination. This movie wasn't that bad; Gone Girl was a miserable experience for me to watch... at least I could watch this and not have the desire to shut it off in disgust. It's just that the plot holes were pretty obvious and there were way too many coincidences. The story could have presented its themes and message in a small scale way where the culprit or culprits weren't so unbelievable, nor make me feel really sorry for the family of Keller Dover in that I wouldn't want a nutjob like him as a dad. Subtlety would have really helped here.

The only other movie from the director I saw was Sicario; I thought it was a lot better but its dourness and mean-spirited nature (albeit in a different way than the dourness and mean-spirted nature we got in this flick) means it's not something I'm going to revisit often. Thankfully, Arrival sounds like something more palpable to my tastes so it will be something I watch in the future.

Tommy Boy

Tommy Boy (1995)

Runtime: 97 minutes

Directed by: Peter Segal

Starring: Chris Farley, David Spade, Bo Derek, Rob Lowe, Julie Warner

From: Paramount

First off, last night I rewatched Judge Dredd. I feel the same about it as I did when I saw it back in 2012; it's average overall. I actually watched this Thanksgiving night. I was happy to see this again; as a lot of people did who are now in their mid 30's, this was a popular and beloved film to watch. Thankfully in 2016 I can still enjoy this despite the ups and downs that this sometimes has. I give my thoughts below: 

Of course I saw this film when I was a teenager in the 90's; my era of Saturday Night Live (along with a lot of other people) is the early to mid 90's, when he was there with Spade, Sandler, Myers, Carvey, Hartman, Nealon, Rock, and the rest. The day that it was announced Farley passed away... it was a big deal. It was during my high school days and there were plenty of my classmates upset over this news. I was too, mind you. I always found this movie amusing and while it definitely is uneven, it still provided enough belly-laughs where I can say I still dig it.

It's cliché but that is OK; Farley is dimwit-who thinks that Herbie Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence, for example-Tommy Callahan who has to save his father's auto parts company from being taken over and everyone working there being laid off... while working with the typical smarmy jerk that David Spade can probably do in his sleep, and meanwhile there's Bo Derek and Rob Lowe looking to rip off the company too. There's plenty of pratfalls and Farley & Spade not getting along due to being polar opposites, but of course things change...

I can look past the unevenness and things being kind of ridiculous often & enjoy this for what it is. Farley and Spade made for a nice odd couple pairing. Besides the laughs there were some nice poignant moments too; Tommy is goofy but he has a heart of gold and it is nice to see someone try to stop the bad corporate decision to buy something but only for the name and screw over the employees of that something. Brian Dennehy does a nice job for the limited screen time he has. I still chuckle at the best bits from the movie... Fat Guy in a Little Coat, Spade being caught pleasuring himself and the subsequent masturbation-related puns, Tommy's sales pitches, Tommy having trouble pumping gas, the one liners, and all the rest. There definitely is some nice physical comedy.

This may be the best thing that Spade and Farley ever did, at least in motion pictures. Farley's movies may not have been the best but I certainly do miss him and the wacky yet lovably characters he played. In a few weeks, he will have been dead for 19 years, which does not even seem possible. What a shame that he wasn't happy even when he played such beloved figures as Matt Foley, the lunch lady, and the prospective Chippendale dancer, that so many of us dug.

Happy Thanksgiving

I hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving today. To read my Top 10 List of 2015 (yes, I just compiled this list now) click on this link.

Moonlight

Moonlight (2016)

98% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 164 reviews)

Runtime: 111 minutes

Directed by: Barry Jenkins

Starring: The likes of Alex R. Hibbert, Ashton Sanders, Trevante Rhodes, Andre Holland, Naomie Harrie and Janelle Monae

From: A24

You may not have heard this movie before, but it's gotten an incredible amount of attention online. The buzz was so strong, I had to see it on the big screen, which I did yesterday. Well, it does deserve all the high praise it has received. I try to explain why I felt this way below without revealing too much: 

Late February of 2017 I know that I will participate in what AMC Theatres has been doing for at least the past decade now, and that is show all the Best Picture Oscar nominees over the span of two weekends. I'll see one of the two blocks of movies, anyhow. Trying to figure out what will likely be nominated so I can put off seeing it then vs. seeing something now vs. watching to watch anything (even if it is a regular film with no chance of being nominated)... I know, “first world problems” but it's still a struggle. Despite all that, the praise I heard about this film here and elsewhere meant that I better make sure I see this on the big screen.

