Street Law (Il Cittadino Si Ribella) (1974)
Runtime: 103 minutes
Directed by: Enzo G. Castallari
Starring: Franco Nero, Giancarlo Brete, Barbara Bach, Renzo Palmer, Nazzareno Zamperla
From: Capital Film
I am unable to fall asleep, so that is why I am posting this review now. I should be back Friday night at a more normal time.
Ahhh yes, it's been way too long (February) since I've seen a poliziotteschi movie; they aren't always easy to track down, but that's still not a valid excuse for myself; the second half of 2016 I'll try to see a few more. Yet again, this is another thing I saw last night as at the end of the month it'll be gone from Amazon Prime. The print of this Enzo G. Castallari movie starring Franco Nero and featuring Barbara Bach looked very nice; you can't always be sure of prints for such movies on streaming services. While it's a dubbed print instead of subs, overall I can't carp.
The plot: Nero is an engineer who is in a bank; suddenly, it is robbed by a trio of robbers. They not only take his money, but they kidnap him before having to let him go after the heat from the fuzz is too hot. The cops are unable to catch the crooks so Old Franco gets real mad and he tries to get revenge. Unlike in most movies, he's not immediately successful at this task; in fact, he experiences many problems and Nero takes quite the beating throughout. In addition, several people-his lovely girlfriend Bach being the paramount example-tell him that what he's doing is not only foolish but very dangerous. He enters a wacky partnership with a low level thief and even after that... it's quite the battle between the two sides.
Despite this not always being like a typical poliziotteschi, it still belongs in the genre as in essence it is worthy of inclusion; it's quite the hard-hitting movie which has an opening where you see criminals running wild (that is a common thing in this genre), there's a nice car chase, plenty of sleaze and yeah, misogyny. An unfortunate trope with these pictures, that is true. What I'll remember most about this movie is that it tries to take a serious look at the damage vengeance can cause to a normal person and despite being improbable at times I say it succeeds at that task. It is nicely acted overall but to me Nero was the standout, a conflicted character who tries to act tough but that's only to those he can fool with his bluster. That makes it stand out compared to the typical poliziotteschi.
One last thing: I am familiar with some songs from brothers Guido and Maurizio De Angelis. They made plenty of music for Italian flicks of the 70's and 80's; at times they were known as Oliver Onions. The soundtrack is very groovy; the best known song from there is Goodbye My Friend. I have no memory of it as it'd a film I'd rather like to forget about but it was in The Rock's Faster. Anyhow, I now regret not seeing this sooner.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
The People Who Own The Dark
The People Who Own the Dark (Ultimo Deseo) (1976)
Runtime: The version I saw was 83 minutes
Directed by: Leon Klimovsky
Starring: Alberto De Mendoza, Paul Naschy, Teresa Gimpera, Nadiuska, Emiliano Redondo
From: Several Spanish companies
I explain why below this was something watched by me; some love it but I could only say it's in the middle of the road. Note that it's from Spain:
Here is a movie I discovered via an article on Blumhouse's website a few months ago concerning obscure horror titles you can watch on Amazon Prime/Amazon Video. Turns out, there are many old obscure titles that can be streamed on Amazon either for free (if you're a Prime member, that is) or for only a few bucks. That makes it a nice compliment to sites like Netflix and Hulu; between those three there's a great variety. The reason why I watched this now is that in a few days it will be leaving Prime; I presume it'll be gone from Amazon Video for good but that's just a presumption. This is a Spanish horror film; I've seen a few in my life, albeit years ago so that's why they weren't reviewed here on Letterboxd. As with most Spanish horror of the past, Paul Naschy is in the cast.
The plot: some rich folks and some ladies “hired” come to a castle where things get all Eyes Wide Shut. Before anything real nasty could begin, though... nuclear war! This is shown via what appears to be an earthquake in the castle; otherwise, things look normal and you don't see anything leveled/destroyed, except for a lack of a lot of people. It was a low-budget production so I can't really carp about that. The big hook is that those who were outside when the bomb hit weren't killed but they were blinded, and somewhat understandably, the blind people start becoming crazy people. In fact, I've heard this compared with The Crazies, and that's what I'll go with.
Eh, this is average in every which way. Things happen, not all of it making sense (at times if you wonder if the blinded suddenly developed Daredevil powers), the hedonist characters aren't always the most likable and again, it obviously has a low budget. Still, I can at least say it's average as the performances are at least fine, it is a creepy plot and there are creepy moments; in addition, where else can you hear someone say, “Yeah, and the Easter Bunny sh*** jellybeans!”? The fact that it came from the guy who was dubbing Paul Naschy made it all the better.
I've seen some people heap a lot of praise on this and I've also seen some hate. As I sometimes do, I am right in the middle. At least Code Red released it on disc in the United States so if you ever wanted to see this... also, I have to note that I saw the shorter American version, which was brought here by none other than Sean S. Cunningham, who I understand later disowned the movie. I think that there is other better Spanish horror to see (I am looking at Tombs of the Blind Dead here) and if you want something with a similar plot, either see the original The Crazies or the remake.
Runtime: The version I saw was 83 minutes
Directed by: Leon Klimovsky
Starring: Alberto De Mendoza, Paul Naschy, Teresa Gimpera, Nadiuska, Emiliano Redondo
From: Several Spanish companies
I explain why below this was something watched by me; some love it but I could only say it's in the middle of the road. Note that it's from Spain:
Here is a movie I discovered via an article on Blumhouse's website a few months ago concerning obscure horror titles you can watch on Amazon Prime/Amazon Video. Turns out, there are many old obscure titles that can be streamed on Amazon either for free (if you're a Prime member, that is) or for only a few bucks. That makes it a nice compliment to sites like Netflix and Hulu; between those three there's a great variety. The reason why I watched this now is that in a few days it will be leaving Prime; I presume it'll be gone from Amazon Video for good but that's just a presumption. This is a Spanish horror film; I've seen a few in my life, albeit years ago so that's why they weren't reviewed here on Letterboxd. As with most Spanish horror of the past, Paul Naschy is in the cast.
The plot: some rich folks and some ladies “hired” come to a castle where things get all Eyes Wide Shut. Before anything real nasty could begin, though... nuclear war! This is shown via what appears to be an earthquake in the castle; otherwise, things look normal and you don't see anything leveled/destroyed, except for a lack of a lot of people. It was a low-budget production so I can't really carp about that. The big hook is that those who were outside when the bomb hit weren't killed but they were blinded, and somewhat understandably, the blind people start becoming crazy people. In fact, I've heard this compared with The Crazies, and that's what I'll go with.
Eh, this is average in every which way. Things happen, not all of it making sense (at times if you wonder if the blinded suddenly developed Daredevil powers), the hedonist characters aren't always the most likable and again, it obviously has a low budget. Still, I can at least say it's average as the performances are at least fine, it is a creepy plot and there are creepy moments; in addition, where else can you hear someone say, “Yeah, and the Easter Bunny sh*** jellybeans!”? The fact that it came from the guy who was dubbing Paul Naschy made it all the better.
I've seen some people heap a lot of praise on this and I've also seen some hate. As I sometimes do, I am right in the middle. At least Code Red released it on disc in the United States so if you ever wanted to see this... also, I have to note that I saw the shorter American version, which was brought here by none other than Sean S. Cunningham, who I understand later disowned the movie. I think that there is other better Spanish horror to see (I am looking at Tombs of the Blind Dead here) and if you want something with a similar plot, either see the original The Crazies or the remake.
Monday, June 27, 2016
An Update
I haven't been around the past few days as I've been tied up with other things, had a rather upset stomach Saturday night, and last night I rewatched Tucker & Dale vs. Evil, which I still think is a great movie. Tomorrow I'll have a proper review here, I promise.
Friday, June 24, 2016
Independence Day: Resurgence
Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)
34% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 114 reviews)
Runtime: 120 minutes
Directed by: Roland Emmerich
Starring: The returning faces plus people like Maika Monroe, William Fichtner, Sela Ward, Jessie T. Usher, and Liam Hemsworth
From: 20th Century Fox
I have a controversial opinion about this movie; you can read it below in my Letterboxd review but even I am surprised that I enjoyed something where people constantly yell as they're doing something big, especially with one character in particular. I try to explain why I felt this way:
Looking at the Internet last night and today, I realize that I have a far different view of this movie than most; many seem to hold the original in high regard and think this is awful; me, I think this was actually a little preferable to the original, and even I am surprised at such an admission. I guess never having the OG flick on a pedestal for years is part of it, but this is full of CGI and is just as stupid as the movie from 1996. I'll try to explain why I feel this way.
I won't reveal anything that wasn't already public knowledge; the aliens come back from revenge, and that's about it. Oh, humanity has also used the left behind alien technology to become more advanced in their tech-filled 2016 than we are in our 2016, and the UK gets destroyed... in a different way than the UK is destroyed after what happened yesterday... the children of some of the original's characters now have a role in this and in case anyone had any doubts, this is as jingoistic as the first one. Sure, the plot takes place in a few countries and there is some diversity (although I can certainly be cynical about it, especially the Chinese presence) but it's still jingoistic.
So why did I enjoy this when most critical types hate it? Honestly, not having as many stupid/annoying characters was a big reason why. Oh, there are still some awful cringe-worthy character moments that fail at being funny or even amusing; it's not as bad as the original. At least like with the first one, the action can be followed and isn't horribly edited to where it's a blur that gives you a headache trying to follow it. In this day and age I have to commend Emmerich for doing such a thing, even if most of what he does is stuff I'd rather not see. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that me not seeing too many extravaganzas bloated with CGI means that I haven't grown as tired of them as most people have. Or maybe that this is 2 hours even and not as long as the original, and I am thankful it's not grossly bloated like “the superhero” movies are.
I thought the cast was fine, from the returning faces to the new people returning. Will Smith's absence did hurt, charisma-wise. The guy that played his son, that character definitely wasn't the same. They have to deal with a cliche-filled script jam-packed with ridiculous moments... so just like Independence Day. The universe is expanded upon and it offers up more information about the aliens and why they are the way they are. I realize that most detest this movie and that is OK with me. Who knows, you may end up liking this also no matter your opinion of ID4.
34% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 114 reviews)
Runtime: 120 minutes
Directed by: Roland Emmerich
Starring: The returning faces plus people like Maika Monroe, William Fichtner, Sela Ward, Jessie T. Usher, and Liam Hemsworth
From: 20th Century Fox
I have a controversial opinion about this movie; you can read it below in my Letterboxd review but even I am surprised that I enjoyed something where people constantly yell as they're doing something big, especially with one character in particular. I try to explain why I felt this way:
Looking at the Internet last night and today, I realize that I have a far different view of this movie than most; many seem to hold the original in high regard and think this is awful; me, I think this was actually a little preferable to the original, and even I am surprised at such an admission. I guess never having the OG flick on a pedestal for years is part of it, but this is full of CGI and is just as stupid as the movie from 1996. I'll try to explain why I feel this way.
