The Martian (2015)
92% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 290 reviews)
Runtime: 144 minutes
Directed by: Ridley Scott
Starring: Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Jeff Daniels, Sean Bean, Chiwetel Ejiofor
From: 20th Century Fox
Today I am finishing off the reviews of the movies I saw on Saturday. I don't love it but I did enjoy it quite a bit. My Letterboxd review is below:
This is the third movie I saw in the film marathon I experienced on Saturday. When it comes to Ridley Scott, on this site I don't have reviews up for everything I've seen from him, but he has made some great motion pictures, like Alien & Blade Runner and flicks like Black Rain are at least solid. His track record in recent years was definitely more spotty. I am saying that mainly from popular opinion and seeing Prometheus... to steal a joke, it was more like ProMEHtheus. I am not sure about that new Alien installment so this may be the last quality thing he does; as he's in his late 70's I do wonder how many more projects he has left before he retires... or something unfortunate happens. If this is the last highly rated motion picture from him, then it is a nice way to go out.
I was surprised that the plot started right away; they wasted no time in showing the calamity that resulted in Matt Damon getting stranded yet again. He is a botanist and also apparently a super-genius in general as a LOT of calamities happen to him and he always manages to figure out a way to solve it. I don't want it to sound like I am putting down the film; it's just that it's a little far-fetched, although I did appreciate the hard science aspect of it all. I've never read the book this was based on; I just heard it was a lot of hard math so it was simplified and for the general public that was a good idea.
The cast was full of familiar faces and it was nice to see them and overall they performed admirably, but it was Damon who was the most memorable. He had a lot of weight to carry as there was a long stretch where it was just him and no one else performing. It was nice to see some diversity too with the women in major roles and various ethnicities shown... the Chinese being shown in a positive light is not a surprise when it comes to showing movies worldwide. I was glad to see Chiwetel Ejiofor in an important role, as he deserves to be in more big movies like this.
What I noticed the most was the cinematography and how all the worlds shown (including the space ship) looked beautiful; the Mars scenery was especially stunning... also, the score from Harry Gregson-Williams was appropriately ethereal. Speaking of music, the disco songs you hear throughout was a wacky idea but then again there are plenty of humorous moments throughout. Now, I don't quite get why it was “Best Comedy” at the Golden Globes this year, but then again all those movie awards shows make strange or just wrong decisions every year; I won't get into last night's Academy Awards, except to say that some mistakes were made there also. I won't complain about the nominations that this film got, though, as it was well put together and it was an exciting crowd-pleasing flick. For the visuals and the score alone, I am glad this was viewed by me on the big screen.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Spotlight
Spotlight (2015)
96% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 259 reviews)
Runtime: 128 minutes
Directed by: Tom McCarthy
Starring: Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, Brian d'Arcy James, Liev Schreiber
From: Open Road Films
This was the second film of the four I saw in a marathon yesterday. I heard a lot of strong things about it so even though I had never seen any of the director's work before (I know, an appalling thing to admit on a site such as this one; I can't explain the apparent misstep that was The Cobbler, as I understand the director is as much to blame for it as the atrocious Adam Sandler is) I was interested in hearing about the scandal in Boston where many members of the clergy in the Catholic Church were caught molesting children, and the Church covered it up so the shocking degree was not apparent to the public.
I enjoyed how the movie was laser-focused on the story of the small Spotlight crew for the Boston Globe newspaper (that crew spends months investigating important stories for the paper) is asked by their new editor to research the case of a priest who abused a child; as they delve deeper they realize not only that this has been a huge issue for years but that there were many people in the Church and outside of it who never hesitated to cover it all up; even the Boston Globe itself did not do as much as it could in the past, as some pieces were given to them and it took that long for them to start connecting the dots. Much of the film is just a few people talking to each other but that made it personal and as all the characters were interesting and it was an outstanding cast delivering spectacular performances, it was still thrilling to me as the plot escalated and the scope of what was suppressed was staggering.
I don't want it to sound like I am making a bad pun here by saying that each of the main actors gets the spotlight shone on them and no one dominates over anyone else, but it's true. From Michael Keaton, Liev Schreiber and John Slattery to Rachel McAdams, Brian d'Arcy James and Mark Ruffalo (his nomination for Best Supporting Actor was deserved), all are solid characters and you get to see all the nerve-wracking effects that this investigation has on them. From stress and being horrified by the magnitude of the cover-up (all of the Spotlight crew grew up as Catholic and one has a grandparent who goes to church several times a week) to the frightful realization for one of the reporters that an accused priest lived kitty-corner to him and his family, it took its toll on them. There were even arguments w/ each other over when and how to finally report this.
At the end of the movie, it was revealed just how many clergy members in the Boston area were accused over the years, and if that wasn't frightening enough, it then listed the number of cities all over the world where scandals happened after the Boston Globe story was first released. I won't begin to speculate or ponder how and why such things happen, as that's far beyond my skills and that will probably cause arguing and controversy. I will note that one scene had a former priest rationalizing his crimes and saying that he was raped himself as a child; that was alarming. So, I'll just say that this is an important story to, well, spotlight, and considering the revolting nature of the crimes, doing it this way and focusing on the reporters and how they react to an ever-growing situation, that seemed to be the most palatable way to cover this for general audiences. Behind the camera and in front of it, a lot of skill is on display when it came to bringing this to the silver screen.
Recently, I purchased the book Betrayal: The Crisis in the Catholic Church, a book from the Boston Globe which talks about this case. I waited until I saw the movie before I started reading this, which will come sometime in the future. The stories that the Boston Globe did not only exposed a hideous crime that had been going on for decades, but it also provided comfort for all the victims that were still alive at the time. I am glad the movie handled this delicate issue with a lot of care and respect that it deserved. It also spotlighted journalism in general and noted how it should still be important today. I hope it still is important; in this day of longform websites closing down in the past year because sites like Buzzfeed are much preferable to random online people... journalism that takes its time investigating such cases still needs to be a thing in this day and age.
96% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 259 reviews)
Runtime: 128 minutes
Directed by: Tom McCarthy
Starring: Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, Brian d'Arcy James, Liev Schreiber
From: Open Road Films
This was the second film of the four I saw in a marathon yesterday. I heard a lot of strong things about it so even though I had never seen any of the director's work before (I know, an appalling thing to admit on a site such as this one; I can't explain the apparent misstep that was The Cobbler, as I understand the director is as much to blame for it as the atrocious Adam Sandler is) I was interested in hearing about the scandal in Boston where many members of the clergy in the Catholic Church were caught molesting children, and the Church covered it up so the shocking degree was not apparent to the public.
I enjoyed how the movie was laser-focused on the story of the small Spotlight crew for the Boston Globe newspaper (that crew spends months investigating important stories for the paper) is asked by their new editor to research the case of a priest who abused a child; as they delve deeper they realize not only that this has been a huge issue for years but that there were many people in the Church and outside of it who never hesitated to cover it all up; even the Boston Globe itself did not do as much as it could in the past, as some pieces were given to them and it took that long for them to start connecting the dots. Much of the film is just a few people talking to each other but that made it personal and as all the characters were interesting and it was an outstanding cast delivering spectacular performances, it was still thrilling to me as the plot escalated and the scope of what was suppressed was staggering.
I don't want it to sound like I am making a bad pun here by saying that each of the main actors gets the spotlight shone on them and no one dominates over anyone else, but it's true. From Michael Keaton, Liev Schreiber and John Slattery to Rachel McAdams, Brian d'Arcy James and Mark Ruffalo (his nomination for Best Supporting Actor was deserved), all are solid characters and you get to see all the nerve-wracking effects that this investigation has on them. From stress and being horrified by the magnitude of the cover-up (all of the Spotlight crew grew up as Catholic and one has a grandparent who goes to church several times a week) to the frightful realization for one of the reporters that an accused priest lived kitty-corner to him and his family, it took its toll on them. There were even arguments w/ each other over when and how to finally report this.
At the end of the movie, it was revealed just how many clergy members in the Boston area were accused over the years, and if that wasn't frightening enough, it then listed the number of cities all over the world where scandals happened after the Boston Globe story was first released. I won't begin to speculate or ponder how and why such things happen, as that's far beyond my skills and that will probably cause arguing and controversy. I will note that one scene had a former priest rationalizing his crimes and saying that he was raped himself as a child; that was alarming. So, I'll just say that this is an important story to, well, spotlight, and considering the revolting nature of the crimes, doing it this way and focusing on the reporters and how they react to an ever-growing situation, that seemed to be the most palatable way to cover this for general audiences. Behind the camera and in front of it, a lot of skill is on display when it came to bringing this to the silver screen.
Recently, I purchased the book Betrayal: The Crisis in the Catholic Church, a book from the Boston Globe which talks about this case. I waited until I saw the movie before I started reading this, which will come sometime in the future. The stories that the Boston Globe did not only exposed a hideous crime that had been going on for decades, but it also provided comfort for all the victims that were still alive at the time. I am glad the movie handled this delicate issue with a lot of care and respect that it deserved. It also spotlighted journalism in general and noted how it should still be important today. I hope it still is important; in this day of longform websites closing down in the past year because sites like Buzzfeed are much preferable to random online people... journalism that takes its time investigating such cases still needs to be a thing in this day and age.
Brooklyn
Brooklyn (2015)
98% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 216 reviews)
Runtime: 111 minutes
Directed by: John Crowley
Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Emory Cohen, Domhnall Gleeson, Jim Broadbent, Julia Walters
From: Several different companies
At the end of March I'll post a link to my Letterboxd link of all the foreign films I review for March... and late February, as I put this on there also. My Letterboxd review of this movie is below:
Note 1: I am starting my March Around the World 2016 now instead of March 1 as this fits for that list. I always enjoy devoting a month to mainly watching foreign movies; it's fun to see what other people's lists are and I like checking out things from foreign countries not really known for their film scene, although anything foreign is up for inclusion.
Note 2: I did not go last year but back in 2014 I attended the all-day screening at AMC Theatres (this is done at various locations across the country) where one Saturday in late February they show half of the Best Picture Oscar nominees and the next Saturday they show the other half. What I saw in '14 was Nebraska, Captain Phillips-still my most popular review-Her, American Hustle, and Gravity for the second time. Later today I'll post the second review and tomorrow I'll post the last two reviews.
Normally, I wouldn't watch this sort of movie. Romantic dramas aren't really my scene. Yet, I am glad I was able to see this on the big screen, as I surprisingly enjoyed it a lot. It's not the most inventive plot: a young Irish girl named Eilis emigrates to Brooklyn, New York in the 1950's from her homeland of Ireland; that's what her family wanted her to do. She is a shy homesick girl at first. However, things change and a big reason is that she and a boy fall in love. However, a tragic event happens and that changes things; she goes back to Ireland and meets another boy, played by Domhnall Gleeson; he had quite the 2015, that is for sure.
There are humorous moments throughout (especially in the boardinghouse she lives in, w/ some of the other girls that lives there and the head of the boardinghouse, played by Julie Walters) and it's a nice pleasant film, but there are also various sad moments throughout, and those that easily get teary-eyed, the waterworks will flow at least once of twice. Aside from a stereotypically mean old woman, all the characters and nice and realistic. Both of her potential love interests seem to be good men in their own ways.
While I have known who Saoirse Ronan is for a long time now, I actually haven't seen any of her movies. That's just how it has worked out. I now know that I have made a mistake in not looking at her filmography. It has nothing to do with her being a pretty girl and I am not swooning over her now; rather, she did a fantastic job in the role as Eilis, and I should look at what she's done in the past as she appears to have the talent to be a big star in the future. She has to change from being a shy awkward girl to a more confident person and she has to go through a range of emotion. The cast as a whole does a nice job playing likable characters all around (this is the first time I had seen Emory Cohen; he did a swell job and I'd like to see him in more films), but it was Ms. Ronan who was a standout and I was not surprised she got a Best Actress nomination. You feel bad for her as she does poorly/is mistreated early on and you're glad when things improve for her.