It was a wise decision.

On paper the story doesn't sound complicated (we follow a young black man in Miami as a kid, a teenager then a young adult) and once you see it laid out, it's not Byzantine in nature. Yet it's the execution that makes this outstanding. Those that are in a similar boat to our protagonist Chiron (a.k.a. Little and Black) will of course relate the most but many of us will relate to part of this film. As for moi, I unfortunately know what it is like to be “different”; it's not like how Chiron is different but the pain will forever be remembered by me. I also was a quiet type who did not have many friends and I certainly dealt with my share of bullying. While I had a more stable family life and did not grow up poor, the scars from all that bullying will never fully heal. Parts of the movie did hit pretty close to home for me.

As we follow those three distinct acts, Chiron's journey is always compelling. Unfortunately he has a messed up situation at home but he befriends some interesting characters, including one you wouldn't at first suspect as a surrogate father figure type but he does provided some wise sage advice. Unfortunately, there were difficult questions that he could not answer and he was put in a difficult bind, but you do feel for him as it's a bad situation and those questions, no one could adequately answer. He's not completely isolated from his peers; he also knows a compatriot, Kevin. The performances all around are great; the people who play Chiron and Kevin (Alex R. Hibbert, Ashton Sanders, and Trevante Rhodes for the former; Jaden Piner, Jharrel Jerome and Andre Holland for the latter) all do a swell job as those characters, but also delivering noteworthy performances are Naomie Harris, Janelle Monae, and Mahershala Ali.

The way it's directed and shot... magnificent. The movie takes its time and you enjoy it all as it's so compelling, and the images are usually so soothing. It's also a treat aurally: the soundtrack is pretty rad, and it was nice to hear tunes such as Barbara Lewis's Hello Stranger. But believe me, it's a lot easier to experience the movie yourself rather than me attempt to explain how they nailed it so well, used silence at the right moments, paid attention to detail and got all the minutiae right. No matter your background and the type of childhood you had, in some way you'll likely relate even a small amount to Chiron and his struggles.... it also works if you really can relate to what he goes through. The movie manages to say a lot about such things as being black in America, drug addiction, sexuality, bullying, and the way the law is enforced. Believe the hype: this is as great as many here and elsewhere has said it is. It may very well be my top movie of 2016.

Lone Wolf And Cub: Sword Of Vengeance

Lone Wolf and Cub: Sword of Vengeance (Kozure Okami: Ko Wo Kashi Udekashi Tsukamatsuru) (1972)

Runtime: 83 minutes

Directed by: Kenji Misumi

Starring: Tomisaburo Wakayama, Fumio Watanabe, Tomoko Mayama, Shigeru Tsuyuguchi, Asao Uchida

From: Toho

I finally saw this samurai classic again after not having seen it in years. It's still a grand old time. I write all about it below, and note that late tonight I'll have another review: 

On the 8th of this month, I got via Amazon the brand new Criterion Collection release of all six Lone Wolf and Cub movies from the 70's plus the cult favorite Shogun Assassin. I paid less than the 100 dollar MSRP. Amazon screwed up and had a lower price listed and I purchased it at that price; thankfully Amazon honored that price. I'll just say it was even lower than what I would have paid had I purchased it at half price during the twice a year Criterion sale at Barnes & Noble. Yet it took me this long to see a movie from the set. That's me and my quirks.