I won't reveal anything that wasn't already public knowledge; the aliens come back from revenge, and that's about it. Oh, humanity has also used the left behind alien technology to become more advanced in their tech-filled 2016 than we are in our 2016, and the UK gets destroyed... in a different way than the UK is destroyed after what happened yesterday... the children of some of the original's characters now have a role in this and in case anyone had any doubts, this is as jingoistic as the first one. Sure, the plot takes place in a few countries and there is some diversity (although I can certainly be cynical about it, especially the Chinese presence) but it's still jingoistic.
So why did I enjoy this when most critical types hate it? Honestly, not having as many stupid/annoying characters was a big reason why. Oh, there are still some awful cringe-worthy character moments that fail at being funny or even amusing; it's not as bad as the original. At least like with the first one, the action can be followed and isn't horribly edited to where it's a blur that gives you a headache trying to follow it. In this day and age I have to commend Emmerich for doing such a thing, even if most of what he does is stuff I'd rather not see. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that me not seeing too many extravaganzas bloated with CGI means that I haven't grown as tired of them as most people have. Or maybe that this is 2 hours even and not as long as the original, and I am thankful it's not grossly bloated like “the superhero” movies are.
I thought the cast was fine, from the returning faces to the new people returning. Will Smith's absence did hurt, charisma-wise. The guy that played his son, that character definitely wasn't the same. They have to deal with a cliche-filled script jam-packed with ridiculous moments... so just like Independence Day. The universe is expanded upon and it offers up more information about the aliens and why they are the way they are. I realize that most detest this movie and that is OK with me. Who knows, you may end up liking this also no matter your opinion of ID4.
Independence Day
Independence Day (1996)
Runtime: 145 minutes
Directed by: Not one of my favorite directors in Roland Emmerich
Starring: Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pullman, Margaret Colin, Randy Quaid
From: 20th Century Fox
I saw this movie and the new one yesterday. Tonight I'll post the review to Resurgence. In the meantime, read the review of this:
Would people believe me if I said that my watching a theatrical double bill of this movie then its debuting sequel Independence Day: Resurgence yesterday was the first time that I had ever watched the original Independence Day in full? I am sure many would think such a statement is poppycock and claptrap, but I swear to you it's true. Oh, I've seen parts of the movie before and knew of such things as Bill Pullman's great speech, the LOL stupid way that the alien shields were disabled, and the White House blowing the F up. I just never felt like watching it in full; finally doing so last night... I probably come off as a stereotype of the worst type of serious film fan by stating such a thing, but Hollywood blockbusters (I am mainly talking about the summer ones) just aren't for me, including ones from way back in this period.
I've talked before about how according to my tastes“The superhero movies” from the 21st century inspire little to no interest. Feces like the Transformers franchise I only need to see clips of to realize I need to avoid them like they have the Zika virus. For the longest time I only make rare trips to the cineplex during the summer and this is definitely true this year, where aside from Star Trek Beyond and possibly seeing something old being specially shown, I have no need to go there as nothing looks appealing at all to tastes that probably sound snobby; even as a 15 year old in 1996, something like this I wanted nothing to do with.
But I finally figured I should check out those films.; considering that the main people behind this gave us the “cinematic masterpiece” known as Godzilla 1998, I was not surprised by how stupid this was, and Lord Almighty was this ever stupid. There is a reason why before last night the newest thing I had seen from Roland Emmerich was... Godzilla 1998. The opening act of ID4, I was hating this because there were so many stupid/obnoxious characters braying like jackasses and being dumb, it was painfully bad; Harvey Fierstein's character, I wanted to throw in a woodchipper! As the story progressed, thankfully most of those characters went by the wayside and the focus was put on more tolerable figures. Cliches happened and the characters are the definition of “stock” but sometimes that is OK and Randy Quaid making a huge sacrifice is satisfying. By the way, what an unfortunate state of affairs that Quaid's character here is pretty much Randy Quaid the human being for the past 6 or 7 years; the mental problems he and his wife have: very unfortunate.
What helps make this jingoistic crap, this brainless slop something that I can rate as average (am I being generous? Maybe) is the cast of familiar faces, quality actors most of them. Seeing mostly practical effects is nice in this day and age, and they by and large still look good now. I realize that me not loving this may be controversial, given that on this site there are plenty of high reviews and I know people in real life who say this is among their favorite flicks of all time. No way would I ever agree with such viewpoints. Sorry, but that's my honest viewpoint.
Runtime: 145 minutes
Directed by: Not one of my favorite directors in Roland Emmerich
Starring: Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pullman, Margaret Colin, Randy Quaid
From: 20th Century Fox
I saw this movie and the new one yesterday. Tonight I'll post the review to Resurgence. In the meantime, read the review of this:
Would people believe me if I said that my watching a theatrical double bill of this movie then its debuting sequel Independence Day: Resurgence yesterday was the first time that I had ever watched the original Independence Day in full? I am sure many would think such a statement is poppycock and claptrap, but I swear to you it's true. Oh, I've seen parts of the movie before and knew of such things as Bill Pullman's great speech, the LOL stupid way that the alien shields were disabled, and the White House blowing the F up. I just never felt like watching it in full; finally doing so last night... I probably come off as a stereotype of the worst type of serious film fan by stating such a thing, but Hollywood blockbusters (I am mainly talking about the summer ones) just aren't for me, including ones from way back in this period.
I've talked before about how according to my tastes“The superhero movies” from the 21st century inspire little to no interest. Feces like the Transformers franchise I only need to see clips of to realize I need to avoid them like they have the Zika virus. For the longest time I only make rare trips to the cineplex during the summer and this is definitely true this year, where aside from Star Trek Beyond and possibly seeing something old being specially shown, I have no need to go there as nothing looks appealing at all to tastes that probably sound snobby; even as a 15 year old in 1996, something like this I wanted nothing to do with.
But I finally figured I should check out those films.; considering that the main people behind this gave us the “cinematic masterpiece” known as Godzilla 1998, I was not surprised by how stupid this was, and Lord Almighty was this ever stupid. There is a reason why before last night the newest thing I had seen from Roland Emmerich was... Godzilla 1998. The opening act of ID4, I was hating this because there were so many stupid/obnoxious characters braying like jackasses and being dumb, it was painfully bad; Harvey Fierstein's character, I wanted to throw in a woodchipper! As the story progressed, thankfully most of those characters went by the wayside and the focus was put on more tolerable figures. Cliches happened and the characters are the definition of “stock” but sometimes that is OK and Randy Quaid making a huge sacrifice is satisfying. By the way, what an unfortunate state of affairs that Quaid's character here is pretty much Randy Quaid the human being for the past 6 or 7 years; the mental problems he and his wife have: very unfortunate.
What helps make this jingoistic crap, this brainless slop something that I can rate as average (am I being generous? Maybe) is the cast of familiar faces, quality actors most of them. Seeing mostly practical effects is nice in this day and age, and they by and large still look good now. I realize that me not loving this may be controversial, given that on this site there are plenty of high reviews and I know people in real life who say this is among their favorite flicks of all time. No way would I ever agree with such viewpoints. Sorry, but that's my honest viewpoint.
Police Academy 4: Citizens On Patrol
Runtime:
88 minutes
Directed
by: Jim Drake
Starring:
The usual cast you'd expect
From:
Warner Bros.
There
is not a lot I can say to intro this, as everyone knows what to
expect from a Police Academy sequel before they watch it, whether or
not they had ever seen it before... yes I have watched all the movies
in the franchise, albeit years ago before I got them from a UK import
Blu set early this year. My review of this is below, from you know
where:
It has been a few months since I've watched a Police Academy movie so I figured this was the time to see one; I only had faint memories of this one from my childhood, such as a gag or two, the balloon & biplane filled ending, and the large African-American man known as House carrying his own moped. It's quite silly and yet I laughed enough-even if some things weren't “politically correct” by today's standards-to where I can say this is OK.
The plot is about having Citizens on Patrol to help assist the police but it's a flimsy excuse to have a bunch of a random gags & a threadbare story. Love interest Sharon Stone only appears in a few scenes; there are plenty of characters so some don't get a lot of screentime. Yet, the movie somehow includes ninjas; why? Why not!
As you know what to expect from this franchise there isn't too much else for me to say, except to note how this entry has its share of famous faces, and not just a few “that guy” or “that gal” actors you know better from appearance than by name. Besides Stone and Randall “Tex” Cobb, there's David Spade, Tony Hawk and Steve Caballero as skateboarders, years before all of them became famous; there's a few minutes of then-nifty innovative skateboarding stuff back before people regularly saw such things. Of course, G.W. Bailey returned as Harris and it was nice for the franchise for him to return; Steve Guttenberg played Mahoney for the last time here and that is sad for the franchise's fans; who knows if the long-rumored new movie in the series will ever happen so this may be the last time ever that we see him in the role.
As an addendum, I have to mention the rap song theme to the movie; it's not the only 80's-riffic song you hear in the movie but that one is the most charmingly bad.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
The St. Louis Kid
The St. Louis Kid (1934)
Runtime: 67 minutes
Directed by: Ray Enright
Starring: James Cagney, Patricia Ellis, Allen Jenkins, Robert Barrat, Hobart Cavanaugh
From: Warner Bros.
This is a rather rare James Cagney movie I watched earlier today on TCM. I explain my watching of it below in my copied and pasted Letterboxd review:
Earlier today on TCM they showed 9 obscure James Cagney movies; I was only able to see one of them, but that is OK as most of the rest can be rented from Amazon for a few bucks each. The one I decided to watch was one that can't easily be streamed. In the future I'll see more of his movies, both famous and not so famous. The St. Louis Kid is the only flick where Cagney plays a truck driver who gets involved in a feud between dairy farmers and the dairy union in Illinois who are ripping off the poor farmers.
The plot: Cagney and Allen Jenkins are truck drivers from St. Louis who often get into trouble, usually because of alcohol and women. James headbutts a man & knocks him out soon after he gets into an accident with Patricia Ellis. Those two feud whenever they later meet up with each other in a small random Illinois town but of course they soon fall in love. In fact, much of the action takes place in that small town; it's obviously filmed in Southern California but I say that as I am a nerd and I grew up in Illinois. Anyhow, Cagney and Jenkins get entangled in that feud between the farmers and the union (resulting in the union bringing in guys with guns to try and stop the blockades that the farmers have set up) and it leads to such things as murder and kidnapping.