Even I am surprised I enjoyed this sappy weapy picture as much as I did but besides the acting and the charming story, it is made very well when it comes to such aspects as cinematography and score; the look and feel of 1950's Ireland and New York City-two greatly different worlds but both possessing good folk-is also captured perfectly. Simply, I was captivated by both Ms. Ronan and this movie.
98% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 216 reviews)
Runtime: 111 minutes
Directed by: John Crowley
Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Emory Cohen, Domhnall Gleeson, Jim Broadbent, Julia Walters
From: Several different companies
At the end of March I'll post a link to my Letterboxd link of all the foreign films I review for March... and late February, as I put this on there also. My Letterboxd review of this movie is below:
Note 1: I am starting my March Around the World 2016 now instead of March 1 as this fits for that list. I always enjoy devoting a month to mainly watching foreign movies; it's fun to see what other people's lists are and I like checking out things from foreign countries not really known for their film scene, although anything foreign is up for inclusion.
Note 2: I did not go last year but back in 2014 I attended the all-day screening at AMC Theatres (this is done at various locations across the country) where one Saturday in late February they show half of the Best Picture Oscar nominees and the next Saturday they show the other half. What I saw in '14 was Nebraska, Captain Phillips-still my most popular review-Her, American Hustle, and Gravity for the second time. Later today I'll post the second review and tomorrow I'll post the last two reviews.
Normally, I wouldn't watch this sort of movie. Romantic dramas aren't really my scene. Yet, I am glad I was able to see this on the big screen, as I surprisingly enjoyed it a lot. It's not the most inventive plot: a young Irish girl named Eilis emigrates to Brooklyn, New York in the 1950's from her homeland of Ireland; that's what her family wanted her to do. She is a shy homesick girl at first. However, things change and a big reason is that she and a boy fall in love. However, a tragic event happens and that changes things; she goes back to Ireland and meets another boy, played by Domhnall Gleeson; he had quite the 2015, that is for sure.
There are humorous moments throughout (especially in the boardinghouse she lives in, w/ some of the other girls that lives there and the head of the boardinghouse, played by Julie Walters) and it's a nice pleasant film, but there are also various sad moments throughout, and those that easily get teary-eyed, the waterworks will flow at least once of twice. Aside from a stereotypically mean old woman, all the characters and nice and realistic. Both of her potential love interests seem to be good men in their own ways.
While I have known who Saoirse Ronan is for a long time now, I actually haven't seen any of her movies. That's just how it has worked out. I now know that I have made a mistake in not looking at her filmography. It has nothing to do with her being a pretty girl and I am not swooning over her now; rather, she did a fantastic job in the role as Eilis, and I should look at what she's done in the past as she appears to have the talent to be a big star in the future. She has to change from being a shy awkward girl to a more confident person and she has to go through a range of emotion. The cast as a whole does a nice job playing likable characters all around (this is the first time I had seen Emory Cohen; he did a swell job and I'd like to see him in more films), but it was Ms. Ronan who was a standout and I was not surprised she got a Best Actress nomination. You feel bad for her as she does poorly/is mistreated early on and you're glad when things improve for her.
Even I am surprised I enjoyed this sappy weapy picture as much as I did but besides the acting and the charming story, it is made very well when it comes to such aspects as cinematography and score; the look and feel of 1950's Ireland and New York City-two greatly different worlds but both possessing good folk-is also captured perfectly. Simply, I was captivated by both Ms. Ronan and this movie.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
The Witch
The Witch (2015)
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: Robert Eggers
Starring: Anya Taylor-Joy, Ralph Ineson, Kate Dickie, Harvey Scrimshaw, Ellie Granger
From: A24... and several other companies
I am pressed for time so let me just say that this deserves the hype. My Letterboxd review is below:
I had known of this movie since last year, when I heard some people in a messageboard thread talk about it (I think they saw it at random film festivals) and they gave it very strong praise, and wish that it would have come out around Halloween time instead of all the way until this month. I patiently waited for it; I then heard a lot of praise once it did come out; mainly, it was from people like us, although there were some dissenters. The general public had a more mixed opinion; the C- score on Cinemascore says a lot, although that is a flawed system and movies that “aren't for everyone” (which is definitely is) will get punished. I do understand those that did not care for this, as it's an atypical horror film. Plus, I am a rare person who rated both It Follows and The Babadook as “average”, mainly for story reasons that I won't get into here.
Thankfully, this is a hyped horror movie that I can get behind and I say it does deserve the hype. To be honest, I never saw any advertisements for it on the big screen or on television, and I did not even know what the plot was besides that there was at least one witch involved, it was set in 17th century New England (1630, to be exact) and as the current Letterboxd poster for the film shows, there is a black goat. That was it. I won't reveal much in case anyone else prefers to be as spoiler-free as possible. I'll just say that it involves a family with several children and things slowly but surely get worse for them.
The movie is not a goofy jump scare filled “loud noises” piece of hogwash. Rather, the movie is methodical in its pacing as it takes its time telling its story. Practically all of it is set in the rural woods (rural Ontario substituting for Massachusetts) and that alone provides a lot of atmosphere, but the movie is successful as you see a Puritan family ostracized and living on their own dealing with various bad things happen and it progressively gets worse and worse; it does escalate and some of them handle it better than others. The unnerving feeling and general dread intensifies and by the end it does become quite chilling.
Besides an intriguing story that is never boring and a unique setting you don't often see in film, the cast and crew all deliver. The director Robert Eggers, this is his first feature film... which is astonishing to me. The score is from someone who almost exclusively did the music for various documentaries, and the cinematographer has done a lot of shorts. All of them were exemplary here. I understand it wasn't the easiest shoot due to weather issues and the typical difficulty in dealing with both children and animals. Yet it doesn't hamper this in any way. The cast of unfamiliar-to me-faces all deliver at least good performances; even the little kids are included in that tally for me. Anya Taylor-Joy as Thomasin was spectacular.
I had heard here and elsewhere horror stories about people having bad experiences watching this; like I said it's not for everyone and yet it's unfortunate that crowds would jeer it and crap on it while the movie is playing. At least with me, I did not hear any complaining until after the film was over with. The only thing I heard about it was negativity. Yet, while it was showing I did not hear any jeering or catcalls. There were some chuckles-but at not inopportune moments-and a shocking moment got an audible reaction; I will hope that they at least thought it was “fine”.
I am not sure if I'll consider it a 2015 or a 2016 picture, but either way it'll be on one of those Top 10 lists done by me in the future, as it's more than a great horror film, it's great in general. It is worthy of revisit from me, not only to use subtitles (not all of the old-time dialogue was clear to me) but to see the subtext, allegories and metaphors... along with subtle things I missed the first time.
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: Robert Eggers
Starring: Anya Taylor-Joy, Ralph Ineson, Kate Dickie, Harvey Scrimshaw, Ellie Granger
From: A24... and several other companies
I am pressed for time so let me just say that this deserves the hype. My Letterboxd review is below:
I had known of this movie since last year, when I heard some people in a messageboard thread talk about it (I think they saw it at random film festivals) and they gave it very strong praise, and wish that it would have come out around Halloween time instead of all the way until this month. I patiently waited for it; I then heard a lot of praise once it did come out; mainly, it was from people like us, although there were some dissenters. The general public had a more mixed opinion; the C- score on Cinemascore says a lot, although that is a flawed system and movies that “aren't for everyone” (which is definitely is) will get punished. I do understand those that did not care for this, as it's an atypical horror film. Plus, I am a rare person who rated both It Follows and The Babadook as “average”, mainly for story reasons that I won't get into here.
Thankfully, this is a hyped horror movie that I can get behind and I say it does deserve the hype. To be honest, I never saw any advertisements for it on the big screen or on television, and I did not even know what the plot was besides that there was at least one witch involved, it was set in 17th century New England (1630, to be exact) and as the current Letterboxd poster for the film shows, there is a black goat. That was it. I won't reveal much in case anyone else prefers to be as spoiler-free as possible. I'll just say that it involves a family with several children and things slowly but surely get worse for them.
The movie is not a goofy jump scare filled “loud noises” piece of hogwash. Rather, the movie is methodical in its pacing as it takes its time telling its story. Practically all of it is set in the rural woods (rural Ontario substituting for Massachusetts) and that alone provides a lot of atmosphere, but the movie is successful as you see a Puritan family ostracized and living on their own dealing with various bad things happen and it progressively gets worse and worse; it does escalate and some of them handle it better than others. The unnerving feeling and general dread intensifies and by the end it does become quite chilling.
Besides an intriguing story that is never boring and a unique setting you don't often see in film, the cast and crew all deliver. The director Robert Eggers, this is his first feature film... which is astonishing to me. The score is from someone who almost exclusively did the music for various documentaries, and the cinematographer has done a lot of shorts. All of them were exemplary here. I understand it wasn't the easiest shoot due to weather issues and the typical difficulty in dealing with both children and animals. Yet it doesn't hamper this in any way. The cast of unfamiliar-to me-faces all deliver at least good performances; even the little kids are included in that tally for me. Anya Taylor-Joy as Thomasin was spectacular.
I had heard here and elsewhere horror stories about people having bad experiences watching this; like I said it's not for everyone and yet it's unfortunate that crowds would jeer it and crap on it while the movie is playing. At least with me, I did not hear any complaining until after the film was over with. The only thing I heard about it was negativity. Yet, while it was showing I did not hear any jeering or catcalls. There were some chuckles-but at not inopportune moments-and a shocking moment got an audible reaction; I will hope that they at least thought it was “fine”.
I am not sure if I'll consider it a 2015 or a 2016 picture, but either way it'll be on one of those Top 10 lists done by me in the future, as it's more than a great horror film, it's great in general. It is worthy of revisit from me, not only to use subtitles (not all of the old-time dialogue was clear to me) but to see the subtext, allegories and metaphors... along with subtle things I missed the first time.
Where Eagles Dare
Where Eagles Dare (1968)
Runtime: 155 minutes
Directed by: Brian G. Hutton
Starring: Richard Burton, Clint Eastwood, Mary Ure, Patrick Wymark, Michael Hordern
From: MGM
Here's a movie I was not familiar with until last year when I discovered its existence. I saw it Wednesday night and I am glad I did. Read why in my Letterboxd review below, and note that I'll be back this morning; yes, morning as in around 9 AM or so.
To be honest I only heard about this movie last year; it sounded interesting (it deals with World War II), the stars being Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood certainly captured my attention, and I know it's highly rated. So, I had it in mind for a viewing, and I finally did so Wednesday night.
The plot (based off of a book I have never read; it's by Alistair MacLean) isn't complicated: Some British commandos (and an American; it is explained why he's brought along) have to rescue an American General who was captured by the Germans and he's held in a real life castle that's on top of a mountain (where only an eagle could reach it; humans have to make do with cable cars; it's known as the Schloss Adler) and they have to get him out as he has very important information that can't land in the enemy's hands. However, things aren't quite as they seem... I won't spoil anything as nothing was spoiled for me beforehand; I'll just say that there are surprises and there are ladies who get involved.
I have heard criticisms that is is at least a little ludicrous how the good guys are invincible and the evil Germans are easily mowed down (and their shooting skills are even worse than that of Star Wars Stormtroopers), and there are plenty of them that get mowed down. We all enjoy seeing a Nazi get killed and all but it was not that realistic. Even with that caveat, it's still a film I can rate highly. As I figured, while the supporting cast all did a swell job, it was Burton and Eastwood who really shined as the leads.
It was solidly directed by Brian G. Hutton and the rest of the crew did a solid job themselves, from the cinematography to the score and all the rest. It's a long movie at 155 minutes but it's never boring; it was always interesting to me whether it was the crackling action scenes (there are some quality setpieces, and there are some moments that made me wince) or seeing how the heroes can escape what was a difficult situation. They also have to use their brains at times; they have to be quick on their feet and sometimes talk their way out of a pretty bad spot. All in all, it is a film I am glad I saw.
Runtime: 155 minutes
Directed by: Brian G. Hutton
Starring: Richard Burton, Clint Eastwood, Mary Ure, Patrick Wymark, Michael Hordern
From: MGM
Here's a movie I was not familiar with until last year when I discovered its existence. I saw it Wednesday night and I am glad I did. Read why in my Letterboxd review below, and note that I'll be back this morning; yes, morning as in around 9 AM or so.