I had watched this first movie in the series long ago; that and Shogun Assassin are the only movies I've seen before. This entry shows the origins of our anti-hero Ogami Itto, his toddler son Daigoro (w/ very unfortunate haircut), and the wacky wooden baby cart he rides in. He was the official executioner to the Shogun but he is set up by rivals so he is forced to go it alone and be a ronin. Also, we see him get hired to defend a Lord against several rivals. As he is the best with his sword, that is why no one has been able to kill him and in fact, various people are petrified of him.

The Blu does look very good. While it causes some of the special effects to look rather obvious (such as, hanging wires or a hose that is the source of spurting blood), I can look past that and enjoy this over the top journey for what it is. The claret often shoots out with great fury and there's an oddly beautiful moment where you see a body that's just been decapitated do a sort of dance before falling down, all in slow motion and blood spurting out the entire time. It's quality entertainment and it was nicely put together also. You enjoy the artful touches and how the camera moves about as you see all that carnage.


December and the first half of 2017, I should be able to go through the rest of the movies in the set.

Straight Outta Compton

Straight Outta Compton (2015)

87% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 210 reviews)

Runtime: I saw the Director's Cut, meaning it was 167 minutes long

Directed by: F. Gary Gray

Starring: O'Shea Jackson Jr., Corey Hawkins, Jason Mitchell, Neil Brown Jr., Aldis Hodge

From: Universal/Legendary/New Line Cinema

It was about time I saw this movie. On Thursday, I'll do something else that is long overdue. Read all about it below: 

On Thanksgiving, I will FINALLY post a Best of 2015 list. I know, 2016 is almost over, but that got pushed to the back burner and some of the highly regarded movies from last year I've seen, I did not particularly like, so it's taken some time to find 10 worthwhile entries. I can say that this movie will be on that list. I can't adequately explain why I did not see this sooner, let alone not watch it on the big screen, as it always sounded interesting to me and it got all those rave reviews. Finally, I saw the movie last night, and it was the Director's Cut, meaning it was 167 minutes long. It did not seem like it was almost 3 hours long.

Considering this is a true life story where a group of young men came from poor inner-city life and had to deal with such things as police harassment but due to being tremendously skilled in the art of rapping became famous around the world and because they invented the genre of gangsta rap and spoke bluntly about various controversial topics scared the authorities and even got the FBI mad at them... only to let money and jealousy (along with probably being ripped off by their white manager) drive them apart... then there's a reconciliation, a tragic death, and two members of the group are still successful today (in music and outside of it), no wonder this eventually became a movie, as it's a hell of a story. Of course, things are slanted because it was produced by Dre, Cube, and Eazy-E's widow but I will presume it's reasonably accurate-although I do not know if Jerry Heller was as crooked as the movie made him out to be; likewise, I have no trouble believing everything the film said about Suge Knight-so I won't dwell too much on this.

The movie is well-filmed by veteran director F. Gary Gray and the young cast did a swell job as Dr. Dre, Eazy-E, Ice Cube, MC Ren and DJ Yella; as everyone noted already, O'Shea Jackson Jr. as swell as his own dad Cube; it was not just a cute gimmick or nepotism. The rest also did a nice job, with Paul Giamatti a standout as the late Heller. Besides the classic songs from the group/them as solo artists, you also hear funk songs that not only inspired the members of NWA but were among the many songs of the era that were sampled for NWA tunes and other ditties done by those who were part of the West Coast/G Funk scene. It is an exciting movie from beginning to end which captures very well the feeling of the Southern California setting and how things were back then; sometimes you see actual news clips of such things as the Rodney King riots and the drug war, among other hot topics. The era was captured perfectly and it was important, as that was a big part of the movie and its vibe.

I'll be honest in that I may be biased because for years I've enjoyed the songs of NWA, Dre, Cube, and Eazy-E. It sure as hell is a lot better than much of the garbage that is the popular rap game of the 21st century. Desiigner, Lil Yachty and D.R.A.M? Get the hell out of here with that crap! But no matter that, this is not a dull and staid and cliché autobiography. I mean, it could have been even longer in order to cover various things that weren't given too much attention or glossed over which I knew about beforehand. That said, this is still a biopic I am glad was made and I am happy it was a far bigger hit worldwide than expected.