It's a drama with many humorous moments. It's a standard programmer but the charms of its cast-especially Cagney-helps. I admit that some parts of the plot aren't fully developed with its 67 minute runtime (such as there not being a definite resolution of the plot); that said, it's still an entertaining enough movie where I can say I enjoyed it. There are brawls, a tough dame or two, nice words said about the farmers of America... and not only does James headbutt several people, he even lights a gas station on fire to get out of a jam. How can I dislike a movie with such moments?
Runtime: 67 minutes
Directed by: Ray Enright
Starring: James Cagney, Patricia Ellis, Allen Jenkins, Robert Barrat, Hobart Cavanaugh
From: Warner Bros.
This is a rather rare James Cagney movie I watched earlier today on TCM. I explain my watching of it below in my copied and pasted Letterboxd review:
Earlier today on TCM they showed 9 obscure James Cagney movies; I was only able to see one of them, but that is OK as most of the rest can be rented from Amazon for a few bucks each. The one I decided to watch was one that can't easily be streamed. In the future I'll see more of his movies, both famous and not so famous. The St. Louis Kid is the only flick where Cagney plays a truck driver who gets involved in a feud between dairy farmers and the dairy union in Illinois who are ripping off the poor farmers.
The plot: Cagney and Allen Jenkins are truck drivers from St. Louis who often get into trouble, usually because of alcohol and women. James headbutts a man & knocks him out soon after he gets into an accident with Patricia Ellis. Those two feud whenever they later meet up with each other in a small random Illinois town but of course they soon fall in love. In fact, much of the action takes place in that small town; it's obviously filmed in Southern California but I say that as I am a nerd and I grew up in Illinois. Anyhow, Cagney and Jenkins get entangled in that feud between the farmers and the union (resulting in the union bringing in guys with guns to try and stop the blockades that the farmers have set up) and it leads to such things as murder and kidnapping.
It's a drama with many humorous moments. It's a standard programmer but the charms of its cast-especially Cagney-helps. I admit that some parts of the plot aren't fully developed with its 67 minute runtime (such as there not being a definite resolution of the plot); that said, it's still an entertaining enough movie where I can say I enjoyed it. There are brawls, a tough dame or two, nice words said about the farmers of America... and not only does James headbutt several people, he even lights a gas station on fire to get out of a jam. How can I dislike a movie with such moments?
Monday, June 20, 2016
Shield For Murder
Shield for Murder (1954)
Runtime: 82 minutes
Directed by: Howard W. Koch... and Edmond O'Brien
Starring: Edmond O'Brien, John Agar, Marla English, Emile Meyer, Claude Akins
From: Camden Productions Inc.
This is a film noir I saw last night; tomorrow Kino Lorber's releasing it on Blu but right now it can be watched either for a few bucks on Amazon or if you have Prime, it's one of the many noir titles they offer for free. It's something many fans of the genre would likely dig, me thinks. I explain why below in my Letterboxd review.
Yep, also I found out about this noir from a messageboard post. In this case, someone mentioned that tomorrow, Kino Lorber will be putting this out on Blu. As it's available for free on Amazon Prime, I figured I should check it out and give it some publicity.
This has Edmond O'Brien as bad Los Angeles cop Barney who murders someone for 25,000 dollars. Not that a cop could do this in these modern times... he's a loose cannon copper in the worst ways. To be frank, this could describe how some members of law enforcement are now. Someone starts off as a “good person” but due to all the stress and dangers of having to deal with the worst members of society, they change and become pretty awful, despite them trying to justify their actions. Between that and the Boys in Blue deciding to protect their own from any outsiders, and it seems rather modern today. I don't mean to sound like I am bashing all police officers, as I am sure most of them are quality human beings and do their jobs well. It's just that there's always some bad apples that spoil the entire barrel. The movie says as much in a soliloquy given by a supporting character.
Anyway, Barney wants to move into a nice new house with his gal Marla English. That is the impetus of him wanting all that cash. That murder is literally the opening of the picture and for Barney Nolan it somehow gets even worse. He tries to control the escalating situation but he's unable to; when you rip off a leader in the underworld... the cast is nice and has some familiar faces, like John Agar, Claude Akins and Carolyn Jones... as someone who watched The Addams Family in reruns as a real young'n, it was nice to see her, and she played “a tough dame”. But to me it was O'Brien as the standout as he did a nice job playing a real A-hole who ends up doing some awful things. There is also a quality setpiece near the very end set at what is pretty much a YMCA.
This is a hard-hitting noir which pulls no punches and as a bonus you get to see a bit of how LA used to be back in those days before urban sprawl and smog-choked air dominated the scene. If you enjoy watching the genre, I think this is definitely worth checking out.
Runtime: 82 minutes
Directed by: Howard W. Koch... and Edmond O'Brien
Starring: Edmond O'Brien, John Agar, Marla English, Emile Meyer, Claude Akins
From: Camden Productions Inc.
This is a film noir I saw last night; tomorrow Kino Lorber's releasing it on Blu but right now it can be watched either for a few bucks on Amazon or if you have Prime, it's one of the many noir titles they offer for free. It's something many fans of the genre would likely dig, me thinks. I explain why below in my Letterboxd review.
Yep, also I found out about this noir from a messageboard post. In this case, someone mentioned that tomorrow, Kino Lorber will be putting this out on Blu. As it's available for free on Amazon Prime, I figured I should check it out and give it some publicity.
This has Edmond O'Brien as bad Los Angeles cop Barney who murders someone for 25,000 dollars. Not that a cop could do this in these modern times... he's a loose cannon copper in the worst ways. To be frank, this could describe how some members of law enforcement are now. Someone starts off as a “good person” but due to all the stress and dangers of having to deal with the worst members of society, they change and become pretty awful, despite them trying to justify their actions. Between that and the Boys in Blue deciding to protect their own from any outsiders, and it seems rather modern today. I don't mean to sound like I am bashing all police officers, as I am sure most of them are quality human beings and do their jobs well. It's just that there's always some bad apples that spoil the entire barrel. The movie says as much in a soliloquy given by a supporting character.
Anyway, Barney wants to move into a nice new house with his gal Marla English. That is the impetus of him wanting all that cash. That murder is literally the opening of the picture and for Barney Nolan it somehow gets even worse. He tries to control the escalating situation but he's unable to; when you rip off a leader in the underworld... the cast is nice and has some familiar faces, like John Agar, Claude Akins and Carolyn Jones... as someone who watched The Addams Family in reruns as a real young'n, it was nice to see her, and she played “a tough dame”. But to me it was O'Brien as the standout as he did a nice job playing a real A-hole who ends up doing some awful things. There is also a quality setpiece near the very end set at what is pretty much a YMCA.
This is a hard-hitting noir which pulls no punches and as a bonus you get to see a bit of how LA used to be back in those days before urban sprawl and smog-choked air dominated the scene. If you enjoy watching the genre, I think this is definitely worth checking out.
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Supernatural (Not That TV Show)
Supernatural (1933)
Runtime: 65 minutes
Directed by: Victor Halperin
Starring: Carole Lombard, Alan Dinehart, Randolph Scott, Vivienne Osborne, H.B. Warner
From: Paramount
Here is an obscure movie I heard about a few days ago and via less than ethical means I was able to see this. I explain it all below in my Letterboxd review:
This is yet another movie I found out about via a messageboard post. In this case, someone posted the poster for this movie (not the one listed here on Letterboxd) and noted that it was awesome, which I can't disagree with. I looked up the film's details and I was intrigued by this being the only horror movie of a famous actress, in this case Carole Lombard. In addition, the main people who made this film previously made the famous Pre-Code horror shocker known as White Zombie. I was able to track this down... nevermind how.
The plot to this Pre-Code thriller is the spirit of an executed woman-she was a killer so it's not like it was an unjust execution-entering the body of innocent Carole Lombard after a séance gone wrong. This was after an opening which listed quotes from Confucius, Mohammed, and the Old Testament. At least most of their bases were covered... this also includes such things as a phony psychic, a dead twin brother and a world where people rather easily believe that after death a spirit can easily enter an innocent person's body and take over.
For a movie that is only 65 minutes long, it does take awhile to really get going, and the actual possession is not as lengthy as you might expect. At times things do seem confused, so I wonder if this was edited down so it could be a proper second feature on a double bill with another Paramount movie; it does seem like a few scenes are missing or at least truncated. At least the movie is still watchable, there are some creepy moments, the disses against charlatans who engage in spiritualism made me laugh-as I agree-and Lombard did a swell job as a character who acts drastically different before and after possession. The ending is also deliciously macabre.
It's just that when some of the people involved made White Zombie, you hope for more and I can only rate this as about average.
Runtime: 65 minutes
Directed by: Victor Halperin
Starring: Carole Lombard, Alan Dinehart, Randolph Scott, Vivienne Osborne, H.B. Warner
From: Paramount
Here is an obscure movie I heard about a few days ago and via less than ethical means I was able to see this. I explain it all below in my Letterboxd review:
This is yet another movie I found out about via a messageboard post. In this case, someone posted the poster for this movie (not the one listed here on Letterboxd) and noted that it was awesome, which I can't disagree with. I looked up the film's details and I was intrigued by this being the only horror movie of a famous actress, in this case Carole Lombard. In addition, the main people who made this film previously made the famous Pre-Code horror shocker known as White Zombie. I was able to track this down... nevermind how.
The plot to this Pre-Code thriller is the spirit of an executed woman-she was a killer so it's not like it was an unjust execution-entering the body of innocent Carole Lombard after a séance gone wrong. This was after an opening which listed quotes from Confucius, Mohammed, and the Old Testament. At least most of their bases were covered... this also includes such things as a phony psychic, a dead twin brother and a world where people rather easily believe that after death a spirit can easily enter an innocent person's body and take over.
For a movie that is only 65 minutes long, it does take awhile to really get going, and the actual possession is not as lengthy as you might expect. At times things do seem confused, so I wonder if this was edited down so it could be a proper second feature on a double bill with another Paramount movie; it does seem like a few scenes are missing or at least truncated. At least the movie is still watchable, there are some creepy moments, the disses against charlatans who engage in spiritualism made me laugh-as I agree-and Lombard did a swell job as a character who acts drastically different before and after possession. The ending is also deliciously macabre.
It's just that when some of the people involved made White Zombie, you hope for more and I can only rate this as about average.