To be honest I only heard about this movie last year; it sounded interesting (it deals with World War II), the stars being Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood certainly captured my attention, and I know it's highly rated. So, I had it in mind for a viewing, and I finally did so Wednesday night.
The plot (based off of a book I have never read; it's by Alistair MacLean) isn't complicated: Some British commandos (and an American; it is explained why he's brought along) have to rescue an American General who was captured by the Germans and he's held in a real life castle that's on top of a mountain (where only an eagle could reach it; humans have to make do with cable cars; it's known as the Schloss Adler) and they have to get him out as he has very important information that can't land in the enemy's hands. However, things aren't quite as they seem... I won't spoil anything as nothing was spoiled for me beforehand; I'll just say that there are surprises and there are ladies who get involved.
I have heard criticisms that is is at least a little ludicrous how the good guys are invincible and the evil Germans are easily mowed down (and their shooting skills are even worse than that of Star Wars Stormtroopers), and there are plenty of them that get mowed down. We all enjoy seeing a Nazi get killed and all but it was not that realistic. Even with that caveat, it's still a film I can rate highly. As I figured, while the supporting cast all did a swell job, it was Burton and Eastwood who really shined as the leads.
It was solidly directed by Brian G. Hutton and the rest of the crew did a solid job themselves, from the cinematography to the score and all the rest. It's a long movie at 155 minutes but it's never boring; it was always interesting to me whether it was the crackling action scenes (there are some quality setpieces, and there are some moments that made me wince) or seeing how the heroes can escape what was a difficult situation. They also have to use their brains at times; they have to be quick on their feet and sometimes talk their way out of a pretty bad spot. All in all, it is a film I am glad I saw.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Lethal Weapon
Lethal Weapon (1987)
Runtime: 117 minutes (the Director's Cut)
Directed by: Richard Donner
Starring: Mel Gibson, Danny Glover, Mitchell Ryan, Gary Busey, Tom Atkins
From: Warner Bros.
I was not planning on watching this tonight but that's how things worked out. I watched it with someone who wanted to see a motion picture and I suggested this as we hadn't seen it in ages and yet we both rate it highly. This was a good decision. We saw the Director's Cut, which was a new experience for us both. The Letterboxd review of it is below:
This was not the plan but earlier today I rewatched this motion picture, one that I had seen before-I have seen all 4 movies, as a matter of fact-but the last time I saw any of them was years ago, which is embarrassing to admit for an action fan such as myself. Note that I saw the Director's Cut, which people in the know say is inferior as most of the footage wasn't really needed in the film. That's the only option I had at the time; it'd be nice if discs offered both versions but that is an uncommon thing, sadly.
Anyhow, I presume most of you are familiar with the pairing of a normal cop in Danny Glover and a crazed cop in Mel Gibson-who you see in one powerful scene has suicidal thoughts-and their investigating of a prostitute who apparently killed herself but it was much more than that (it involves Vietnam, as that as a trope was still alive and well in the late 80's) and they uncover a huge illegal operation, so let me talk about other things instead; while it was nice in the latter chapters to see the Martin Riggs character improve their overall mood due to such things as being around Murtaugh and having a better overall life, but it made the third and fourth movies just not the same as the first two. Then again, here he did Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu moves (expert Rorion Gracie of that famed family worked on this production) years before MMA became popular, and Riggs did not do things like that in the sequels. Here, it was a great contrast between the older cop celebrating his 50th birthday and he has a normal family life vs. the single younger man who lost his wife in an accident a few years ago and he still feels awful about it.
Besides the fantastic job that Glover and Gibson did, the supporting cast was also superb. From Tom Atkins as the father of that prostitute to Mitchell Ryan and Gary Busey as the main villains, I can't complain about any of their performances. The score from Michael Kamen, Eric Clapton and David Sanborn is definitely memorable; it's 80's riffic and people still laugh about “the wailing sax” but for the time period it is appropriate. These days it's nice to see a movie that is shot well, is logically put together in a way where it makes sense and except for the wacky and a little implausible fight at the end (which is still comprehensible) you can see all the action and understand what is going on. There is plenty of action, quality setpieces and the heroes aren't infallible; they are even captured and are rather nastily tortured in one scene.
It seems to still be an influential action movie, even 29 years later. It helped Shane Black become a screenwriting star in his debut and I am glad he's still involved with that (and directing also) to this day. We found out in later years that Mel Gibson playing a borderline psychotic character apparently wasn't a stretch but even with that, I'll always have fond memories of the first two films as they are great.
Runtime: 117 minutes (the Director's Cut)
Directed by: Richard Donner
Starring: Mel Gibson, Danny Glover, Mitchell Ryan, Gary Busey, Tom Atkins
From: Warner Bros.
I was not planning on watching this tonight but that's how things worked out. I watched it with someone who wanted to see a motion picture and I suggested this as we hadn't seen it in ages and yet we both rate it highly. This was a good decision. We saw the Director's Cut, which was a new experience for us both. The Letterboxd review of it is below:
This was not the plan but earlier today I rewatched this motion picture, one that I had seen before-I have seen all 4 movies, as a matter of fact-but the last time I saw any of them was years ago, which is embarrassing to admit for an action fan such as myself. Note that I saw the Director's Cut, which people in the know say is inferior as most of the footage wasn't really needed in the film. That's the only option I had at the time; it'd be nice if discs offered both versions but that is an uncommon thing, sadly.
Anyhow, I presume most of you are familiar with the pairing of a normal cop in Danny Glover and a crazed cop in Mel Gibson-who you see in one powerful scene has suicidal thoughts-and their investigating of a prostitute who apparently killed herself but it was much more than that (it involves Vietnam, as that as a trope was still alive and well in the late 80's) and they uncover a huge illegal operation, so let me talk about other things instead; while it was nice in the latter chapters to see the Martin Riggs character improve their overall mood due to such things as being around Murtaugh and having a better overall life, but it made the third and fourth movies just not the same as the first two. Then again, here he did Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu moves (expert Rorion Gracie of that famed family worked on this production) years before MMA became popular, and Riggs did not do things like that in the sequels. Here, it was a great contrast between the older cop celebrating his 50th birthday and he has a normal family life vs. the single younger man who lost his wife in an accident a few years ago and he still feels awful about it.
Besides the fantastic job that Glover and Gibson did, the supporting cast was also superb. From Tom Atkins as the father of that prostitute to Mitchell Ryan and Gary Busey as the main villains, I can't complain about any of their performances. The score from Michael Kamen, Eric Clapton and David Sanborn is definitely memorable; it's 80's riffic and people still laugh about “the wailing sax” but for the time period it is appropriate. These days it's nice to see a movie that is shot well, is logically put together in a way where it makes sense and except for the wacky and a little implausible fight at the end (which is still comprehensible) you can see all the action and understand what is going on. There is plenty of action, quality setpieces and the heroes aren't infallible; they are even captured and are rather nastily tortured in one scene.
It seems to still be an influential action movie, even 29 years later. It helped Shane Black become a screenwriting star in his debut and I am glad he's still involved with that (and directing also) to this day. We found out in later years that Mel Gibson playing a borderline psychotic character apparently wasn't a stretch but even with that, I'll always have fond memories of the first two films as they are great.
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Police Academy/Police Academy 2
Police Academy (1984)
Runtime: 96 minutes
Directed by: Hugh Wilson
Starring: I presume everyone knows who starred in these movies
From: Warner Bros./The Ladd Company
Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment (1985)
Runtime: 87 minutes
Directed by: Jerry Paris
Starring: I presume everyone knows who starred in these movies
From: Warner Bros./The Ladd Company
Yep, I saw these two movies last night. I saw both as a kid but I haven't watched them since sometime in my teenage years, meaning “a very long time ago”. I explain how I came across a set of all 7 in the franchise... on Blu-ray, and that is below in my Letterboxd reviews for both fine prestigious motion pictures:
I realize I haven't been too active on this site for the past week aside from liking various reviews and making a few comments on other people's reviews. I either haven't felt like or haven't had the time to watch anything. Well, now I should be more back in the swing of things.
The reason behind me seeing this movie is that as a kid I saw all of the Police Academy movies, including this R-rated original and even the atrocious Mission to Moscow. I hadn't watched any of them in many years. Well, I looked online and saw that there was a UK release of all the movies on Blu-ray but Amazon said it was region free and thankfully Amazon was correct. Considering that renting all 7 films on Amazon Video would only be slightly less than what I paid for the physical movies on Blu, it seemed like a good purchase. Seeing UK and Irish ratings on the Blu labels for the front of the disc is different for a Dumb American like me. Plus, George Gaynes unfortunately passed away recently and of course he played the bumbling Commandant Lassard.
I presume most are familiar with the general story and the main characters so I won't dwell on that. We follow some bumbling new cop recruits; now, they are rather broad stereotypes but at least they are memorable. Mahoney comes off as an asstagonist most of the time but the other characters are fine. Now, in 2016 seeing both a Reagan-loving military gun nut as a cop & a racist police officer using slurs that I won't repeat here... that seems more awkward now than it did then. Thankfully, the “Blue Oyster Club” moments aren't as gross as they could be. It's a sanitized version of the “gay leather bars” from Cruising, but all the clientele do is dance with some dopey straight men. In any case, the movie's pretty goofy and silly and yet I can still rate it as “fine”.
Even with the seemingly required racism, sexism and homophobia that you expect in an 80's film, it's still entertaining to me and not only are there laughs throughout, but it was nice to see those characters again, from Lassard and the giant Hightower to Michael Winslow and his sound effects (I have no idea how he does it) & the antagonist Harris. Of course I remembered various aspects (such as “MOVE IT, MOVE IT, MOVE IT!”) but other things certainly made more sense as an adult. Overall, I knew not to take this too seriously; after all, this is a motion picture where someone goes flying horizontally and they literally end up with their head stuck up a horse's ass! Also, it's a movie that's obviously filmed in Toronto (among other things you see the spelling “Centre” and an Ontario license plate can clearly be spotted early on) yet it's supposed to be “an American city”.
It's a shame that the current Hollywood studio system is so screwed up in many ways, including movies being stuck in Development Hell for many years, a proposed 8th film in this franchise being one of them. Several members of the cast have passed away now and it's a shame that this admittedly zany series can't end with a reunion and we may be stuck with the God-awful Mission to Moscow as the last one; wait until I review that, which won't be for many months.
Now, the first sequel:
Earlier in the day (shortly after the site came up from being down and inoperative) I posted a review for the first Police Academy; I got the entire franchise in a Blu set imported from the UK but it was region free. Last night I saw both the original and this movie back to back, as 2 was one I did not see that often as a kid.
The second was more of the same; you have broad stereotypical characters, goofy humor-jokes about hairy palms and glue in someone's hair-laughs from such things as “a body cavity search”, bad puns... yet I can still say it's average. The plot here is that our heroes end up in “the worst precinct” in Los Angeles... I mean the random city this is set in (it's obvious this time that it was filmed in California; the blue and yellow license plates of the time was noted by nerdy me) and they not only have to deal with a Lieutenant (Art Metrano, who did a very good job of playing a real A-hole/brown-noser) who wishes to become a Captain so he undermines said Captain, but also what Hollywood thinks were “80's punks”, a gang led by Bobcat Goldthwait, who acted like he did back then, meaning “like he was on drugs, constantly making weird noises and saying bizarre things.” From when he started directing until now, it's still amazing to me that HE became a director of some renown; I never could have predicted such a thing.
The movie is pretty dopey and sometimes makes zero logical sense. Still, even with some politically incorrect material, this is an alright picture. There are some genuine laughs throughout, and some nice slapstick. The ending isn't as spectacular as it could have been but you can't win them all. And hey, the gun nut Tackleberry is revealed as a virgin (insert your own jokes if you wish) and he finds a gal who thinks the same way that he does. It was also nice to see the bungling Proctor kiss-ass character make his debut here. I remember that no matter who his superior was he was entertaining in a real juvenile way.
It'll likely be awhile before I see another movie in this series. I remember them being all similar to I should watch them only once in awhile.