Time After Time

Time After Time (1979)

Runtime: 112 minutes

Directed by: Nicholas Meyer

Starring: Malcolm McDowell, David Warner, Mary Steenburgen, Charles Cioffi, Kent Williams

From: Warner Bros.

I saw this movie due to a messageboard convo. Yep, this scenario happened again. That is OK, as this was pretty enjoyable... and it will be a television show on ABC in 2017? I kid you not. Hear all about the movie here:

Again, me seeing this movie came about because of a messageboard discussion. Recently, this was talked about and it was pointed out that TCM would show it this past last afternoon, so I figured it was time to check it out. What a great hook it has: H.G. Wells was not only a famous author but he actually built a time machine... and he knows Jack the Ripper and Jack steals the time machine so he has to go into the future to bring him back... and they end up in 1979 San Francisco instead of London (there is an explanation as to why)... it's quite the distinctive plot.

I was hoping that Malcolm McDowell would look tremendous as Wells and I was not disappointed between the hair, the giant mustache and the glasses. Then again, so did David Warner as Jack the Ripper, especially the 70's clothes he wore. I am amused that Mary Steenburgen was in more than one movie where she fell in love with a time traveler. It is a pretty entertaining movie, usual time travel goofiness and outdated sexual attitudes (not to mention sexual terms) aside.

I admit that it is silly when you see Wells dealing with the 20th century and how he's befuddled by such things as “motorcars” and a garbage disposal, or for how for a period of time he gave his name as “Sherlock Holmes”. Yet I can look past that and enjoy the movie for what it is. Even the romance aspect was tolerable for me as I was not annoyed or bored by Wells' relationship with Amy Robbins; her instantly falling for him is part of the “outdated sexual attitudes” I was talking about. The story was pretty entertaining as you see Wells attempt to track down then stop his old pal. Indeed, I was amused at how Herbert George was crestfallen at how the future wasn't the utopia he was hoping, while Old Jack loved how violent things had become. Imagine what they'd think if they arrived in the hellscape that is late 2016... it was also nicely directed by Nicholas Meyer, who would go on to bigger things in the 80's.

Oh, and I just learned that the Cyndi Lauper song Time After Time was actually taken from this movie; it was only meant to be a placeholder until they could think of something else, only for something else to not work as well. A few other things... I did spot both M.C. Gainey as a London cop and Corey Feldman as a young boy in the museum. And I only discovered this last night: this property is actually going to become a television series real soon. Talk about random. It will be on in the United States on ABC. As far as I can tell, Wells will be chasing Jack the Ripper throughout many different periods of time. Considering all the garbage that's on fictional television (and I am not talking about the fictional crap that is “reality” TV), this has as much of a chance as anything at being worthwhile.

Russian Ark

Russian Ark (Russkiy Kovcheg) (2002)

Runtime: 99 minutes

Directed by: Aleksander Sokurov

Starring: Hundreds of people

From: Seemingly hundreds of different production companies across 6 countries

This movie is now currently off of Netflix Instant, where I saw it on Thursday night. My apologies for not seeing it sooner, but stuff happens. I did rewatch the poliziotteschi film Rulers of the City, which I do still dig. As for this film, it is quite unique and it is far from traditional... despite it being more about gimmick than anything else. I am glad I still watched it. All the details are below: 

Here is yet another case of me watching something because it will soon be gone from Netflix Instant. Ever since I heared about this movie from Letterboxd, I was intrigued. Sure, it's more gimmick than actual story, but it is something I am glad I finally watched.