Saturday, June 18, 2016
Street Fighter (The Van Damme Movie, Unfortunately)
Street Fighter (1994)
Runtime: 102 minutes
Directed by: Stephen E. de Souza
Starring: Jean-Claude Van Damme, Raul Julia, Ming-Na Wen, Byron Mann, Damian Capa
From: Universal
I watched this on Wednesday night, and I am just now posting this here. I haven't watched anything since, but I'll get back to the swing of things tonight. Anyhow, I saw this bad movie before, and thought it was bad. Well, it's still bad.
This is a movie that I've seen before and always thought was pretty bad; in the past few years I've heard several people on a messageboard praise it and they wanted me to see it again. Well, the El Rey Network showed it late last night so that's what I did.
I had to be honest to those people on that messageboard: I thought the movie still sucked.
Admittedly I never played any of the Street Fighter game on any of its console versions and rather played the arcade version of Street Fighter II (or rather, several of the many versions of SF II that Capcom released) a few times in my life. I don't have a deep love for the series, in other words. I am just rating this on whether it's a coherent, entertaining, or just plain good movie, and it's none of those thing. It's incoherent, confused, and it's not good overall. This is despite a gleefully over the top performance from Raul Julia as M. Bison; legend has it he only took the role for a paycheck as he was in poor health and wanted to help his family after he was gone. While I feel bad for bashing a movie when a lead actor did such a thing, my bashing of this has nothing to do with him or his performance, which was right for such goofball entertainment.
Polygon is a site I rarely look at and there are many reasons for that; them producing bad and whiny content is a big reason right there. Yet, in 2014 they wrote this great article where all the production problems were explained; even if the people interviewed aren't always clear or accurate with all of the facts, it explains how:
* Filming in Bangkok did not go smoothly at all... although at least they enjoyed partaking in the massage parlors
* Capcom had too much influence on production and demanded all those characters from the game, which was a big problem.
* Director Stephen E. de Souza was a talented and proven screenwriter, but a newbie as a director, and that caused problems.
* Several members of the crew experienced major ailments, including a heart attack and a car crash.
* Jean-Claude Van Damme was in the midst of a bad drug problem, and had an affair w/ co-star Kylie Minogue to boot.
* There was not even one Hadouken.
* The MPAA reared its ugly head again.
The movie ended up making money worldwide; that said, I still think it's bad... although I understand Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li is even worse. I do not fault the cast who was in this; it was just a troubled production where too many bad things happened and the script wasn't solid when filming began, resulting in this mess where a character is basically turned into The Incredible Hulk.
Runtime: 102 minutes
Directed by: Stephen E. de Souza
Starring: Jean-Claude Van Damme, Raul Julia, Ming-Na Wen, Byron Mann, Damian Capa
From: Universal
I watched this on Wednesday night, and I am just now posting this here. I haven't watched anything since, but I'll get back to the swing of things tonight. Anyhow, I saw this bad movie before, and thought it was bad. Well, it's still bad.
This is a movie that I've seen before and always thought was pretty bad; in the past few years I've heard several people on a messageboard praise it and they wanted me to see it again. Well, the El Rey Network showed it late last night so that's what I did.
I had to be honest to those people on that messageboard: I thought the movie still sucked.
Admittedly I never played any of the Street Fighter game on any of its console versions and rather played the arcade version of Street Fighter II (or rather, several of the many versions of SF II that Capcom released) a few times in my life. I don't have a deep love for the series, in other words. I am just rating this on whether it's a coherent, entertaining, or just plain good movie, and it's none of those thing. It's incoherent, confused, and it's not good overall. This is despite a gleefully over the top performance from Raul Julia as M. Bison; legend has it he only took the role for a paycheck as he was in poor health and wanted to help his family after he was gone. While I feel bad for bashing a movie when a lead actor did such a thing, my bashing of this has nothing to do with him or his performance, which was right for such goofball entertainment.
Polygon is a site I rarely look at and there are many reasons for that; them producing bad and whiny content is a big reason right there. Yet, in 2014 they wrote this great article where all the production problems were explained; even if the people interviewed aren't always clear or accurate with all of the facts, it explains how:
* Filming in Bangkok did not go smoothly at all... although at least they enjoyed partaking in the massage parlors
* Capcom had too much influence on production and demanded all those characters from the game, which was a big problem.
* Director Stephen E. de Souza was a talented and proven screenwriter, but a newbie as a director, and that caused problems.
* Several members of the crew experienced major ailments, including a heart attack and a car crash.
* Jean-Claude Van Damme was in the midst of a bad drug problem, and had an affair w/ co-star Kylie Minogue to boot.
* There was not even one Hadouken.
* The MPAA reared its ugly head again.
The movie ended up making money worldwide; that said, I still think it's bad... although I understand Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li is even worse. I do not fault the cast who was in this; it was just a troubled production where too many bad things happened and the script wasn't solid when filming began, resulting in this mess where a character is basically turned into The Incredible Hulk.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Ali
Ali (2001)
Runtime: 157 minutes
Directed by: Michael Mann
Starring: Will Smith, Jon Voight, Ron Silver, Jamie Foxx, Mario Van Peebles
From: Warner Bros.
This was a first time watch for me... and I saw it in a theatre. I was the only one in the auditorium but it wasn't a private screen; that's just how it happened. Maybe it's the climate of Orlando right now... anyway, my Letterboxd review is below:
Would you believe that I saw this movie on the big screen last night? 'Tis true. I don't even fault them for doing this but like when Prince passed away, some theatre chains were all too happy to show something related to a hugely popular figure so they could try to make a buck. While I had never seen this movie in particular, I have watched a few of Michael Mann's motion pictures... I just haven't reviewed them all here as of yet. I've always known that this in particular has received somewhat of a frosty reception ever since it came out, people saying it wasn't as great as it could have been. And I agree.
I know that some wish this would have covered more of Ali's life instead of 1964 to 1974. I understand what the story was, which was covering the rise, fall and redemption of Ali as he won the World Title, lost it due to not wanting to be enlisted in the Army for the Vietnam War, then regained the belt from George Foreman. I also get covering the time period and showing what it was like, as it definitely had an impact on Muhammad's life and he had an impact on American life through his defiant and bold attitude. However, it felt like you needed to know Ali's life pretty well beforehand to understand everything. I knew about trainer Angelo Dundee, for example, but they did not say a lot about the characters played by Jamie Foxx or Jeffrey Wright (Drew Bundini Brown and Howard Bingham, respectively); I guess you were just supposed to know all about them beforehand. There are other examples but that is the one which comes to mind first.
Also, for a movie over 2 and a half hours, some large gaps of time were skipped; for example, from the first Frazier fight all the way to the Rumble in the Jungle finale flew by, and that was a 3 year time period. The second Frazier fight was barely mentioned, and all three times those two fought was a gigantic deal. As others have noted, it would have been preferable to learn more about Ali the man and why this legendary figure was the way he was. We see it on the surface but learning more would have been nice, seeing how and why he ticked. At least the movie seemed fair; we see that he was married a few times and wasn't always faithful to the wife he had at the time.
At least it was filmed well (especially with the boxing scenes), the period detail was great, the music choices were pretty good throughout, and I enjoyed the performances from the talented cast as a whole. Make no mistake, though, a big reason why I even rate this as 3 stars is the job that Will Smith does in the title role. I usually pay no attention to him or his movies, but he was tremendous here, perfectly capturing the look and feel of a larger than life person, an unenviable task if there ever was one. I was the only person at the screening yet I was still glad I saw it on the big screen... even if it's a movie I probably don't need to see ever again.
Runtime: 157 minutes
Directed by: Michael Mann
Starring: Will Smith, Jon Voight, Ron Silver, Jamie Foxx, Mario Van Peebles
From: Warner Bros.
This was a first time watch for me... and I saw it in a theatre. I was the only one in the auditorium but it wasn't a private screen; that's just how it happened. Maybe it's the climate of Orlando right now... anyway, my Letterboxd review is below:
Would you believe that I saw this movie on the big screen last night? 'Tis true. I don't even fault them for doing this but like when Prince passed away, some theatre chains were all too happy to show something related to a hugely popular figure so they could try to make a buck. While I had never seen this movie in particular, I have watched a few of Michael Mann's motion pictures... I just haven't reviewed them all here as of yet. I've always known that this in particular has received somewhat of a frosty reception ever since it came out, people saying it wasn't as great as it could have been. And I agree.
I know that some wish this would have covered more of Ali's life instead of 1964 to 1974. I understand what the story was, which was covering the rise, fall and redemption of Ali as he won the World Title, lost it due to not wanting to be enlisted in the Army for the Vietnam War, then regained the belt from George Foreman. I also get covering the time period and showing what it was like, as it definitely had an impact on Muhammad's life and he had an impact on American life through his defiant and bold attitude. However, it felt like you needed to know Ali's life pretty well beforehand to understand everything. I knew about trainer Angelo Dundee, for example, but they did not say a lot about the characters played by Jamie Foxx or Jeffrey Wright (Drew Bundini Brown and Howard Bingham, respectively); I guess you were just supposed to know all about them beforehand. There are other examples but that is the one which comes to mind first.
Also, for a movie over 2 and a half hours, some large gaps of time were skipped; for example, from the first Frazier fight all the way to the Rumble in the Jungle finale flew by, and that was a 3 year time period. The second Frazier fight was barely mentioned, and all three times those two fought was a gigantic deal. As others have noted, it would have been preferable to learn more about Ali the man and why this legendary figure was the way he was. We see it on the surface but learning more would have been nice, seeing how and why he ticked. At least the movie seemed fair; we see that he was married a few times and wasn't always faithful to the wife he had at the time.
At least it was filmed well (especially with the boxing scenes), the period detail was great, the music choices were pretty good throughout, and I enjoyed the performances from the talented cast as a whole. Make no mistake, though, a big reason why I even rate this as 3 stars is the job that Will Smith does in the title role. I usually pay no attention to him or his movies, but he was tremendous here, perfectly capturing the look and feel of a larger than life person, an unenviable task if there ever was one. I was the only person at the screening yet I was still glad I saw it on the big screen... even if it's a movie I probably don't need to see ever again.