Runtime: 96 minutes
Directed by: Hugh Wilson
Starring: I presume everyone knows who starred in these movies
From: Warner Bros./The Ladd Company
Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment (1985)
Runtime: 87 minutes
Directed by: Jerry Paris
Starring: I presume everyone knows who starred in these movies
From: Warner Bros./The Ladd Company
Yep, I saw these two movies last night. I saw both as a kid but I haven't watched them since sometime in my teenage years, meaning “a very long time ago”. I explain how I came across a set of all 7 in the franchise... on Blu-ray, and that is below in my Letterboxd reviews for both fine prestigious motion pictures:
I realize I haven't been too active on this site for the past week aside from liking various reviews and making a few comments on other people's reviews. I either haven't felt like or haven't had the time to watch anything. Well, now I should be more back in the swing of things.
The reason behind me seeing this movie is that as a kid I saw all of the Police Academy movies, including this R-rated original and even the atrocious Mission to Moscow. I hadn't watched any of them in many years. Well, I looked online and saw that there was a UK release of all the movies on Blu-ray but Amazon said it was region free and thankfully Amazon was correct. Considering that renting all 7 films on Amazon Video would only be slightly less than what I paid for the physical movies on Blu, it seemed like a good purchase. Seeing UK and Irish ratings on the Blu labels for the front of the disc is different for a Dumb American like me. Plus, George Gaynes unfortunately passed away recently and of course he played the bumbling Commandant Lassard.
I presume most are familiar with the general story and the main characters so I won't dwell on that. We follow some bumbling new cop recruits; now, they are rather broad stereotypes but at least they are memorable. Mahoney comes off as an asstagonist most of the time but the other characters are fine. Now, in 2016 seeing both a Reagan-loving military gun nut as a cop & a racist police officer using slurs that I won't repeat here... that seems more awkward now than it did then. Thankfully, the “Blue Oyster Club” moments aren't as gross as they could be. It's a sanitized version of the “gay leather bars” from Cruising, but all the clientele do is dance with some dopey straight men. In any case, the movie's pretty goofy and silly and yet I can still rate it as “fine”.
Even with the seemingly required racism, sexism and homophobia that you expect in an 80's film, it's still entertaining to me and not only are there laughs throughout, but it was nice to see those characters again, from Lassard and the giant Hightower to Michael Winslow and his sound effects (I have no idea how he does it) & the antagonist Harris. Of course I remembered various aspects (such as “MOVE IT, MOVE IT, MOVE IT!”) but other things certainly made more sense as an adult. Overall, I knew not to take this too seriously; after all, this is a motion picture where someone goes flying horizontally and they literally end up with their head stuck up a horse's ass! Also, it's a movie that's obviously filmed in Toronto (among other things you see the spelling “Centre” and an Ontario license plate can clearly be spotted early on) yet it's supposed to be “an American city”.
It's a shame that the current Hollywood studio system is so screwed up in many ways, including movies being stuck in Development Hell for many years, a proposed 8th film in this franchise being one of them. Several members of the cast have passed away now and it's a shame that this admittedly zany series can't end with a reunion and we may be stuck with the God-awful Mission to Moscow as the last one; wait until I review that, which won't be for many months.
Now, the first sequel:
Earlier in the day (shortly after the site came up from being down and inoperative) I posted a review for the first Police Academy; I got the entire franchise in a Blu set imported from the UK but it was region free. Last night I saw both the original and this movie back to back, as 2 was one I did not see that often as a kid.
The second was more of the same; you have broad stereotypical characters, goofy humor-jokes about hairy palms and glue in someone's hair-laughs from such things as “a body cavity search”, bad puns... yet I can still say it's average. The plot here is that our heroes end up in “the worst precinct” in Los Angeles... I mean the random city this is set in (it's obvious this time that it was filmed in California; the blue and yellow license plates of the time was noted by nerdy me) and they not only have to deal with a Lieutenant (Art Metrano, who did a very good job of playing a real A-hole/brown-noser) who wishes to become a Captain so he undermines said Captain, but also what Hollywood thinks were “80's punks”, a gang led by Bobcat Goldthwait, who acted like he did back then, meaning “like he was on drugs, constantly making weird noises and saying bizarre things.” From when he started directing until now, it's still amazing to me that HE became a director of some renown; I never could have predicted such a thing.
The movie is pretty dopey and sometimes makes zero logical sense. Still, even with some politically incorrect material, this is an alright picture. There are some genuine laughs throughout, and some nice slapstick. The ending isn't as spectacular as it could have been but you can't win them all. And hey, the gun nut Tackleberry is revealed as a virgin (insert your own jokes if you wish) and he finds a gal who thinks the same way that he does. It was also nice to see the bungling Proctor kiss-ass character make his debut here. I remember that no matter who his superior was he was entertaining in a real juvenile way.
It'll likely be awhile before I see another movie in this series. I remember them being all similar to I should watch them only once in awhile.
I Have Returned
I apologize for not posting here since last Wednesday. I haven't felt like or had the time to watch anything; late last week I watched TRON again but I reviewed that here back shortly before TRON: Legacy came out. I'll be back late Tuesday night w/ reviews of the first two movies in a franchise that I've never reviewd here before.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare
Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991)
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Rachel Talalay
Starring: Robert Englund, Lisa Zane, Shon Greenblatt, Lezlie Deane, Yaphet Kotto
From: New Line Cinema
Yes, I saw this infamous motion picture last night. No, it's not any good. I saw the 2D only version; even if I would have seen the 3D bits in 3D, my opinion wouldn't be any different. It's definitely not the song Freddie's Dead by Curtis Mayfield, that is for sure. My Letterboxd review is below:
So, last night I watched this infamous movie... or maybe “experienced” is a better term to use. It is different from the typical Elm Street movie and that's great and all... it doesn't mean that this is any good. Now, I do think it's interesting that it was directed by a woman (Rachel Talalay), someone who not only spent time with the John Waters crew-no wonder why there are weird moments throughout this picture-but worked at New Line Cinema for years and did various things with all the previous Freddy movies, so she worked her way up the ladder to direct this, and the company typically did things like this, which is why the original New Line Cinema was pretty awesome, and the corporate entity with that name really has nothing to do with how they used to be.
Anyhow, aside from the meta New Nightmares and the cool Freddy vs. Jason (let's not even talk about that universally despised remake from 2010, which I doubt I'll ever see), this was the last Freddy Krueger movie, so at least the title was more accurate than when Friday the 13th had “The Final Chapter” then had a number of future editions. This was done with the sudden revelation that Freddy had a daughter, and she (w/ some youngsters, including Breckin Meyer, whose hair is even worse than the clothing he has to wear, and Lezlie Deane, who if you've seen the Never Sleep Again documentary, at least as of about 6 years ago looked quite different than she did here) and the great Yaphet Kotto help finally put a stop to him; I am not sure how Krueger came back after the ending of the 5th movie, but does it really matter?
The fact that the movie is set in 2001 (really; the introduction said it was set in “10 years to this point”) is pretty wacky; the idea of Springhill, Ohio being royally screwed up because of Fred's actions in the previous 5 movies is understandable, although handled goofy, and so is the notion that the city literally has no children left except for some dude with amnesia. The look at Krueger's backstory is interesting (as a kid, a family men then what happens which caused him to become a haunter of dreams), although the seriousness of that is in contrast to how Freddy usually is, which is REALLY cheesy and goofy. The menacing threat of the early movies is long gone.
To me, the biggest problem with the movie is that it all is strange and surreal, as if it was all a dream. Talk about confused when you experience those dream worlds, which really aren't that great or memorable. It's just a mess and considering there isn't even any gore to speak of except for a bit or two, it should only really be watched to be laughed at, if you want to see Freddy Krueger as a circus clown, playing one of the movie characters in a videogame (it was even worse than I imagined), or you want to see cameos from the likes of Alice Cooper, Johnny Depp (both are cool), Tom Arnold and his then wife Roseanne... which aren't cool. Speaking of not cool, the Iggy Pop end credits song... that is pretty bad, and I am usually fine with Iggy. To think that the several Goo Goo Dolls songs on the soundtrack are better, and this was before the mid and late 90's when the band was a huge deal for a few years.
Anyhow, considering that this is a film which begins with a Nietzsche quote and then shows a Freddy Krueger quote, someone rolls down a hill for like a half minute straight, and you see Old Fred ride a broom and impersonate the Wicked Witch of the West, it's no surprise that this is quite odd.
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Rachel Talalay
Starring: Robert Englund, Lisa Zane, Shon Greenblatt, Lezlie Deane, Yaphet Kotto
From: New Line Cinema
Yes, I saw this infamous motion picture last night. No, it's not any good. I saw the 2D only version; even if I would have seen the 3D bits in 3D, my opinion wouldn't be any different. It's definitely not the song Freddie's Dead by Curtis Mayfield, that is for sure. My Letterboxd review is below:
Anyhow, aside from the meta New Nightmares and the cool Freddy vs. Jason (let's not even talk about that universally despised remake from 2010, which I doubt I'll ever see), this was the last Freddy Krueger movie, so at least the title was more accurate than when Friday the 13th had “The Final Chapter” then had a number of future editions. This was done with the sudden revelation that Freddy had a daughter, and she (w/ some youngsters, including Breckin Meyer, whose hair is even worse than the clothing he has to wear, and Lezlie Deane, who if you've seen the Never Sleep Again documentary, at least as of about 6 years ago looked quite different than she did here) and the great Yaphet Kotto help finally put a stop to him; I am not sure how Krueger came back after the ending of the 5th movie, but does it really matter?
The fact that the movie is set in 2001 (really; the introduction said it was set in “10 years to this point”) is pretty wacky; the idea of Springhill, Ohio being royally screwed up because of Fred's actions in the previous 5 movies is understandable, although handled goofy, and so is the notion that the city literally has no children left except for some dude with amnesia. The look at Krueger's backstory is interesting (as a kid, a family men then what happens which caused him to become a haunter of dreams), although the seriousness of that is in contrast to how Freddy usually is, which is REALLY cheesy and goofy. The menacing threat of the early movies is long gone.
To me, the biggest problem with the movie is that it all is strange and surreal, as if it was all a dream. Talk about confused when you experience those dream worlds, which really aren't that great or memorable. It's just a mess and considering there isn't even any gore to speak of except for a bit or two, it should only really be watched to be laughed at, if you want to see Freddy Krueger as a circus clown, playing one of the movie characters in a videogame (it was even worse than I imagined), or you want to see cameos from the likes of Alice Cooper, Johnny Depp (both are cool), Tom Arnold and his then wife Roseanne... which aren't cool. Speaking of not cool, the Iggy Pop end credits song... that is pretty bad, and I am usually fine with Iggy. To think that the several Goo Goo Dolls songs on the soundtrack are better, and this was before the mid and late 90's when the band was a huge deal for a few years.
Anyhow, considering that this is a film which begins with a Nietzsche quote and then shows a Freddy Krueger quote, someone rolls down a hill for like a half minute straight, and you see Old Fred ride a broom and impersonate the Wicked Witch of the West, it's no surprise that this is quite odd.
Sunday, February 14, 2016
Hooper
Hooper (1978)
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Hal Needham
Starring: Burt Reynolds, Jan-Michael Vincent, James Best, Sally Field, Brian Keith
From: Warner Bros.
This was something I watched yesterday for the first time; it's not my favorite Burt but it's still entertaining; read about it in my Letterboxd review below:
Somewhat surprisingly this was shown on Turner Classic Movies early yesterday evening. It's not on any streaming platforms (at the moment) so I figured I should see it while I can. It's a movie about stuntmen directed by famed stuntman Hal Needham so I knew what to expect going in, and that's what I got.
The plot isn't too complex: Sonny Hooper is a legendary stuntman, but his body is breaking down, he needs to pound down many cans of Coors beer to survive (and boy do you see many different cans of Coors beer throughout; it's obvious who provided money for advertisement), not to mention popping pain pills. A young upstart played by Jan-Michael Vincent enters the picture and there's a friendly rivalry as they both work together on a ersatz James Bond film. You see Sonny hang out with his pals, get involved in a great bar brawl, deal with filmmakers that just don't understand, and yes there is a big finale that literally and figuratively is explosive.