This fantastical tale is about an unseen man who wanders through what is the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, Russia. He is with a mysterious man that is apparently some 19th century French dude known as Marquis de Custine, who traveled to Russia in his life... and judging by the movie, was a pompous A-hole. They go through the various rooms and the settings represent the past several hundred years of Russian life and both real & fictional characters are seen, including Catherine the Great, Peter the Great, and both Tsar Nicholas I & Tsar Nicholas II. At least there's sites like Wikipedia that can fill in some of the details if you are not an expert in Russian history; it helps clarify various things, you know. Oh, and did I say that this production involved a few thousand people in front of the camera and behind it... and this was all done in ONE TAKE with a Steadicam?*

Like I said, it's more about the incredible gimmick than the fanciful story, although at least you get to see many different paintings, learn various things about Russia, and get to see how those people dressed. While the audio was done in post-production, that does not diminish how they had to do this all in one day as that Winter Palace (where the monarchs lived) is now part of a museum. In addition, the entire hour and a half long shot was done from beginning to end on the 4th take. It's incredible that they actually pulled it off with no complications and the biggest gripe you can make is that some of the actors look right at the camera. When you have a big ballroom dance sequence for a few minutes and it goes swell, I won't gripe too much about little errors.

I really was not quite sure how to rate this. I finally came to 4 stars as the technical achievement was great and despite how curious it is and how it is a strange way to advertise the Hermitage Museum (they were among the many producers)... I was compelled by this oddity and depending on how you feel about the current Russian political climate, you might wish to travel to St. Petersburg in order to visit the Winter Palace yourself.

* Since the release of this film, only a small number of (mostly) obscure foreign films have been filmed in a one true take format. Aside from a Bela Tarr movie about Macbeth-as of course Bela Tarr would try to do such a thing in the 80's-this was the first movie to do such a thing.

The Dead Zone

The Dead Zone (1983)

Runtime: 103 minutes

Directed by: David Cronenberg

Starring: Christopher Walken, Brooke Adams, Herbert Lom, Tom Skerritt, Martin Sheen

From: Paramount

Would you believe I had never seen this movie in full before I saw it on TV late Tuesday night? I swear this is true. I do think it's pretty good. Hear all about it below: 

I wasn't planning on seeing this but at almost the last moment I saw that it was on the El Rey Network and I figured it was finally time to see this film; sure, I've seen homages and even the parody that Walken did on Saturday Night Live, but I had somehow never seen this in full until Tuesday night.

I presume most are familiar with the plot of how Christopher Walken is John Smith, a teacher who is in a bad car wreck, is in a coma for 5 years, then when he awakens he has psychic powers that work when he grabs a hold of someone. It's more a curse than a good thing, though... once news gets out, everyone wants him to answer various mysteries about their loved ones, and he has vivid visions of many horrible things, as those visions are of bad & traumatic events. Then there's a candidate for a senatorial position named Greg Stillson (Martin Sheen)... I have to be honest here, his campaign speeches are pretty much of the “Make America Great Again!” tenor, so I couldn't help but think of the obvious there. Looking around online, I am not the first person to realize this, believe me. Let's just hope the horrific version as seen by Smith when he touches Stillson does not come true in real life with our President-elect, but who knows for certain...

Anyhow, I thought this was a pretty good movie; there are other Cronenberg movies I like more, but this is still pretty good. It was as nicely directed as you would expect, the Michael Kamen score was suitably creepy, the story always intrigues, and the cast full of familiar faces delivered. While I'll always wonder what it would have been like if BILL MURRAY would have been the lead-as originally planned-Walken ended up being perfect. He is so off-kilter in general, it is not hard to believe he would suddenly gain psychic powers, or he would freak out when he gets those visions.

What a final act it has also, as I alluded to. It has quite the horrifying final vision (although the most terrifying moment for me... I'll just say it involved a pair of scissors. Holy crap) and it raised quite the philosophical question. The ending scene itself, talk about haunting. I've never read the Stephen King story this was based upon but even he said that the movie did it better than the book. With such a gimmick, I am not surprised that this became a cable TV show in the early 2000's. Hopefully the show was as restrained with the visions and did not show them all the time; you only see them a few times in the film. I shudder to think what a remake would be like... let's hope it never happens.