Monday, June 13, 2016
The Glass Key
The Glass Key (1942)
Runtime: 85 minutes
Directed by: Stuart Heisler
Starring: Alan Ladd, Veronica Lake, Brian Donlevy, Bonita Granville, William Bendix
From: Paramount
Last night I saw this noir on TCM; in the Letterboxd review I copied and pasted below, I first assured anyone worried that nothing happened with me concerning what happened in Orlando this past weekend. Thank goodness things seem to be setting back to normal now. Anyhow, here's the review:
Runtime: 85 minutes
Directed by: Stuart Heisler
Starring: Alan Ladd, Veronica Lake, Brian Donlevy, Bonita Granville, William Bendix
From: Paramount
Last night I saw this noir on TCM; in the Letterboxd review I copied and pasted below, I first assured anyone worried that nothing happened with me concerning what happened in Orlando this past weekend. Thank goodness things seem to be setting back to normal now. Anyhow, here's the review:
Before I get on with this review, I hope I did not alarm anyone in the Letterboxd universe who knew that I lived in Florida, specifically about a half hour west of Downtown Orlando and thought the worst when I did not post anything here yesterday. I actually WAS in that part of Orlando Saturday night, but a few miles north and I was home long before the tragedy started. Between that and the shooting on Friday night in a venue I had driven by many times before, what a miserable weekend all around.
This noir was on TCM last night and as it's not available for streaming and I had actually never seen a Veronica Lake movie so I figured this was something I had to check out. Based on a story by Dashiell Hammett, this is about all the machinations surrounding a reform candidate for Governor (Moroni Olsen); crooked political boss Brian Donlevy is interested in candidate's daughter Lake but she likes Donlevy's right hand man Alan Ladd instead. From there, various murders happen and sadistic William Bendix is also involved. From what I understand, in the novel the character Bendix plays (Jeff) is a homosexual and well, the movie certainly has its homoerotic moments, especially with Jeff's character.
Even though there are plenty of characters to follow, it is a very interesting tale to follow and it's never too complex, although at times you're more paying attention to the characters than the story. While an early example of a film noir and not as hard-boiled as later examples, this is still not only a pretty good movie but it certainly is a noir, between the plot and all the tough characters that are followed, some great dialogue, and all the scenes set at night. The fact that Lake is a breathy dame means that she fits right in with the genre. Her role isn't extensive, but that is OK, even if she and Ladd were the most memorable aspects of the picture.
I have seen multiple people note that this is similar to Yojimbo; I realize that Kurosawa himself stated that this was an inspiration, but it was possible he was confusing it with another Hammett novel, Red Harvest. Even then, I still see the similarities between this movie and Yojimbo. Also, I've seen people compare this with Miller's Crossing; as I've never seen it (I know, I know) I'll have to take everyone's word for it. Come to think of it, considering The Man With No Name Trilogy, Dashiell Hammett had quite the impact on motion pictures with all the works he wrote that were made into movies or the themes/plots of novels that were inspirations for famous movies years later.
Anyhow, this was a noir worth seeing.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
The Ridiculous 6
The Ridiculous 6 (2015)
Runtime: 119 long agonizing minutes
Directed by: Frank Coraci
Starring: The Anti-Christ... er, I mean Adam Sandler, Terry Crews, Jorge Garcia, Taylor Lautner, Rob Schneider, Luke Wilson
From: Netflix... Thanx, Netflix
I saw this movie on Friday night. Since then, all that's gone on in Orlando... a terrible motion picture doesn't seem as important. Still, here's the long review, copied and pasted from Letterboxd:
I don't know if anyone has ever noticed this but this is my first ever review of an Adam Sandler movie on Letterboxd. There's good reason for this: this may sound like poppycock but I swear it's true that this is the first Sandler movie I have seen from beginning to end since... 1996's Bulletproof; I saw that on VHS so it's been almost TWENTY YEARS. Sure, when I was a young teenager I thought that some of his material on Saturday Night Live was amusing and a thing or two from his comedy albums made me laugh (now, I realize it was mainly sheer vulgarity that at the time I thought was worthy of a few giggles) but even once Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore came out on VHS I did not love them like many people around my age did (I thought they were only about average), so I never felt like seeing anything else from him. I thought that Bulletproof was pretty bad as it was an awful example of a buddy-cop comedy.
I've seen bits and pieces from things such as The Longest Yard remake, The Waterboy and Anger Management, and that did not make me want to see any of those in full. It means that I haven't even seen Punch-Drunk Love, which I know many love but just reading the plot makes it sound like something I'd loathe; PT Anderson has made some great films-which I'll review here in the future-but I hated Magnolia so I haven't even seen all of his work. Anyway, hearing people in the know say how bad most of his movies were certainly did not make me want to watch them either. I know that in this decade he's become super-lazy and gets paid a lot of money to go on vacations & hang out with family/friends and crapping out something bad is a small part of the experience. Somehow his films used to be popular, but not so much anymore which is probably why he went to Netflix and much to my horror, a lot of people actually watched this movie, or so Netflix says. To echo someone else, who knows how many of those people actually finished this atrocity; somehow, I did.
It may be another 20 years before I see another Adam Sandler film.
Anyhow, I should expect nothing when it's a film where Sandler (playing a half Native American), Terry Crews, Jorge Garcia, Rob Schneider, Luke Wilson and Taylor Lautner are half-brothers. Yet it was worse than I had anticipated. A Western where people team up to try and rescue a kidnapped Nick Nolte sounds fine on paper... but not when it's filled with unfunny humor, stupid anachronistic moments, racism, misogyny, homophobia, and general grossness. Or as I understand, a typical movie from Happy Madison Productions. Again, it makes me SO glad I avoided much of his work as if it was the Zika Virus. No surprise that there was the brouhaha over some Native Americans leaving the movie & the extra work they were doing; some Native American characters had names like Beaver Breath, Smoking Fox and Never Wears Bra. Need I say more?
I can't say I did not chuckle a few times. However, this overlong movie deserves the lowest rating possible. The story is donkey crap (and sigh, we see poor CGI representing donkey crap several times; there is poor CGI throughout), the cast of familiar faces is totally wasted, and most of it was just painful to watch. Sure, I hoped that some people got paid real well for being in such sewage as this, like Harvey Keitel, Nick Nolte, Steve Buscemi, Danny Trejo and even Terry Crews, although he also stars in what I presume is a terrible Tyler Perry program, as everything Tyler Perry does is comparable to a bad rash. It is something else entirely to make me feel sorry for TAYLOR LAUTNER; I've never seen any of the Twilight movies and the film Abduction was not good, but seeing him play a complete buffoon country bumpkin, I felt a lot of pity. At least he and some other members of the cast tried. To use a term that I am sure he'd most understand, Sandler was more wooden than a cigar store Indian.
I don't know; maybe he should be commended for somehow convincing much of the world that he was actually funny and be able to cash in & become filthy rich then create even worse products where he can be as lazy as possible and as I mentioned already, go on vacations and hang out with his pals. At least I have first-hand experience and now can confirm what many say about him and the garbage he creates. I'll take a pass on this man-child and his farting about, creating gigantic wastes of time.
Oh, and years ago I had seen both The Magnificent Seven and The Seven Samurai. Both are great movies and I'll review them here one day. I wish there wasn't a remake of The Magnificent Seven but that's another topic for another time.
Runtime: 119 long agonizing minutes
Directed by: Frank Coraci
Starring: The Anti-Christ... er, I mean Adam Sandler, Terry Crews, Jorge Garcia, Taylor Lautner, Rob Schneider, Luke Wilson
From: Netflix... Thanx, Netflix
I saw this movie on Friday night. Since then, all that's gone on in Orlando... a terrible motion picture doesn't seem as important. Still, here's the long review, copied and pasted from Letterboxd:
I don't know if anyone has ever noticed this but this is my first ever review of an Adam Sandler movie on Letterboxd. There's good reason for this: this may sound like poppycock but I swear it's true that this is the first Sandler movie I have seen from beginning to end since... 1996's Bulletproof; I saw that on VHS so it's been almost TWENTY YEARS. Sure, when I was a young teenager I thought that some of his material on Saturday Night Live was amusing and a thing or two from his comedy albums made me laugh (now, I realize it was mainly sheer vulgarity that at the time I thought was worthy of a few giggles) but even once Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore came out on VHS I did not love them like many people around my age did (I thought they were only about average), so I never felt like seeing anything else from him. I thought that Bulletproof was pretty bad as it was an awful example of a buddy-cop comedy.
I've seen bits and pieces from things such as The Longest Yard remake, The Waterboy and Anger Management, and that did not make me want to see any of those in full. It means that I haven't even seen Punch-Drunk Love, which I know many love but just reading the plot makes it sound like something I'd loathe; PT Anderson has made some great films-which I'll review here in the future-but I hated Magnolia so I haven't even seen all of his work. Anyway, hearing people in the know say how bad most of his movies were certainly did not make me want to watch them either. I know that in this decade he's become super-lazy and gets paid a lot of money to go on vacations & hang out with family/friends and crapping out something bad is a small part of the experience. Somehow his films used to be popular, but not so much anymore which is probably why he went to Netflix and much to my horror, a lot of people actually watched this movie, or so Netflix says. To echo someone else, who knows how many of those people actually finished this atrocity; somehow, I did.
It may be another 20 years before I see another Adam Sandler film.
Anyhow, I should expect nothing when it's a film where Sandler (playing a half Native American), Terry Crews, Jorge Garcia, Rob Schneider, Luke Wilson and Taylor Lautner are half-brothers. Yet it was worse than I had anticipated. A Western where people team up to try and rescue a kidnapped Nick Nolte sounds fine on paper... but not when it's filled with unfunny humor, stupid anachronistic moments, racism, misogyny, homophobia, and general grossness. Or as I understand, a typical movie from Happy Madison Productions. Again, it makes me SO glad I avoided much of his work as if it was the Zika Virus. No surprise that there was the brouhaha over some Native Americans leaving the movie & the extra work they were doing; some Native American characters had names like Beaver Breath, Smoking Fox and Never Wears Bra. Need I say more?
I can't say I did not chuckle a few times. However, this overlong movie deserves the lowest rating possible. The story is donkey crap (and sigh, we see poor CGI representing donkey crap several times; there is poor CGI throughout), the cast of familiar faces is totally wasted, and most of it was just painful to watch. Sure, I hoped that some people got paid real well for being in such sewage as this, like Harvey Keitel, Nick Nolte, Steve Buscemi, Danny Trejo and even Terry Crews, although he also stars in what I presume is a terrible Tyler Perry program, as everything Tyler Perry does is comparable to a bad rash. It is something else entirely to make me feel sorry for TAYLOR LAUTNER; I've never seen any of the Twilight movies and the film Abduction was not good, but seeing him play a complete buffoon country bumpkin, I felt a lot of pity. At least he and some other members of the cast tried. To use a term that I am sure he'd most understand, Sandler was more wooden than a cigar store Indian.