This is not high art by any means (I mean, Terry Bradshaw was still an NFL quarterback at this time and hadn't yet become a pregame personality) and I wouldn't call it great; yet, it is still a pleasant movie that has laughs (even if some of it is doing illegal activity, such as chugging Coors while driving a motor vehicle or recklessly flooring your stunt car all around the studio while other movies are being filmed), some drama with Hooper fearing becoming old/his body being in such poor shape-even if it's not explored in-depth-and of course, plenty of impressive stunts, and as it was in the past it wasn't CGI and instead it was the brave stuntmen and stuntwomen of old who actually did all of those crazy things. A little of Burt Reynolds and his considerable charisma goes a long way.
The movie is no Smokey & The Bandit when it comes to “good old boys” comedies that are quite silly yet entertaining, but it's still an amusing thing where you get plenty of cool stunts and plenty of Burt's trademark laughter.
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Hal Needham
Starring: Burt Reynolds, Jan-Michael Vincent, James Best, Sally Field, Brian Keith
From: Warner Bros.
This was something I watched yesterday for the first time; it's not my favorite Burt but it's still entertaining; read about it in my Letterboxd review below:
Somewhat surprisingly this was shown on Turner Classic Movies early yesterday evening. It's not on any streaming platforms (at the moment) so I figured I should see it while I can. It's a movie about stuntmen directed by famed stuntman Hal Needham so I knew what to expect going in, and that's what I got.
The plot isn't too complex: Sonny Hooper is a legendary stuntman, but his body is breaking down, he needs to pound down many cans of Coors beer to survive (and boy do you see many different cans of Coors beer throughout; it's obvious who provided money for advertisement), not to mention popping pain pills. A young upstart played by Jan-Michael Vincent enters the picture and there's a friendly rivalry as they both work together on a ersatz James Bond film. You see Sonny hang out with his pals, get involved in a great bar brawl, deal with filmmakers that just don't understand, and yes there is a big finale that literally and figuratively is explosive.
This is not high art by any means (I mean, Terry Bradshaw was still an NFL quarterback at this time and hadn't yet become a pregame personality) and I wouldn't call it great; yet, it is still a pleasant movie that has laughs (even if some of it is doing illegal activity, such as chugging Coors while driving a motor vehicle or recklessly flooring your stunt car all around the studio while other movies are being filmed), some drama with Hooper fearing becoming old/his body being in such poor shape-even if it's not explored in-depth-and of course, plenty of impressive stunts, and as it was in the past it wasn't CGI and instead it was the brave stuntmen and stuntwomen of old who actually did all of those crazy things. A little of Burt Reynolds and his considerable charisma goes a long way.
The movie is no Smokey & The Bandit when it comes to “good old boys” comedies that are quite silly yet entertaining, but it's still an amusing thing where you get plenty of cool stunts and plenty of Burt's trademark laughter.
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Red River
Red River (1948)
Runtime: 133 minutes
Directed by: Howard Hawks... and Arthur Rosson
Starring: John Wayne, Montgomery Clift, Walter Brennan, Harry Carey, Joanne Dru
From: United Artists
(Note: I did not know this until after watching the 133 minute version online, but there's actually another cut of this out there. The 133 minute cut is the most common one; however, director Howard Hawks preferred a shorter 127 minute cut and that was restored and put out by Criterion in 2014; maybe one day I'll see that)
I've been wanting to watch more Westerns and more John Wayne films; with this I killed two birds with one stone. It is a highly regarded genre film and is regarded as one of the both for Wayne, Montgomery Clift, and director Howard Hawks. The story is simple: a hard-working but gruff man (The Duke) who builds the largest cattle ranch in Texas; as the area is poor he has to drive a herd of 10,000 cattle up north a thousands miles; he does this with a group of people, including his adopted son Matt (Clift); Matt is the opposite of dad so there's natural friction and as things become difficult, things boil over.
The great thing about this movie is that it can be viewed several different ways. You can side with Wayne, Clift, both, or neither of them. You can understand why they act the way to do and with various events throughout, it's up to you who was “right” and who was “wrong”. You can prefer the ferocious Duke or the more kind-hearted Montgomery, who Wayne thinks is “soft”. No matter how you think, it's validated by what happens in the film. That goes along with the story being thrilling in general; there's a lot of stimulating moments as they have to keep all that cattle moving without having any stampedes and having to deal with such things as Indians and other enemies. The in-fighting among the colorful supporting cast may be the most dangerous threat, though. No matter what, I am amused that Wayne's character is so terrifying that multiple people are petrified of him as if he was a slasher movie villain.
To me, the most memorable supporting act is the character that Walter Brennan plays; he has the hilarious name of NADINE GROOT. Was Nadine ever a name that you gave for a boy? Of course, the Groot part became pretty funny to me in recent years. He says a lot more than “I am Groot”, that is for sure. As it's a movie from this time period, of course there's a dame involved (Joanne Dru), although she doesn't appear until the latter half of the picture; she still makes a definite impact.
Even with an ending on the abrupt side, this is a great film, with a lot of manliness on display. You get different sorts of manliness but it's still manly nonetheless, and it's greatly directed by a legendary director.
Runtime: 133 minutes
Directed by: Howard Hawks... and Arthur Rosson
Starring: John Wayne, Montgomery Clift, Walter Brennan, Harry Carey, Joanne Dru
From: United Artists
(Note: I did not know this until after watching the 133 minute version online, but there's actually another cut of this out there. The 133 minute cut is the most common one; however, director Howard Hawks preferred a shorter 127 minute cut and that was restored and put out by Criterion in 2014; maybe one day I'll see that)
I've been wanting to watch more Westerns and more John Wayne films; with this I killed two birds with one stone. It is a highly regarded genre film and is regarded as one of the both for Wayne, Montgomery Clift, and director Howard Hawks. The story is simple: a hard-working but gruff man (The Duke) who builds the largest cattle ranch in Texas; as the area is poor he has to drive a herd of 10,000 cattle up north a thousands miles; he does this with a group of people, including his adopted son Matt (Clift); Matt is the opposite of dad so there's natural friction and as things become difficult, things boil over.
The great thing about this movie is that it can be viewed several different ways. You can side with Wayne, Clift, both, or neither of them. You can understand why they act the way to do and with various events throughout, it's up to you who was “right” and who was “wrong”. You can prefer the ferocious Duke or the more kind-hearted Montgomery, who Wayne thinks is “soft”. No matter how you think, it's validated by what happens in the film. That goes along with the story being thrilling in general; there's a lot of stimulating moments as they have to keep all that cattle moving without having any stampedes and having to deal with such things as Indians and other enemies. The in-fighting among the colorful supporting cast may be the most dangerous threat, though. No matter what, I am amused that Wayne's character is so terrifying that multiple people are petrified of him as if he was a slasher movie villain.
To me, the most memorable supporting act is the character that Walter Brennan plays; he has the hilarious name of NADINE GROOT. Was Nadine ever a name that you gave for a boy? Of course, the Groot part became pretty funny to me in recent years. He says a lot more than “I am Groot”, that is for sure. As it's a movie from this time period, of course there's a dame involved (Joanne Dru), although she doesn't appear until the latter half of the picture; she still makes a definite impact.
Even with an ending on the abrupt side, this is a great film, with a lot of manliness on display. You get different sorts of manliness but it's still manly nonetheless, and it's greatly directed by a legendary director.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
A Nightmare On Elm Street 5: The Dream Child
A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989)
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Stephen Hopkins
Starring: Robert Englund, Lisa Wilcox, Kelly Jo Minter, Danny Hassel, Erika Anderson
From: New Line Cinema
To state it simply, I felt like watching a horror film last night and it ended up being this one... one with a poor reputation and it was deserved, although it does have memorable moments. Read about it in my Letterboxd review below:
I was in the mood to watch a horror film last night and I hadn't watched a Freddy movie in about 4 months so I figured I should continue to watch them in order; I rated 4 as average and well, 5 isn't as good as that, despite some interesting ideas. The story... it was definitely hampered by the movie being rushed into production; they started filming even before the script was finished, which is usually a bad idea. It involves Alice from The Dream Master returning, and she is pregnant. Freddy kills Alice's new friends and their souls feed the unborn baby... really, it makes as much sense (none) explaining it as it does in the movie. It's best not even trying to start making sense of it.
I can't say the movie is awful; it's just not good. It's a shame as the darker themes of the movie are fine with me (even if Freddy is still a jokester comedian spouting goofy one-liners) and the Gothic themes are pretty cool. Heavy topics like abortion and adoption are brought up; it's not really developed but I don't fault the attempt to do so. They just should have had more time to develop the story, and take better advantage of the splatterpunk influence... various authors of the hardcore horror genre were brought in and what was used of the guys they hired wasn't extensive.
What helps make this watchable is the deaths. I have no idea why the unrated cut only made it to VHS and Laserdisc as it should be out in the modern formats. The R rated version truncates all the deaths and it's unfortunate as the edited kills just aren't the same, even though they're still cool. The most memorable one is the first one, where a character rides a motorcycle and the bike becomes part of him, a la Tetsuo: Iron Man, which I did see once a long time ago and it is as bizarre as everyone says it is. The effects from KNB are pretty good, especially considering the time constraints. There are some nice sets and some nice setpieces, the M.C. Escher one being the standout to me, although the black and white comic book inspired death of Mark (and what incredibly bad outfits he wears!) was creative too.
If it wasn't for those moments, I would rate this quite low. I don't blame the cast or crew for how this turned out overall.
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Stephen Hopkins
Starring: Robert Englund, Lisa Wilcox, Kelly Jo Minter, Danny Hassel, Erika Anderson
From: New Line Cinema
To state it simply, I felt like watching a horror film last night and it ended up being this one... one with a poor reputation and it was deserved, although it does have memorable moments. Read about it in my Letterboxd review below:
I was in the mood to watch a horror film last night and I hadn't watched a Freddy movie in about 4 months so I figured I should continue to watch them in order; I rated 4 as average and well, 5 isn't as good as that, despite some interesting ideas. The story... it was definitely hampered by the movie being rushed into production; they started filming even before the script was finished, which is usually a bad idea. It involves Alice from The Dream Master returning, and she is pregnant. Freddy kills Alice's new friends and their souls feed the unborn baby... really, it makes as much sense (none) explaining it as it does in the movie. It's best not even trying to start making sense of it.
I can't say the movie is awful; it's just not good. It's a shame as the darker themes of the movie are fine with me (even if Freddy is still a jokester comedian spouting goofy one-liners) and the Gothic themes are pretty cool. Heavy topics like abortion and adoption are brought up; it's not really developed but I don't fault the attempt to do so. They just should have had more time to develop the story, and take better advantage of the splatterpunk influence... various authors of the hardcore horror genre were brought in and what was used of the guys they hired wasn't extensive.
What helps make this watchable is the deaths. I have no idea why the unrated cut only made it to VHS and Laserdisc as it should be out in the modern formats. The R rated version truncates all the deaths and it's unfortunate as the edited kills just aren't the same, even though they're still cool. The most memorable one is the first one, where a character rides a motorcycle and the bike becomes part of him, a la Tetsuo: Iron Man, which I did see once a long time ago and it is as bizarre as everyone says it is. The effects from KNB are pretty good, especially considering the time constraints. There are some nice sets and some nice setpieces, the M.C. Escher one being the standout to me, although the black and white comic book inspired death of Mark (and what incredibly bad outfits he wears!) was creative too.
If it wasn't for those moments, I would rate this quite low. I don't blame the cast or crew for how this turned out overall.
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Super Fly T.N.T.