I don't know; maybe he should be commended for somehow convincing much of the world that he was actually funny and be able to cash in & become filthy rich then create even worse products where he can be as lazy as possible and as I mentioned already, go on vacations and hang out with his pals. At least I have first-hand experience and now can confirm what many say about him and the garbage he creates. I'll take a pass on this man-child and his farting about, creating gigantic wastes of time.
Oh, and years ago I had seen both The Magnificent Seven and The Seven Samurai. Both are great movies and I'll review them here one day. I wish there wasn't a remake of The Magnificent Seven but that's another topic for another time.
Friday, June 10, 2016
The Conjuring 2
The Conjuring 2 (2016)
74% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 120 reviews)
Runtime: 134 minutes
Directed by: James Wan
Starring: Vera Farmiga, Patrick Wilson, Madison Wolfe, Frances O'Connor, Lauren Esposito
From: Warner Bros./New Line Cinema
Last night I went and saw the first screening of this I could. The drive there and back was filled with really bad traffic, but at least I can't complain about the movie itself. I explain it all in non-spoiler form in my Letterboxd review copied and pasted below:
I went and saw this movie last night; while it was a sparsely attended screening I was OK with that; the most important thing was... it was an idiot-free screening so I had no problems there. I was hoping that it'd be comparable to the original film; as Wan was directing again I did not expect another debacle like Annabelle was. While this wasn't as great as the first Conjuring, I can still give it a high rating.
This time the movie is about the Enfield Poltergeist case, from 1977 in the northern part of London. The story told here, I have to LOL at trying to believe that's how it realistically could have gone down. It's far away from reality. Then again, after seeing the movie I looked up what supposedly happened, and a lot of people believe it's hogwash... or as you Brits would call it, rubbish and bollocks. Interestingly enough, the idea of it being a hoax is brought up in the film. While watching the movie, you have to ignore the idea that this is likely very different from what actually happened and enjoy it for what it is.
At times, I felt like I was watching The Babadook again with some of the things that were shown. Otherwise, though, this was almost as good as the first. It has more of what you expect, whether it's the story, scares, cinematography, music, or direction, and it is similar to a point but it's still different enough to where it is not just a Xerox copy of the original. The setting of late 70's England certainly made things different, and do I need to say that there are scenes where it's raining? It is thrilling to watch and it is a worthy sequel.
What is a big asset is the performances. Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson once again do a swell job as Lorraine and Ed Warren. The rest of the nice are nice as a whole but special acknowledgment has to be directed at Madison Wolfe, who played poor possessed Janet; she was outstanding in what was a difficult role. Overall, I wasn't sure how I would enjoy this; the 134 minute runtime did give me pause. Now, I can say it's a horror film worthy of being watched and enjoyed by most of the genre's fans.
74% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 120 reviews)
Runtime: 134 minutes
Directed by: James Wan
Starring: Vera Farmiga, Patrick Wilson, Madison Wolfe, Frances O'Connor, Lauren Esposito
From: Warner Bros./New Line Cinema
Last night I went and saw the first screening of this I could. The drive there and back was filled with really bad traffic, but at least I can't complain about the movie itself. I explain it all in non-spoiler form in my Letterboxd review copied and pasted below:
I went and saw this movie last night; while it was a sparsely attended screening I was OK with that; the most important thing was... it was an idiot-free screening so I had no problems there. I was hoping that it'd be comparable to the original film; as Wan was directing again I did not expect another debacle like Annabelle was. While this wasn't as great as the first Conjuring, I can still give it a high rating.
This time the movie is about the Enfield Poltergeist case, from 1977 in the northern part of London. The story told here, I have to LOL at trying to believe that's how it realistically could have gone down. It's far away from reality. Then again, after seeing the movie I looked up what supposedly happened, and a lot of people believe it's hogwash... or as you Brits would call it, rubbish and bollocks. Interestingly enough, the idea of it being a hoax is brought up in the film. While watching the movie, you have to ignore the idea that this is likely very different from what actually happened and enjoy it for what it is.
At times, I felt like I was watching The Babadook again with some of the things that were shown. Otherwise, though, this was almost as good as the first. It has more of what you expect, whether it's the story, scares, cinematography, music, or direction, and it is similar to a point but it's still different enough to where it is not just a Xerox copy of the original. The setting of late 70's England certainly made things different, and do I need to say that there are scenes where it's raining? It is thrilling to watch and it is a worthy sequel.
What is a big asset is the performances. Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson once again do a swell job as Lorraine and Ed Warren. The rest of the nice are nice as a whole but special acknowledgment has to be directed at Madison Wolfe, who played poor possessed Janet; she was outstanding in what was a difficult role. Overall, I wasn't sure how I would enjoy this; the 134 minute runtime did give me pause. Now, I can say it's a horror film worthy of being watched and enjoyed by most of the genre's fans.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
As Above, So Below
As Above, So Below (2014)
26% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 65 reviews)
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: John Erick Dowdle
Starring: Perdita Weeks, Ben Feldman, Edwin Hodge, Francois Civil, Marion Lambert
From: Universal/Legendary
I also saw this movie late last night; it wasn't what I was expecting, and on its own merits I can only rate it as about average. I explain why in my Letterboxd review below:
Last night I saw a pair of horror movies: Annabelle then right afterwards this film. Annabelle was pretty bad, so I was thankful that this was at least better. I somehow had no knowledge of what the movie was about aside from the setting and it being the “beloved” genre of found footage horror. The focus being on the philosopher's stone and the home of Nicolas Flamel (a dude from the 1300's and 1400's who is alleged to have found the aforementioned stone, although there of course is controversy over those claims and how apparently that was only said about him a few hundred years after his death) was a surprise to me.
I do think that while the idea of a philosopher's stone that can cure any base metal to gold and can heal/give someone immortality a little silly, such things have been rumored, Flamel was a real figure who did live in Paris, and the Catacombs of the city are not only famous but also pretty creepy considering that it's the tomb for six million people... it does seem like a natural to combine those real life elements into a horror picture.
The plot is that a loose cannon young woman (who always runs headlong into things without a second thought, despite having more than one PhD) who wishes to continue her late father's search for the philosopher's stone. She discovers it's in the Catacombs so with two of her pals and some urban explorers, they go looking for it... but things go very wrong. It also gets quite ridiculous and preposterous.
What happens down there was not what I was expecting. It was a different more thoughtful way of doing a horror movie and in theory I am fine with those kinds of scares compared to the “creepy creatures” thing. I am just not sure if it was best for this movie and either way, it was not as effective or as horrifying as it could have been. Instead it was just average all around despite some effective moments and the general theme being fine. In terms of horror and found footage, being average isn't so bad when there is a lot of bad that can be seen.
Oh, as I am me I did laugh at how French it was at times, what with characters having names like Papillon, Souxie, La Taupe and Zed.
26% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 65 reviews)
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: John Erick Dowdle
Starring: Perdita Weeks, Ben Feldman, Edwin Hodge, Francois Civil, Marion Lambert
From: Universal/Legendary
I also saw this movie late last night; it wasn't what I was expecting, and on its own merits I can only rate it as about average. I explain why in my Letterboxd review below:
Last night I saw a pair of horror movies: Annabelle then right afterwards this film. Annabelle was pretty bad, so I was thankful that this was at least better. I somehow had no knowledge of what the movie was about aside from the setting and it being the “beloved” genre of found footage horror. The focus being on the philosopher's stone and the home of Nicolas Flamel (a dude from the 1300's and 1400's who is alleged to have found the aforementioned stone, although there of course is controversy over those claims and how apparently that was only said about him a few hundred years after his death) was a surprise to me.
I do think that while the idea of a philosopher's stone that can cure any base metal to gold and can heal/give someone immortality a little silly, such things have been rumored, Flamel was a real figure who did live in Paris, and the Catacombs of the city are not only famous but also pretty creepy considering that it's the tomb for six million people... it does seem like a natural to combine those real life elements into a horror picture.
The plot is that a loose cannon young woman (who always runs headlong into things without a second thought, despite having more than one PhD) who wishes to continue her late father's search for the philosopher's stone. She discovers it's in the Catacombs so with two of her pals and some urban explorers, they go looking for it... but things go very wrong. It also gets quite ridiculous and preposterous.
What happens down there was not what I was expecting. It was a different more thoughtful way of doing a horror movie and in theory I am fine with those kinds of scares compared to the “creepy creatures” thing. I am just not sure if it was best for this movie and either way, it was not as effective or as horrifying as it could have been. Instead it was just average all around despite some effective moments and the general theme being fine. In terms of horror and found footage, being average isn't so bad when there is a lot of bad that can be seen.
Oh, as I am me I did laugh at how French it was at times, what with characters having names like Papillon, Souxie, La Taupe and Zed.
Annabelle
Annabelle (2014)
29% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 119 reviews)
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: John R. Leonetti
Starring: Annabelle Wallis, Ward Horton, Tony Amendola, Alfre Woodard, Eric Ladin
From: Warner Bros./New Line Cinema
Even though I heard from most people that this was awful, I still took the chance on renting it for streaming. Well... it's not the worst horror movie I had ever seen... I explain why in my Letterboxd review below why this was still bad:
To be honest, the main reason why I watched this is not that I expected this to be good, although there have been horror films I've liked more than the general public does. Rather, it's to mention that at one time I saw Robert the Doll, another famous haunted doll. It resides in a museum in Key West, Florida. I saw it in person almost 10 years ago. One big thing is that you're supposed to ask it for permission before you take its picture; really. I didn't do that as I didn't believe. Well, a little later during my time down there, I visited Biscayne National Park (it's south of Miami) and I tried to visit an island in the park that's only accessible by boat. Well, the one boat suddenly did not work so I was out of luck... some crappy luck has happened to me since then but it's just fate which caused it, and if that doll DID do anything (which I don't think it did), I can live with it trolling me by not letting me visit an island... at least everyone got back the money they paid to go there.
And yes I have heard that some people in the UK made an obvious Annabelle clone called Robert and it's a howlingly bad take on the legend of Robert the Doll and it makes this movie look like The Conjuring in comparison.
But anyhow, onto this film. It's a prequel and a spinoff of The Conjuring, where we follow the famous real life doll Annabelle and even before those young nursing students got it, it belonged to a young couple in swingin' 1969 Southern California; an incident happens where the newly acquired doll gets possessed by Annabelle Higgins, which fits the mythology of the real life doll but rather loosely. After all, it was a random little girl with that name who is said to haunt the doll and not the wacky woman in a cult who bled on it and apparently from that cursed it. Hell, the real life doll is a Raggedy Ann doll and not the creepy as hell porcelain doll that is in those movies; one of the many problems with this is that Mia the female lead loves dolls so she gets that one as a gift... it was absurd that she loved it right away as even before it was cursed it looked real creepy; after it's cursed and its appearance is more horrid, she still loves it and it becomes laughable.
To me the biggest problem with this movie is that what The Conjuring gets right, this gets wrong. I suppose that's what happens when you go from James Wan to a director whose only previous major film was the legendary Mortal Kombat: Annihilation. John R. Leonetti should stick with cinematography, as that at least looked fine here and that's what he usually does on films. The jump scares are lame and predictable. You don't really care about the lead couple; the most I can say about them is that I found it greatly amusing the lead actress's name in real life is Annabelle. You don't really care about what's going on with the story as it's all so silly. Really, there's no need to ever see this. Sure, there's some unintentional laughs and I shook my head when I saw that the movie credited its usage of the Spiral Starecase song More Today Than Yesterday and said that the band was “Spiral Staircase”... but otherwise this is just lame, and something where they use an obvious Rosemary's Baby reference and it reminds you that you'd be better off watching Rosemary's Baby instead.
Aside from some sort of creepy moments, this was as bad as I had heard most people say it was; talk about disappointing, considering how surprisingly great The Conjuring turned out to be.
29% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 119 reviews)
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: John R. Leonetti
Starring: Annabelle Wallis, Ward Horton, Tony Amendola, Alfre Woodard, Eric Ladin
From: Warner Bros./New Line Cinema
Even though I heard from most people that this was awful, I still took the chance on renting it for streaming. Well... it's not the worst horror movie I had ever seen... I explain why in my Letterboxd review below why this was still bad:
To be honest, the main reason why I watched this is not that I expected this to be good, although there have been horror films I've liked more than the general public does. Rather, it's to mention that at one time I saw Robert the Doll, another famous haunted doll. It resides in a museum in Key West, Florida. I saw it in person almost 10 years ago. One big thing is that you're supposed to ask it for permission before you take its picture; really. I didn't do that as I didn't believe. Well, a little later during my time down there, I visited Biscayne National Park (it's south of Miami) and I tried to visit an island in the park that's only accessible by boat. Well, the one boat suddenly did not work so I was out of luck... some crappy luck has happened to me since then but it's just fate which caused it, and if that doll DID do anything (which I don't think it did), I can live with it trolling me by not letting me visit an island... at least everyone got back the money they paid to go there.
And yes I have heard that some people in the UK made an obvious Annabelle clone called Robert and it's a howlingly bad take on the legend of Robert the Doll and it makes this movie look like The Conjuring in comparison.
But anyhow, onto this film. It's a prequel and a spinoff of The Conjuring, where we follow the famous real life doll Annabelle and even before those young nursing students got it, it belonged to a young couple in swingin' 1969 Southern California; an incident happens where the newly acquired doll gets possessed by Annabelle Higgins, which fits the mythology of the real life doll but rather loosely. After all, it was a random little girl with that name who is said to haunt the doll and not the wacky woman in a cult who bled on it and apparently from that cursed it. Hell, the real life doll is a Raggedy Ann doll and not the creepy as hell porcelain doll that is in those movies; one of the many problems with this is that Mia the female lead loves dolls so she gets that one as a gift... it was absurd that she loved it right away as even before it was cursed it looked real creepy; after it's cursed and its appearance is more horrid, she still loves it and it becomes laughable.
To me the biggest problem with this movie is that what The Conjuring gets right, this gets wrong. I suppose that's what happens when you go from James Wan to a director whose only previous major film was the legendary Mortal Kombat: Annihilation. John R. Leonetti should stick with cinematography, as that at least looked fine here and that's what he usually does on films. The jump scares are lame and predictable. You don't really care about the lead couple; the most I can say about them is that I found it greatly amusing the lead actress's name in real life is Annabelle. You don't really care about what's going on with the story as it's all so silly. Really, there's no need to ever see this. Sure, there's some unintentional laughs and I shook my head when I saw that the movie credited its usage of the Spiral Starecase song More Today Than Yesterday and said that the band was “Spiral Staircase”... but otherwise this is just lame, and something where they use an obvious Rosemary's Baby reference and it reminds you that you'd be better off watching Rosemary's Baby instead.
Aside from some sort of creepy moments, this was as bad as I had heard most people say it was; talk about disappointing, considering how surprisingly great The Conjuring turned out to be.
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
The Hollywood Revue Of 1929
The Hollywood Revue of 1929 (1929)
Runtime: 116 minutes
Directed by: Charles Reisner
Starring: Pretty much all of the talent under contract to MGM at the time, who were the ones that made this
This is a now obscure movie I saw late last night. I talk about it in my Letterboxd review below:
Back in September of '14 I saw The Show of Shows, a 1929 variety show by Warner Brothers which was 2 hours of most of the talent they had on contract doing a variety of skits and musical numbers, mainly to demonstrate the then new-fangled invention of “talkie pictures”. MGM was the first to do this and to show that this trend always existed in Hollywood, the other studios stole this idea and did their version. As this is hard to track down I couldn't turn down the chance to see it on TCM late last night, as that's how I also saw The Show of Shows.
As previously mentioned, this is a variety show with no plot to speak of. There are musical numbers, comedy bits, an acrobatic scene and a spoof of a dramatic scene with Norma Shearer & silent film star John Gilbert. The cast definitely is impressive considering those famous at the time and those who would be famous later: Joan Crawford, Bessie Love, Laurel and Hardy in their first sound film appearance, Marion Davies, Buster Keaton, & Marie Dressler, to list but a few people. It was hosted by Conrad Nagel and Jack Benny.
As expected, it's a mixed bag, with some bits and songs better than others. It's not the greatness that you'd see in those frothy musicals from the past, especially from MGM. At least the songs and choreography from all the dancers was fine. Still, even if I rate it average I am glad that I saw it and at least it's watchable. The highlights to me were seeing Laurel & Hardy in action, Buster Keaton pratfalling, the wonderous trio of Love, Dressler & Polly Moran, and the first time Singin' in the Rain was ever heard in a movie. There are also three segments that were in an early form of Technicolor.
While it's not a must-see in 2016, at the time I understand it was popular with both critics and the audience; that's probably why it got a Best Picture nomination, which does seem a little silly now.
Runtime: 116 minutes
Directed by: Charles Reisner
Starring: Pretty much all of the talent under contract to MGM at the time, who were the ones that made this
This is a now obscure movie I saw late last night. I talk about it in my Letterboxd review below:
Back in September of '14 I saw The Show of Shows, a 1929 variety show by Warner Brothers which was 2 hours of most of the talent they had on contract doing a variety of skits and musical numbers, mainly to demonstrate the then new-fangled invention of “talkie pictures”. MGM was the first to do this and to show that this trend always existed in Hollywood, the other studios stole this idea and did their version. As this is hard to track down I couldn't turn down the chance to see it on TCM late last night, as that's how I also saw The Show of Shows.
As previously mentioned, this is a variety show with no plot to speak of. There are musical numbers, comedy bits, an acrobatic scene and a spoof of a dramatic scene with Norma Shearer & silent film star John Gilbert. The cast definitely is impressive considering those famous at the time and those who would be famous later: Joan Crawford, Bessie Love, Laurel and Hardy in their first sound film appearance, Marion Davies, Buster Keaton, & Marie Dressler, to list but a few people. It was hosted by Conrad Nagel and Jack Benny.
As expected, it's a mixed bag, with some bits and songs better than others. It's not the greatness that you'd see in those frothy musicals from the past, especially from MGM. At least the songs and choreography from all the dancers was fine. Still, even if I rate it average I am glad that I saw it and at least it's watchable. The highlights to me were seeing Laurel & Hardy in action, Buster Keaton pratfalling, the wonderous trio of Love, Dressler & Polly Moran, and the first time Singin' in the Rain was ever heard in a movie. There are also three segments that were in an early form of Technicolor.
While it's not a must-see in 2016, at the time I understand it was popular with both critics and the audience; that's probably why it got a Best Picture nomination, which does seem a little silly now.
Monday, June 6, 2016
The Conjuring Is Still Great
I finally saw that for a second time last night. The first time it was a less than ideal screening where there were too many idiots around. Now that I have given it another watch, I can say it's still great and I may go see the sequel on Thursday night, and I'll review it on Friday.
Saturday, June 4, 2016
I Saw The Devil
I Saw The Devil (Ang-Ma-Reul Bo-At-Da) (2010)
Runtime: 142 minutes
Directed by: Kim Jee-Woon
Starring: Byung-Hun Lee, Min-Sik Choi, In-Seo Kim, Ho-Jin Chun, Joon-Hyeok Lee
From: Several South Korean companies
This will be gone from Netflix Instant in a few days, so I finally watched it; it wasn't the easiest thing in the world to experience, yet I can say it's great. I explain why below in my Letterboxd review:
I've known about this movie for a long while now, but as I know it wouldn't be an easy watch that's why I put off watching it; however, it will be gone from Netflix Instant on the 9th so I knew this had to be the time for viewing. I am not sure I want to put myself through the experience of watching this again... yet I can say it is great.
I am sure most are familiar with the plot of how a serial killer murders a young lady who happens to be the fiancee of someone who was in the South Korean version of the CIA; he decides to get revenge, but once he tracks him down, his idea of revenge is not killing him right away but instead constantly tormenting him, leading to a good number of incredibly tense and suspenseful sequences.
Like I said, this was not an easy watch; it's still of a very high quality. The performances from the two leads is quality and so is such things as direction, cinematography-the movie is very beautiful to look at-shot selection, and music. What makes this have a deservedly high reputation is that you are left to make up your own mind about the journey that the protagonist (Soo-Hyun) goes on and you can decide when or if he crosses the line and if he acts as terribly as serial killer Kyung-Chul; certainly, Soo-Hyun's actions started to affect his loved ones and he did not see the repercussions of what he was doing. I admit that some elements were a little on the far-fetched side, but I decided to let it slide and enjoy this & the themes it was presenting.
The best compliment I can think to give this movie is that despite how graphic it was, how many gross scenes were present, and how much of it is from the point of view of Kyung-Chul, I always found this super compelling and even if I had to look away a few times from the brutality, I was never turned off or made mad. This definitely isn't for everyone; those of you that can stomach this, though, this is a must-see. I have enjoyed all of Kim Jee-Woon's films and I'll see the rest in the future.