Super Fly T.N.T. (1973)
Runtime: 87 minutes
Directed by: Ron O'Neal
Starring: Ron O'Neal, Roscoe Lee Browne, Sheila Frazier, Robert Guillaume, Jacques Sernas
From: Paramount
Here is a super rare movie that I was able to see thanx to the El Rey Network. It's only average, although at least it is interesting. My Letterboxd review is below:
I figured I should be the first one to give this film a review on Letterboxd. Not that I am surprised it's had not that many people say they've viewed it and as of now only 5 people even gave it a rating; except for a late 90's VHS release it hasn't been for public consumption and whether it's the legal streaming options or the illegal ones, the film is impossible to find; not even the super-obscure sites have it. That is why the few VHS copies out there go for quite a bit of cash. I know someone last year who paid for a VHS copy; he hasn't said anything about it but I imagine he was not happy when he found out that this past weekend the El Rey Network started showing the movie. If it's any solace to him, the print shown was pretty much as “good” picture-wise as something on VHS. As it hasn't been remastered I'll presume that it means it won't be coming to disc anytime soon or even some place like Amazon Video or Paramount's YouTube channel The Paramount Vault. Even though the El Rey Network had even worse/more awkward commercial break placement than usual (I mean, cutting people off mid-sentence!), I had no choice but to see it this way.
The plot has Youngblood Priest in Rome, obviously doing well for himself as not only does he have his girl, but he drives a Lamborghini Miura, which is a very beautiful vehicle. Their pad has some strange lopsided shelves that are supposed to be that way. Actually, the money is starting to run out; maybe those shelves were expensive... anyhow, he meets up with a revolutionary who tries to convince him to run guns to a fictitious African country and due to his past he feels guilty (plus he's browbeaten by Roscoe Lee Browne) so he wants to help that country overthrow colonial rule.
This movie is not as good as the original, which I only rated at 3 stars and that was due in part to the incredible Curtis Mayfield score. This is just average in every which way, from the script to the meandering plot to the performances to how star/co-writer/director Ron O'Neal does things. Although, the fact that ALEX HALEY (yes, the Roots guy) also played a hand in the script is astounding to me. I am not quite sure how Super Fly became so famous that Roscoe Lee Browne goes to him for a major operation.
The thing is, the idea of a movie like this being set and filmed in Rome then actually filming in Africa (Senegal was the stand-in for the fake country of Umbia), I am down for that. To me things got real interesting once they got to Senegal and we got to see what the country looked like, how its natives dressed, what they did during the day, the city and the country, etc. The country was introduced via a great montage. I definitely won't complain about that. The idea of Priest looking for redemption is a good one, as is trying to help out those in Africa escape tyranny. Priest is whipped at one point, the connotations there obvious. It's just the execution that isn't always great.
While it's not as awesome as the Mayfield score from the original, Osibisa's score here is still great stuff. They were a band based in London but was made up of musicians from several different cultures, about half of which were from Ghana. So, it was appropriate for this film to have music with an African flavor from it. And as for all blaxploitation, there's some hilarious clothing; my favorite was a cowskin pattern shirt and matching giant fury boots!
I am not sure why this film is so hard to track down; unless there's the always dreaded “rights issues”, it should be available for streaming and also on Blu. It's not a must-see for the genre but it's not so terrible that it's something which should be forgotten.
Runtime: 87 minutes
Directed by: Ron O'Neal
Starring: Ron O'Neal, Roscoe Lee Browne, Sheila Frazier, Robert Guillaume, Jacques Sernas
From: Paramount
Here is a super rare movie that I was able to see thanx to the El Rey Network. It's only average, although at least it is interesting. My Letterboxd review is below:
I figured I should be the first one to give this film a review on Letterboxd. Not that I am surprised it's had not that many people say they've viewed it and as of now only 5 people even gave it a rating; except for a late 90's VHS release it hasn't been for public consumption and whether it's the legal streaming options or the illegal ones, the film is impossible to find; not even the super-obscure sites have it. That is why the few VHS copies out there go for quite a bit of cash. I know someone last year who paid for a VHS copy; he hasn't said anything about it but I imagine he was not happy when he found out that this past weekend the El Rey Network started showing the movie. If it's any solace to him, the print shown was pretty much as “good” picture-wise as something on VHS. As it hasn't been remastered I'll presume that it means it won't be coming to disc anytime soon or even some place like Amazon Video or Paramount's YouTube channel The Paramount Vault. Even though the El Rey Network had even worse/more awkward commercial break placement than usual (I mean, cutting people off mid-sentence!), I had no choice but to see it this way.
The plot has Youngblood Priest in Rome, obviously doing well for himself as not only does he have his girl, but he drives a Lamborghini Miura, which is a very beautiful vehicle. Their pad has some strange lopsided shelves that are supposed to be that way. Actually, the money is starting to run out; maybe those shelves were expensive... anyhow, he meets up with a revolutionary who tries to convince him to run guns to a fictitious African country and due to his past he feels guilty (plus he's browbeaten by Roscoe Lee Browne) so he wants to help that country overthrow colonial rule.
This movie is not as good as the original, which I only rated at 3 stars and that was due in part to the incredible Curtis Mayfield score. This is just average in every which way, from the script to the meandering plot to the performances to how star/co-writer/director Ron O'Neal does things. Although, the fact that ALEX HALEY (yes, the Roots guy) also played a hand in the script is astounding to me. I am not quite sure how Super Fly became so famous that Roscoe Lee Browne goes to him for a major operation.
The thing is, the idea of a movie like this being set and filmed in Rome then actually filming in Africa (Senegal was the stand-in for the fake country of Umbia), I am down for that. To me things got real interesting once they got to Senegal and we got to see what the country looked like, how its natives dressed, what they did during the day, the city and the country, etc. The country was introduced via a great montage. I definitely won't complain about that. The idea of Priest looking for redemption is a good one, as is trying to help out those in Africa escape tyranny. Priest is whipped at one point, the connotations there obvious. It's just the execution that isn't always great.
While it's not as awesome as the Mayfield score from the original, Osibisa's score here is still great stuff. They were a band based in London but was made up of musicians from several different cultures, about half of which were from Ghana. So, it was appropriate for this film to have music with an African flavor from it. And as for all blaxploitation, there's some hilarious clothing; my favorite was a cowskin pattern shirt and matching giant fury boots!
I am not sure why this film is so hard to track down; unless there's the always dreaded “rights issues”, it should be available for streaming and also on Blu. It's not a must-see for the genre but it's not so terrible that it's something which should be forgotten.
Monday, February 8, 2016
Super Fly
Super Fly (1972)
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: Gordon Parks, Jr.
Starring: Ron O'Neal, Carl Lee, Sheila Frazier, Julius Harris, Charles MacGregor
From: Warner Bros.
Here's another review from me; I saw this movie on Saturday night; it's yet another one I hadn't seen in years. It's not as great as its reputation says it is. See me explain why in my Letterboxd review below:
Here's one of the many movies that I've seen before but that one viewing was a long time ago. As the El Rey Network started showing the super hard to find (even online and even in the obscure places where rare films can be found) Super Fly T.N.T this weekend and I plan on giving that a review on Tuesday, of course I had to see this a second time.
I presume most are familiar with the plot of how pusherman Youngblood Priest is looking for one last big cocaine score so that he and his partner can retire from the beat-of course that goes wrong-so I won't spend much time there. I'll just say that if it wasn't for the legendary score from Curtis Mayfield, I'd only rate this as about average. I generally enjoy the old school funk and R&B personally so I am predisposed to enjoy the sort of music that Mayfield made; but, all the songs on the soundtrack are incredible and it offers a big boost to a movie that otherwise has sloppy storytelling, weird editing, a meandering pace, and some odd moments. It really does help the film.
Now, I can admit that the montage of photos set to the song Pusherman was really good; seeing Curtis on film perform that song earlier was definitely enjoyable. Plus, I've mentioned in other reviews how I enjoy looking at “The crappy New York City of old” in movies before the area got cleaned up (you know, in movies like Night of the Juggler, Shaft, Taxi Driver or the Joe Spinell Maniac) and there are scenes here which definitely reflect that.
No matter if I think this isn't the blaxploitation classic that it once was, I haven't seen a film in that unique genre since last summer, so it was about time to do so. I at least chuckled at the loud clothing (as I always do with these films) and Priest's pimp Cadillac was quite amusing. Point is, my list of blaxploitation wouldn't be complete without this, one of the most famous of the genre.
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: Gordon Parks, Jr.
Starring: Ron O'Neal, Carl Lee, Sheila Frazier, Julius Harris, Charles MacGregor
From: Warner Bros.
Here's another review from me; I saw this movie on Saturday night; it's yet another one I hadn't seen in years. It's not as great as its reputation says it is. See me explain why in my Letterboxd review below:
Here's one of the many movies that I've seen before but that one viewing was a long time ago. As the El Rey Network started showing the super hard to find (even online and even in the obscure places where rare films can be found) Super Fly T.N.T this weekend and I plan on giving that a review on Tuesday, of course I had to see this a second time.
I presume most are familiar with the plot of how pusherman Youngblood Priest is looking for one last big cocaine score so that he and his partner can retire from the beat-of course that goes wrong-so I won't spend much time there. I'll just say that if it wasn't for the legendary score from Curtis Mayfield, I'd only rate this as about average. I generally enjoy the old school funk and R&B personally so I am predisposed to enjoy the sort of music that Mayfield made; but, all the songs on the soundtrack are incredible and it offers a big boost to a movie that otherwise has sloppy storytelling, weird editing, a meandering pace, and some odd moments. It really does help the film.
Now, I can admit that the montage of photos set to the song Pusherman was really good; seeing Curtis on film perform that song earlier was definitely enjoyable. Plus, I've mentioned in other reviews how I enjoy looking at “The crappy New York City of old” in movies before the area got cleaned up (you know, in movies like Night of the Juggler, Shaft, Taxi Driver or the Joe Spinell Maniac) and there are scenes here which definitely reflect that.
No matter if I think this isn't the blaxploitation classic that it once was, I haven't seen a film in that unique genre since last summer, so it was about time to do so. I at least chuckled at the loud clothing (as I always do with these films) and Priest's pimp Cadillac was quite amusing. Point is, my list of blaxploitation wouldn't be complete without this, one of the most famous of the genre.
The Godfather, Part III
The Godfather, Part III
Runtime: 170 minutes
Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola
Starring: Al Pacino, Andy Garcia, Talia Shire, Diane Keaton, Eli Wallach
From: Paramount
After many years, I finally saw this again. The movie is better than I had remembered, although yeah, Sofia Coppola's performance is pretty bad. But considering this was mainly done for a paycheck... my long Letterboxd review is below:
Last night after the Super Bowl I had the free time to watch a long film so it was the time for me to rewatch a movie I had seen before but the last time was years ago. Some movies come off as worse after the passage of time or are seen as worse by me compared to when I saw it in my youth. Likewise, films can be better due to the passage of time. This is a movie that is better than what I had remembered.
Considering the circumstances of trying to equal two of the greatest films in the history of world cinema AND being rushed by Paramount so that the movie could come out at a certain time (a horrible idea that happens all the time and honestly it's a miracle when a big Hollywood movie actually turns out great due to the needless corporate constrictions), the movie is good. Unfortunately, it's not great and it'll always suffer in comparison.
To mention the elephant in the room when it comes to III, Sofia Coppola... yes, Winona Ryder dropped out at the last minute and Francis Ford Coppola, father, made the unwise decision to cast his non-actress daughter in a pivotal role, and her performance was notably bad. Even with the circumstances they should have tried to cast someone with experience. The trilogy's theme of family shouldn't have been extended to real life like that. Considering how she got eviscerated for her acting it's a miracle that Sofia would even want anything else to do with the business but at least she's definitely better as a writer and director. Besides, it could be argued that Robert Duvall not appearing in the movie as Tom Hagen due to money reasons is also a big detriment, and to me it is. No offense but the replacement character of George Hamilton's BJ Harrison is just not the same.
At least the story was interesting to me. I can't quite explain why there was the subplot of Mary Corleone and Vincent Mancini (first cousins!) falling in love and they start rolling more than gnocchi-as it's a little weird and also a little gross-but the general idea of Michael Corleone trying to finally be legitimate for good as his corporation purchases the financially troubled bank owned by the Vatican, only to be pulled back into the Mafia life... it is enjoyable. Andy Garcia does a swell job of playing Mancini, who is the illegitimate son of Sonny Corleone, and he really nailed how James Caan acted and sounded in the role. The idea of a new Godfather was largely successfully done here.