Runtime: 142 minutes
Directed by: Kim Jee-Woon
Starring: Byung-Hun Lee, Min-Sik Choi, In-Seo Kim, Ho-Jin Chun, Joon-Hyeok Lee
From: Several South Korean companies
This will be gone from Netflix Instant in a few days, so I finally watched it; it wasn't the easiest thing in the world to experience, yet I can say it's great. I explain why below in my Letterboxd review:
I've known about this movie for a long while now, but as I know it wouldn't be an easy watch that's why I put off watching it; however, it will be gone from Netflix Instant on the 9th so I knew this had to be the time for viewing. I am not sure I want to put myself through the experience of watching this again... yet I can say it is great.
I am sure most are familiar with the plot of how a serial killer murders a young lady who happens to be the fiancee of someone who was in the South Korean version of the CIA; he decides to get revenge, but once he tracks him down, his idea of revenge is not killing him right away but instead constantly tormenting him, leading to a good number of incredibly tense and suspenseful sequences.
Like I said, this was not an easy watch; it's still of a very high quality. The performances from the two leads is quality and so is such things as direction, cinematography-the movie is very beautiful to look at-shot selection, and music. What makes this have a deservedly high reputation is that you are left to make up your own mind about the journey that the protagonist (Soo-Hyun) goes on and you can decide when or if he crosses the line and if he acts as terribly as serial killer Kyung-Chul; certainly, Soo-Hyun's actions started to affect his loved ones and he did not see the repercussions of what he was doing. I admit that some elements were a little on the far-fetched side, but I decided to let it slide and enjoy this & the themes it was presenting.
The best compliment I can think to give this movie is that despite how graphic it was, how many gross scenes were present, and how much of it is from the point of view of Kyung-Chul, I always found this super compelling and even if I had to look away a few times from the brutality, I was never turned off or made mad. This definitely isn't for everyone; those of you that can stomach this, though, this is a must-see. I have enjoyed all of Kim Jee-Woon's films and I'll see the rest in the future.
Friday, June 3, 2016
Mystics In Bali
Runtime:
The version I saw was 81 minutes long
Directed
by: H. Tjut Djalil
Starring:
Ilona Agate Bastian, Yos Santo, Sofia W.D., W.D. Mochtar and people
with names like Dis I Gusti Ngurah Lanang Jugutkarana
From:
Pusut Perusahaan Film/Video Tape Corp.
I...
I... what can you say about this infamous movie, except that it's
easy to see why it became a cult favorite? It's on Amazon Instant
Video for free if you have Prime! Really. I explain it all below via
my Letterboxd review:
Yes... this infamous horror movie from Indonesia (made with an Australian company and this was somehow supposed to be made with a Western audience in mind; no surprise that when something with such a bizarre plot came out, distributors did not rush to the country for product to export) is actually on Amazon Instant Video, and if you have Prime it is for free, and if not it's only a dollar rental. That version is only 81 minutes long and there apparently is a version a little longer out there... what I saw was enough for me!
It revolves around the Leyak (i.e. Leak), an actual Indonesian mythological figure where at night the head actually does fly around with the spine and entrails still attached, as the movie demonstrates; in addition, they do look for pregnant women so they can have the blood of a baby; telling the world of your unique mythology is one thing... but maybe something not so strange to most people would have been better.... I can't say if in the mythology the evil queen constantly laughs maniacally, as is shown in the film.
Anyhow, this is about an American (or Australian, depending on which subbed/dubbed version you see; the actress is definitely Eastern European between her name and her-ahem-grooming habits) woman who has an Indonesian boyfriend. She has written books on all sorts of black magic and she wishes to research the Leak; despite some obvious warning signs she does this, and as I already explained, that was a horrible mistake. I won't mention all the weird crap throughout as I want people to be as shocked as I was that this was even more demented and crazed than I had expected.
Technically, the movie is pretty bad in terms of such concepts as direction, cinematography and pacing, and ooh boy, those special effects are charmingly primitive. Yet for sheer entertainment value this is great. The movie made me laugh often, that is for sure, as I was surprised often at the lunacy I was seeing. Rating it as average seems like the most appropriate thing to do. However, if you enjoy cult cinema-especially of the strange kind-then this is a must-see.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
iTunes And Movies
Don't ever mix the two. Last night I tried to rent something from there and it was a disaster all around. I won't go into all that went wrong, but I never actually watched what I rented. The whole system is not intuitive at all and that's the biggest problem, but it turns out that instead of streaming like everyone else does, even if you are renting you still have to download the movie! What sense does it make? It never fully downloaded so no flick for me.
Then again I shouldn't be surprised as I've had numerous problems with Apple and its products before, mainly because nothing is ever intuitive; why in the hell Apple is so beloved-especially considering its overpriced products-is beyond my comprehension. At least I'll have a film to watch tonight.
Then again I shouldn't be surprised as I've had numerous problems with Apple and its products before, mainly because nothing is ever intuitive; why in the hell Apple is so beloved-especially considering its overpriced products-is beyond my comprehension. At least I'll have a film to watch tonight.
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Halloween: Resurrection
Halloween: Resurrection (2002)
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Rick Rosenthal
Starring: Bianca Kajlich, Sean Patrick Thomas, Busta Rhymes, Daisy McCrackin, Luke Kirby
From: Dimension Films
This is a movie with a very bad reputation. Somehow, I did not hate it. I'll never call it good by any means, but I did note hate it. Let me explain why in my Letterboxd review copied and pasted below:
I figured I should finish off my long weekend of movie watching (which did not go as planned but circumstances beyond my control happened) by watching this movie immediately after Halloween H20 late Monday night, as it was only the natural thing to do. It'll definitely be a long while before I feel like seeing the Rob Zombieween films, as those have toxic reputations. Then again, so does this movie. It certainly starts off on the wrong foot.
I always heard this was putrid and I did try to go in this with an open mind, but after that opening scene at the sanitarium where Jamie Lee Curtis delivers a less than memorable performance, the retcon they did makes absolute ZERO sense if you know what happens at the end of H20, then how that scene ends and something huge happens to legendary figure Laurie Strode and that moment is just ineptly done all around. It even has a “kiss” as an attempt to get an MTV Movie Award (I swear this is true; the director said as much)... not a good way to start this off. Yet, after that a lot of the movie wasn't as painful as I expected it to be.
I do have to admit that the general plot does seem ahead of its time. It's based off of reality TV years before it (unfortunately) became really popular, and this was years before you had those terrible “ghost reality shows” like Ghost Hunters, Paranormal State, Ghostly Encounters, and all that other fake crap (this movie was ahead of its time in saying that this crap was fake)... then there's the conceit of spending a night in the house of Michael Myers and everyone has a webcam on them as it's being broadcast on the Internet... that sounds like the making of a found footage movie, and note that I never want to see a found footage Halloween and if this had been found footage it would not have been any better.
Also, I am amused that this was supposed to come out late 2001 (before the dreaded reshoots happened; I understand there's plenty of deleted footage floating around) and I remember distinctly to that time... web broadcasts weren't common as many people still didn't have broadband at the time. In attention, there actually were some nice touches, such as people at a party becoming more and more interested in the web broadcast.
As for the story, it's pretty silly, to put it kindly. Credulity is strained at least a few times by various preposterous things or discoveries. Discovering that there's a dungeon below the basement in the Myers house is quite the revelation. Some of the acting is not great and most everything involving Busta Rhymes... yikes. Him interacting with Myers usually did not do Michael any favors, especially that ending. Other than the really bad moments I already mentioned, I thought this was at least great to laugh at and sometimes with. It was a change from the dull H20, even though I rate it the same as that.
I know that people were excited at the time that the director of Halloween 2 came back to the franchise to lead this; afterwards... it made you wonder how much of an influence Carpenter had on Halloween 2. Point is, this harmed the franchise and that's why Rob Zombie ended up with it, which I know many think is the worst of all the bad things that happened to this franchise. Even with Busta doing martial arts on Michael Myers, I somehow did not loathe this.
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Rick Rosenthal
Starring: Bianca Kajlich, Sean Patrick Thomas, Busta Rhymes, Daisy McCrackin, Luke Kirby
From: Dimension Films
This is a movie with a very bad reputation. Somehow, I did not hate it. I'll never call it good by any means, but I did note hate it. Let me explain why in my Letterboxd review copied and pasted below:
I figured I should finish off my long weekend of movie watching (which did not go as planned but circumstances beyond my control happened) by watching this movie immediately after Halloween H20 late Monday night, as it was only the natural thing to do. It'll definitely be a long while before I feel like seeing the Rob Zombieween films, as those have toxic reputations. Then again, so does this movie. It certainly starts off on the wrong foot.
I always heard this was putrid and I did try to go in this with an open mind, but after that opening scene at the sanitarium where Jamie Lee Curtis delivers a less than memorable performance, the retcon they did makes absolute ZERO sense if you know what happens at the end of H20, then how that scene ends and something huge happens to legendary figure Laurie Strode and that moment is just ineptly done all around. It even has a “kiss” as an attempt to get an MTV Movie Award (I swear this is true; the director said as much)... not a good way to start this off. Yet, after that a lot of the movie wasn't as painful as I expected it to be.
I do have to admit that the general plot does seem ahead of its time. It's based off of reality TV years before it (unfortunately) became really popular, and this was years before you had those terrible “ghost reality shows” like Ghost Hunters, Paranormal State, Ghostly Encounters, and all that other fake crap (this movie was ahead of its time in saying that this crap was fake)... then there's the conceit of spending a night in the house of Michael Myers and everyone has a webcam on them as it's being broadcast on the Internet... that sounds like the making of a found footage movie, and note that I never want to see a found footage Halloween and if this had been found footage it would not have been any better.
Also, I am amused that this was supposed to come out late 2001 (before the dreaded reshoots happened; I understand there's plenty of deleted footage floating around) and I remember distinctly to that time... web broadcasts weren't common as many people still didn't have broadband at the time. In attention, there actually were some nice touches, such as people at a party becoming more and more interested in the web broadcast.
As for the story, it's pretty silly, to put it kindly. Credulity is strained at least a few times by various preposterous things or discoveries. Discovering that there's a dungeon below the basement in the Myers house is quite the revelation. Some of the acting is not great and most everything involving Busta Rhymes... yikes. Him interacting with Myers usually did not do Michael any favors, especially that ending. Other than the really bad moments I already mentioned, I thought this was at least great to laugh at and sometimes with. It was a change from the dull H20, even though I rate it the same as that.
I know that people were excited at the time that the director of Halloween 2 came back to the franchise to lead this; afterwards... it made you wonder how much of an influence Carpenter had on Halloween 2. Point is, this harmed the franchise and that's why Rob Zombie ended up with it, which I know many think is the worst of all the bad things that happened to this franchise. Even with Busta doing martial arts on Michael Myers, I somehow did not loathe this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)