The first part of the movie in late 70's New York City set things up nicely and showed who the bad guys were. I am not sure we needed all the obvious allusions and line quotes from the first two movies, though. The villains are pretty awful people, and crazy enough to deliver a memorable helicopter massacre in an Atlantic City hotel meeting room. The second half in Sicily where old locations are visited and we had the memorable opera finale, that works as the story is Michael having to pay for the sins of his past. The confession scene to the priest where he has to admit to his wrongdoings (including what he did to his brother Fredo) was great. The ending, it does show that he while he experienced hardships due to his ways (including friction with his family), he finally was truly punished for his actions; it was certainly an opera or a tragedy, and it was fitting.
Since I last saw the movie I did learn more about two plot points inspired by real life: how Pope John Paul I died barely a month into his reign due to (officially) natural causes but there have always been rumors that due to him trying to clean up corruption in the Papal offices he was actually murdered... and the Banco Ambrosiano, which the Vatican had a big stake in and due to corruption they collapsed, and there are rumors that the two were connected in real life so they did it in a fictional sense here. Knowing that background did help me out here.
To me, the acting was mostly solid. Pacino delivered a quality performance that was perfect for the character as an old beaten-down man. There were great scenes, from the aforementioned confession to Michael and Kay trying to reconcile after all those years but the scene's ending proves that some things will never change. The movie's plot is not always successful (why did Bridget Fonda's character vanish after only appearing in a few scenes?) but overall I'll say it's good. Talia Shire having more to do this time as Connie ended up working for her character. The ending seemed appropriate for Michael Corleone, even if it is pretty sad. Behind the camera things were solid; the cinematography from Gordon Willis stands out for me there.
The movie is not a masterpiece like the first two are; yet, to me it's not the disaster its reputation says it is.
Runtime: 170 minutes
Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola
Starring: Al Pacino, Andy Garcia, Talia Shire, Diane Keaton, Eli Wallach
From: Paramount
After many years, I finally saw this again. The movie is better than I had remembered, although yeah, Sofia Coppola's performance is pretty bad. But considering this was mainly done for a paycheck... my long Letterboxd review is below:
Last night after the Super Bowl I had the free time to watch a long film so it was the time for me to rewatch a movie I had seen before but the last time was years ago. Some movies come off as worse after the passage of time or are seen as worse by me compared to when I saw it in my youth. Likewise, films can be better due to the passage of time. This is a movie that is better than what I had remembered.
Considering the circumstances of trying to equal two of the greatest films in the history of world cinema AND being rushed by Paramount so that the movie could come out at a certain time (a horrible idea that happens all the time and honestly it's a miracle when a big Hollywood movie actually turns out great due to the needless corporate constrictions), the movie is good. Unfortunately, it's not great and it'll always suffer in comparison.
To mention the elephant in the room when it comes to III, Sofia Coppola... yes, Winona Ryder dropped out at the last minute and Francis Ford Coppola, father, made the unwise decision to cast his non-actress daughter in a pivotal role, and her performance was notably bad. Even with the circumstances they should have tried to cast someone with experience. The trilogy's theme of family shouldn't have been extended to real life like that. Considering how she got eviscerated for her acting it's a miracle that Sofia would even want anything else to do with the business but at least she's definitely better as a writer and director. Besides, it could be argued that Robert Duvall not appearing in the movie as Tom Hagen due to money reasons is also a big detriment, and to me it is. No offense but the replacement character of George Hamilton's BJ Harrison is just not the same.
At least the story was interesting to me. I can't quite explain why there was the subplot of Mary Corleone and Vincent Mancini (first cousins!) falling in love and they start rolling more than gnocchi-as it's a little weird and also a little gross-but the general idea of Michael Corleone trying to finally be legitimate for good as his corporation purchases the financially troubled bank owned by the Vatican, only to be pulled back into the Mafia life... it is enjoyable. Andy Garcia does a swell job of playing Mancini, who is the illegitimate son of Sonny Corleone, and he really nailed how James Caan acted and sounded in the role. The idea of a new Godfather was largely successfully done here.
The first part of the movie in late 70's New York City set things up nicely and showed who the bad guys were. I am not sure we needed all the obvious allusions and line quotes from the first two movies, though. The villains are pretty awful people, and crazy enough to deliver a memorable helicopter massacre in an Atlantic City hotel meeting room. The second half in Sicily where old locations are visited and we had the memorable opera finale, that works as the story is Michael having to pay for the sins of his past. The confession scene to the priest where he has to admit to his wrongdoings (including what he did to his brother Fredo) was great. The ending, it does show that he while he experienced hardships due to his ways (including friction with his family), he finally was truly punished for his actions; it was certainly an opera or a tragedy, and it was fitting.
Since I last saw the movie I did learn more about two plot points inspired by real life: how Pope John Paul I died barely a month into his reign due to (officially) natural causes but there have always been rumors that due to him trying to clean up corruption in the Papal offices he was actually murdered... and the Banco Ambrosiano, which the Vatican had a big stake in and due to corruption they collapsed, and there are rumors that the two were connected in real life so they did it in a fictional sense here. Knowing that background did help me out here.
To me, the acting was mostly solid. Pacino delivered a quality performance that was perfect for the character as an old beaten-down man. There were great scenes, from the aforementioned confession to Michael and Kay trying to reconcile after all those years but the scene's ending proves that some things will never change. The movie's plot is not always successful (why did Bridget Fonda's character vanish after only appearing in a few scenes?) but overall I'll say it's good. Talia Shire having more to do this time as Connie ended up working for her character. The ending seemed appropriate for Michael Corleone, even if it is pretty sad. Behind the camera things were solid; the cinematography from Gordon Willis stands out for me there.
The movie is not a masterpiece like the first two are; yet, to me it's not the disaster its reputation says it is.
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Ip Man 2
Ip Man 2 (Yip Man 2) (2010)
Runtime: 108 minutes
Directed by: Wilson Yip
Starring: Donnie Yen, Sammo Hung, Lynn Hung, Xiaoming Huang, Darren Shahlavi
From: Several different Chinese companies
Quite simply, I had nothing I needed to watch last night so I selected this motion picture and watched it via Amazon streaming. It's not the first movie but it's still pretty good, I guess. Read all the details below in my Letterboxd review:
Nothing was on the agenda and I watched the first Ip Man a few days ago so I figured it was time to see its first sequel. Originally it was going to be about Bruce Lee but there were rights issues (which also reared their ugly head during the third film; that was eventually cleared up) so you only saw him in a brief scene at the very end as a kid. Instead, it was about swinging 1950's Hong Kong.
The plot revolves around how the British that ruled Hong Kong at the time were discriminatory against the Chinese, and how some kowtowed to them; a character played by Sammo Hung did this and he controls which martial arts clubs operate in the city. Yip Man isn't down with that so there's conflict. After a real Rocky IV moment (to steal a statement from various Letterboxd users; there certainly is a scene where you expect a character to yell, “throw the damn towel!”) Yip suddenly has to defend the honor of his countrymen against a cocky British boxer, played by the late Darren Shahlavi.
The movie dispenses with the idea of this being an accurate version of what happened in Man's life. It's rather loosely based, what with all the wire-fu and broad stereotypical villains who might as well be Snidely Whiplash, twirling their mustaches. It's not very realistic. Yet I was still entertained. While cliched at times, it's still rousing storytelling, and the film is still well-made, with very memorable fighting sequences; the big one involving a bunch of people wielding machetes is the best, IMO. More than one character from the first movie makes a surprise appearance. And Donnie Yen is still a great man.
It's not the original film but despite it being different it's still an entertaining watch.
Runtime: 108 minutes
Directed by: Wilson Yip
Starring: Donnie Yen, Sammo Hung, Lynn Hung, Xiaoming Huang, Darren Shahlavi
From: Several different Chinese companies
Quite simply, I had nothing I needed to watch last night so I selected this motion picture and watched it via Amazon streaming. It's not the first movie but it's still pretty good, I guess. Read all the details below in my Letterboxd review:
Nothing was on the agenda and I watched the first Ip Man a few days ago so I figured it was time to see its first sequel. Originally it was going to be about Bruce Lee but there were rights issues (which also reared their ugly head during the third film; that was eventually cleared up) so you only saw him in a brief scene at the very end as a kid. Instead, it was about swinging 1950's Hong Kong.
The plot revolves around how the British that ruled Hong Kong at the time were discriminatory against the Chinese, and how some kowtowed to them; a character played by Sammo Hung did this and he controls which martial arts clubs operate in the city. Yip Man isn't down with that so there's conflict. After a real Rocky IV moment (to steal a statement from various Letterboxd users; there certainly is a scene where you expect a character to yell, “throw the damn towel!”) Yip suddenly has to defend the honor of his countrymen against a cocky British boxer, played by the late Darren Shahlavi.
The movie dispenses with the idea of this being an accurate version of what happened in Man's life. It's rather loosely based, what with all the wire-fu and broad stereotypical villains who might as well be Snidely Whiplash, twirling their mustaches. It's not very realistic. Yet I was still entertained. While cliched at times, it's still rousing storytelling, and the film is still well-made, with very memorable fighting sequences; the big one involving a bunch of people wielding machetes is the best, IMO. More than one character from the first movie makes a surprise appearance. And Donnie Yen is still a great man.
It's not the original film but despite it being different it's still an entertaining watch.
Friday, February 5, 2016
Clan Of Amazons
Clan of Amazons (Xiu Hua Da Dao) (1978)
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: Yuen Chor
Starring: Tony Liu, Hua Yueh, Yun Ling, Li Ching, Szu Shih
From: Shaw Brothers
After a few month break I finally saw another Shaw Brothers movie. This is another of their bread and butter of "period martial arts extravaganza" and I am perfectly content with that. My Letterboxd review is below:
It had been a few months since I've seen a Shaw Brothers movie. I decided to go with a random one that was on the El Rey Network late last night and as not many online have claimed to have seen it...
A disguised thief has an odd calling card of sewing an embroidered piece of silk before he makes his attacks... where he uses needles to blind everyone. Just seeing people covering their eyes, moaning in pain and red paint on their hands... that is pretty gruesome to my tastes. Investigating is Lu Xiaofeng, who I understand was the star of a series of 20th century Chinese novels by Gu Long. He's not only a fighter but also an ace investigator. He is assisted by the lovely lady known as Xue Bing. They go on the hunt for this thief and among other things, they are looking for red embroidered shoes.
The blinding aspect excepted, the movie isn't too serious in tone. After all, one scene has some enemies have their tops ripped off to make sure that they are men and not women; it makes sense in context. There's also poisoned chestnuts and the “TMI poem moment” where Lu states that when he gets really drunk from wine, he's impotent. I swear, this also makes sense in context. And yes, there is in fact a clan of “Amazons”, meaning “women who...” but I don't want to spoil anything.
This isn't a must-see entry in the vast Shaw Brothers catalogue and yet I do not regret seeing it. The movie was competently made in terms of such things as cinematography and direction. The martial arts were all entertaining, whether it be the ladies delivering palm strikes or all the sword action that we get to see. There being intrigue to the story when it comes to the mastermind behind it all was a nice touch. There were some interesting and cool setpieces. Overall, it was a nice reminder that I should try to watch these movies a little more frequently.
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: Yuen Chor
Starring: Tony Liu, Hua Yueh, Yun Ling, Li Ching, Szu Shih
From: Shaw Brothers
After a few month break I finally saw another Shaw Brothers movie. This is another of their bread and butter of "period martial arts extravaganza" and I am perfectly content with that. My Letterboxd review is below:
It had been a few months since I've seen a Shaw Brothers movie. I decided to go with a random one that was on the El Rey Network late last night and as not many online have claimed to have seen it...
A disguised thief has an odd calling card of sewing an embroidered piece of silk before he makes his attacks... where he uses needles to blind everyone. Just seeing people covering their eyes, moaning in pain and red paint on their hands... that is pretty gruesome to my tastes. Investigating is Lu Xiaofeng, who I understand was the star of a series of 20th century Chinese novels by Gu Long. He's not only a fighter but also an ace investigator. He is assisted by the lovely lady known as Xue Bing. They go on the hunt for this thief and among other things, they are looking for red embroidered shoes.
The blinding aspect excepted, the movie isn't too serious in tone. After all, one scene has some enemies have their tops ripped off to make sure that they are men and not women; it makes sense in context. There's also poisoned chestnuts and the “TMI poem moment” where Lu states that when he gets really drunk from wine, he's impotent. I swear, this also makes sense in context. And yes, there is in fact a clan of “Amazons”, meaning “women who...” but I don't want to spoil anything.
This isn't a must-see entry in the vast Shaw Brothers catalogue and yet I do not regret seeing it. The movie was competently made in terms of such things as cinematography and direction. The martial arts were all entertaining, whether it be the ladies delivering palm strikes or all the sword action that we get to see. There being intrigue to the story when it comes to the mastermind behind it all was a nice touch. There were some interesting and cool setpieces. Overall, it was a nice reminder that I should try to watch these movies a little more frequently.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
The Cynic, The Rat, & The Fist
The Cynic, the Rat & the Fist (Il Cinico, l'infame Il Violento) (1977)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Umberto Lenzi
Starring: Maurizio Merli, Tomas Milian, John Saxon, Renzo Palmer, Gabriella Lepori
From: Dania Film
Finally... Blair Russell has come back to... Poliziotteschi movies. I haven't watched many in the past year and a half or so. I'll try to be more frequent with the genre this year. Below in my Letterboxd review I talk about why I was glad to make my long-awaited return.
I was looking at the various lists I have here on Letterboxd, and I noticed that I had been neglecting the Poliziotteschi genre, having only seen a few films in the past 18 months, and one of them was the documentary Eurocrime! I also realized that while the majority of the reviews I have for the Poliziotteschi list are rather short, the ratings still apply and I hope I said enough to explain why I give most of the films 3 ½ to 4 ½ stars. So, I tracked down this film and in 2016 I'll try to explore the genre a little more often. I may also rewatch a movie or two-if possible-to give them longer and better reviews.
This film reminded me why I am glad I started watching that genre a few years ago. It is a sequel to a movie I reviewed a few years ago called Rome, Armed to the Teeth where genre stalwart Maurizio “Why yes, I do resemble Franco Nero” Merli as the loosest of loose cannon cops-Tanzi-goes after a villain who happens to be a hunchback, and that was only part of the plot. In the tremendously named The Cynic, The Rat & the Fist, he is off the force but it doesn't mean he's changed his ways. A foe from the past named THE CHINAMAN despite not being Chinese (Tomas Milian, who played the aforementioned hunchback in Rome, Armed to the Teeth) is released from jail and bad things start happening; he is also aligned with a man from New York named DiMaggio (John Saxon, w/ tremendous mustache) and along with dalliances with various punks, Tanzi deals with the both of them and a Kurosawa-like plot is introduced.
The movie has various aspects that you typically find in this genre. It includes:
* A badass hero (or in some cases, anti-hero) who is a loose cannon and is over the top awesome in doing cool crap.
* A lot of sleaze; this unfortunately means women sometimes getting beat up or otherwise denigrated.
* Villains who are also over the top.
* Crazy things happening to innocent parties; it usually means them getting injured or even killed.
* Purses getting snatched
* Motorcycle action
* Shootouts
* Plenty of fist fights
* Members of law enforcement that are either incompetent or corrupt.
* Tremendous 70's clothing
* A groovy 70's score.
* A scene in some sort of poolhall/gaming place.
* A scene in an Italo-disco; if it's a later film, Italo-disco music will likely be playing.
There isn't any vehicles chases but otherwise, it has what you'd expect. I could always do without the misogyny; this is not the time for me to discuss that topic. I have learned to put up with it when it comes to these goofy movies. It delivered the sort of thrills-and mirth-that I wanted and it reminded me how much fun I have watching these. I tend to giggle or even guffaw while seeing a Poliziotteschi, mainly due to being surprised at the craziness I am seeing. It can help when the story has issues, and here it did not always make 100% sense. I ignored that as I saw Tanzi punch another man or I heard another outrageous/colorful line of dialogue. As it's directed by Umberto Lenzi, of course there's plenty of sleaze.
Again, I'll try to watch these films a little more frequently; I'll try to track them down when I can.
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Umberto Lenzi
Starring: Maurizio Merli, Tomas Milian, John Saxon, Renzo Palmer, Gabriella Lepori
From: Dania Film
Finally... Blair Russell has come back to... Poliziotteschi movies. I haven't watched many in the past year and a half or so. I'll try to be more frequent with the genre this year. Below in my Letterboxd review I talk about why I was glad to make my long-awaited return.
I was looking at the various lists I have here on Letterboxd, and I noticed that I had been neglecting the Poliziotteschi genre, having only seen a few films in the past 18 months, and one of them was the documentary Eurocrime! I also realized that while the majority of the reviews I have for the Poliziotteschi list are rather short, the ratings still apply and I hope I said enough to explain why I give most of the films 3 ½ to 4 ½ stars. So, I tracked down this film and in 2016 I'll try to explore the genre a little more often. I may also rewatch a movie or two-if possible-to give them longer and better reviews.
This film reminded me why I am glad I started watching that genre a few years ago. It is a sequel to a movie I reviewed a few years ago called Rome, Armed to the Teeth where genre stalwart Maurizio “Why yes, I do resemble Franco Nero” Merli as the loosest of loose cannon cops-Tanzi-goes after a villain who happens to be a hunchback, and that was only part of the plot. In the tremendously named The Cynic, The Rat & the Fist, he is off the force but it doesn't mean he's changed his ways. A foe from the past named THE CHINAMAN despite not being Chinese (Tomas Milian, who played the aforementioned hunchback in Rome, Armed to the Teeth) is released from jail and bad things start happening; he is also aligned with a man from New York named DiMaggio (John Saxon, w/ tremendous mustache) and along with dalliances with various punks, Tanzi deals with the both of them and a Kurosawa-like plot is introduced.
The movie has various aspects that you typically find in this genre. It includes:
* A badass hero (or in some cases, anti-hero) who is a loose cannon and is over the top awesome in doing cool crap.
* A lot of sleaze; this unfortunately means women sometimes getting beat up or otherwise denigrated.
* Villains who are also over the top.
* Crazy things happening to innocent parties; it usually means them getting injured or even killed.
* Purses getting snatched
* Motorcycle action
* Shootouts
* Plenty of fist fights
* Members of law enforcement that are either incompetent or corrupt.
* Tremendous 70's clothing
* A groovy 70's score.
* A scene in some sort of poolhall/gaming place.
* A scene in an Italo-disco; if it's a later film, Italo-disco music will likely be playing.
There isn't any vehicles chases but otherwise, it has what you'd expect. I could always do without the misogyny; this is not the time for me to discuss that topic. I have learned to put up with it when it comes to these goofy movies. It delivered the sort of thrills-and mirth-that I wanted and it reminded me how much fun I have watching these. I tend to giggle or even guffaw while seeing a Poliziotteschi, mainly due to being surprised at the craziness I am seeing. It can help when the story has issues, and here it did not always make 100% sense. I ignored that as I saw Tanzi punch another man or I heard another outrageous/colorful line of dialogue. As it's directed by Umberto Lenzi, of course there's plenty of sleaze.
Again, I'll try to watch these films a little more frequently; I'll try to track them down when I can.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Ip Man
Ip Man (Yip Man) (2008)
Runtime: 106 minutes
Directed by: Wilson Yip
Starring: Donnie Yen, Simon Yam, Siu-Wong Fan, Lynn Hung, Hiroyuki Ikeuchi
From: Several different Hong Kong and Chinese companies
I am not sure if I'll be seeing Ip Man 3 on the big screen (it's showing at two locations around me), but in case I do, I decided to see the first two movies in the series. This movie-but not the second one-is on HD for a dollar on Amazon so for that reason alone it was a good idea to see this. Turns out, this motion picture was worth seeing. The Letterboxd review is below:
Everybody Wing Chun Tonight! Sorry, I had to get that obvious joke out of the way.
While I do not know if I'll be able to squeeze in a showing, Ip Man 3 is playing at two different theatres in the Orlando area. I had never seen the first two films in the series but I figured I should in case I do decide to see 3 now rather than waiting for streaming. I heard strong things about the films from a wide variety of people all across the Internet.
I know that this plays loose and fast when it comes to the actual facts; I am not always a fan of that but I'll excuse it here. It is all about Yip Man, the Wing Chun master who is best known for being Bruce Lee's master. It covers the period of his life from the mid to the late 1930's, where he started off a successful man who doesn't train anyone but when there's trouble from outsiders he is able to defend his city of Foshan, China. When Japan invades and the second Sino-Japanese war begins, though, things change and Yip has to work in a coal mine. The Japanese love watching the Chinese fight, and when a cocky general loves humiliating them... Yip has to defend his martial art and his country.
It's a story which has cliches for sure; you'll recognize them if you've only seen a few martial arts movies. People defending themselves against an evil enemy, cocky foes, someone fighting for honor & respect, a climatic one and one showdown, etc. That was fine by me, as it was a greatly entertaining story (albeit one with some rough moments; that was expected given the subject matter of war) w/ entertaining martial arts action, and a tremendous performance from the incomparable Donnie Yen. Yip's children were involved with the production so at least his legacy wouldn't be misrepresented and it wasn't. He is a wise and stoic man who loves his family (he'd drive a million miles just to be with them) & only uses his tremendous talents when necessary and he feels remorse that he couldn't do more during the war as he's “only a martial artist”. It is not just the impressive Wing Chun action on display that is notable.
It is a movie I am glad I finally saw. I think it's a film that I, you, and everyone we knew should check out, especially if you are a fan of the genre. One of these days I'll watch the competing film about Yip Man, known as The Grandmaster.
Runtime: 106 minutes
Directed by: Wilson Yip
Starring: Donnie Yen, Simon Yam, Siu-Wong Fan, Lynn Hung, Hiroyuki Ikeuchi
From: Several different Hong Kong and Chinese companies
I am not sure if I'll be seeing Ip Man 3 on the big screen (it's showing at two locations around me), but in case I do, I decided to see the first two movies in the series. This movie-but not the second one-is on HD for a dollar on Amazon so for that reason alone it was a good idea to see this. Turns out, this motion picture was worth seeing. The Letterboxd review is below:
Everybody Wing Chun Tonight! Sorry, I had to get that obvious joke out of the way.
While I do not know if I'll be able to squeeze in a showing, Ip Man 3 is playing at two different theatres in the Orlando area. I had never seen the first two films in the series but I figured I should in case I do decide to see 3 now rather than waiting for streaming. I heard strong things about the films from a wide variety of people all across the Internet.
I know that this plays loose and fast when it comes to the actual facts; I am not always a fan of that but I'll excuse it here. It is all about Yip Man, the Wing Chun master who is best known for being Bruce Lee's master. It covers the period of his life from the mid to the late 1930's, where he started off a successful man who doesn't train anyone but when there's trouble from outsiders he is able to defend his city of Foshan, China. When Japan invades and the second Sino-Japanese war begins, though, things change and Yip has to work in a coal mine. The Japanese love watching the Chinese fight, and when a cocky general loves humiliating them... Yip has to defend his martial art and his country.
It's a story which has cliches for sure; you'll recognize them if you've only seen a few martial arts movies. People defending themselves against an evil enemy, cocky foes, someone fighting for honor & respect, a climatic one and one showdown, etc. That was fine by me, as it was a greatly entertaining story (albeit one with some rough moments; that was expected given the subject matter of war) w/ entertaining martial arts action, and a tremendous performance from the incomparable Donnie Yen. Yip's children were involved with the production so at least his legacy wouldn't be misrepresented and it wasn't. He is a wise and stoic man who loves his family (he'd drive a million miles just to be with them) & only uses his tremendous talents when necessary and he feels remorse that he couldn't do more during the war as he's “only a martial artist”. It is not just the impressive Wing Chun action on display that is notable.
It is a movie I am glad I finally saw. I think it's a film that I, you, and everyone we knew should check out, especially if you are a fan of the genre. One of these days I'll watch the competing film about Yip Man, known as The Grandmaster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)